ÿþÇ (<html> <head> <title>Elect a Progressive President to Reform the Democrats</title> <Meta name="description" content="how electing a progressive president will reform the Democratic Party"> <meta name="keywords" content="presidential campaign progressive Democratic reform candidates liberal backlash moral restoration left wing Democrats 2008 election cycle angry voters USA leftist Americans liberty conscience enlightened values political activism idealist national committee no secrets accountable government Congress activists legislation history reference material electoral index support alternative policies intellectual independence loyal opposition intraparty democracy big tent tolerance priorities grassroots rebellion DCCC DSCC Rahm Emanuel conservative DNC DLC inside ralph nader"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="10%"></td> <td><a href="http://www.irregulartimes.com/2008reasonsmain.html"><img src="2008reasons2.jpg" border="0" alt="2008 reasons to elect a progressive president in 2008"></a></td> <td width="10%"></td> </tr> <tr font="#FFFFFF"> <td width="25%" valign="top"> <b><a href="http://www.irregulartimes.com">Irregular Times</b><br><br> <li><a href="http://www.irregulartimes.com/2008reasonsmain.html">2008 Reasons to Elect a Progressive President</a><br><br> <li><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/votedem2008">Vote Democrat 2008</a><br><br> <hr width="25%"> <li><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/votedem2008/682129">Al Gore for President in 2008</a><br><Br> <li><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/votedem2008/578164">Dennis Kucinich for President in 2008</a><Br><Br> <li><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/votedem2008/1675026">Bill Moyers for President in 2008</a><br><br> <li><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/votedem2008/572242">Barack Obama for President in 2008</a><br><Br> </td> <td> <h1><center>Reform the Democratic Party</h1></center> <ol> <li>Every progressive knows how badly the Democratic Party is in need of reform. The institutions of the Democratic Party are in the grasp of people who are trying to drag the Democrats toward the right, seeking to transform the Democratic Party into a place where Republicans can feel at home.</p> <p>The sad thing is that these Democratic politicians, in organizations like the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, believe that the best way for Democratic candidates to gain victory is for them to become less like Democrats and more like Republicans. What they don't understand is that the reason American voters are disgusted with the <a href="http:// irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/category/democrats/">Democratic Party</a> is that too many Democratic politicians don't seem willing to stand for anything any more. When the Democratic leadership offers little resistance to the Republicans' right wing agenda, voters become disillusioned with the Democratic Party.</p> <p>The <a href="http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/category/election-2008/">2008 presidential campaign</a> is a great opportunity for the American people to set the Democratic Party back on a course of clear progressive strength. If we can elect a progressive Democrat as President in 2008, that progressive will become the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and will set about replacing all the rightward leaning collaborationist officials in the Democratic Party.</p> <p>A progressive President will work to make change from the top down, but we'll be working from the bottom up to provide the power to make that change possible. In 2008, we need a grassroots campaign for a progressive President with the organizational might of Howard Dean's Democracy for America, but with a candidate with better progressive credentials than Dean. As we've seen with him as head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean was never really a progressive Democrat. Dean has set about promoting right wing candidates like Bob Casey for Senate in <a href="http:// www.irregularnews.com/pennsylvania.html">Pennsylvania</a>, and promoting right wing causes like mixing religion and politics.</p> <p>One of the best reasons to elect a progressive candidate for President in 2008 is that, through the mere effort to support a truly progressive candidate, we the progressive activists of the Democratic Party will become a greater force to be reckoned with, and Democratic politicians will learn to think twice before voting against progressive interests as they have so often in the past.</p> <li>The need to reform the Democratic Party to make it more progressive was amply demonstrated by the ability of General Wesley Clark to declare, <i>"The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact,"</i> and then declare, not long after that he would run for President of the United States as a critic of George W. Bush's Iraq policies. (Source: Times of London, April 11, 2003)<br><Br> <li>Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford Jr., former Congressman, failed Senate candidate, and current leader of the Democratic Leadership Conference, has not been a friend of progressives. He's flipped and he's flopped, casting votes on issues depending on what way the favored political winds were blowing from. He's said that he supports gay rights, but voted against them. Hehas refused to support anti-torture legislation that would make it illegal for the U.S. government to send prisoners held in the United States to foreign countries to be tortured. Ford also failed to support a bill that would revoke sections of the Patriot Act that allow government agents to secretly search through the financial and library records of law-abiding American citizens. <p>In spite of the fact that he is a Democrat, Congressman Harold Ford Jr. has often stood in allegiance with George W. Bush against other Democrats. He's provided support to President Bush's attacks on separation of church and state, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Harold Ford Jr. has been a shameless self-promoter, trying to make a name for himself by criticizing Democrats for not being Republican enough. Harold Ford Jr. quickly became the Joseph Lieberman of the U.S. House of Representatives.</p> <p>No one knows whether Harold Ford Jr. was at all involved in the corrupt activities of his uncle John Ford. So far, no evidence of a direct connection has emerged. However, it's a plain fact that both Harold Ford Jr. and John Ford were part of the same political machine. From a pragmatic standpoint, Harold Ford Jr. is tainted by the ethics scandal that has engulfed John Ford. Whether that connection ever grows grounds sufficient for prosecution, Harold Ford. Jr. is a great example of why the Democratic Party needs reform. (Source: Library of Congress)</p> It's not enough to vote for a Democrat. You've got to vote for a progressive candidate or progressive politics won't be practiced. Take the Congress as an example. House progressive Henry Waxman has been the chairman of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee since the beginning of 2007, and using his position he has held numerous hearings, taken numerous statements, issued numerous public requests for information and dragged numerous Bush administration scandals into the light of day. <p>Senator Joseph Lieberman, who calls himself a Democrat but is decidedly unprogressive in his politics, has chaired the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, the equivalent committee in the upper house, also since the beginning of 2007. Lieberman has sat on his hands and refused to use his committee chairman's power to drag the malfeasance of the Bush administration into the clarifying light of day. The difference in practice between Representative Waxman and Senator Lieberman is the difference you get between voting for a progressive and just voting for the politician with the big, shiny "D." (Source: Mother Jones December 24, 2007)</p> <li>In January, 2005, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer were the only two Democratic senators to vote against the approving the nomination of Condoleeza Rice to become Secretary of State. Although Condoleeza Rice certainly has the intellect and ability to perform the technical aspects of the job, two days of questioning before Rice's confirmation clearly illustrated that Rice's character is not suitable for high office. Rice had coddled torture by agents of the American government had intentionally misled the American public on several occasions. <p>Some Democratic senators, like Joseph Biden, played the weasely game of pretending to be deeply concerned about Condoleeza Rice's negative record, while at the same time pledging that they would certainly vote for her approval. Senators Kerry and Boxer didn't play that game. They showed the path for reform of the Democratic Party. (Source: Salon, January 20, 2005)</p> <li>Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman has been George W. Bush's pet Democrat in Congress for years, helping President Bush pass tax breaks for the wealthy, supporting Bush's rush to start a war in Iraq, and running headlong with Bush Republicans into passing the extraordinary spying powers in the Patriot Act. Lieberman has suggested that Democrats who criticize President Bush are unpatriotic, and are not loyal Americans. Joseph Lieberman represents in one man everything that the Democratic Party should not be.<br><Br> <li>In February of 2005, the American people witnessed another great Democratic rollover. The Senate almost unanimously voted to confirm Michael Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security (two Senators didn't bother to vote). <p>In confirming Chertoff, the Senate Democrats looked over some truly horrid items in Chertoff's record. Chertoff orchestrated mass detentions of muslims in the United States - detentions lasting for months without any criminal charge. The prisoners under Chertoff's control were not allowed to see lawyers and were routinely beaten and humiliated before being released.</p> <p>Chertoff took the expertise in torture and illegal imprisonment that he gained with these prisoners and became an inside consultant to the Bush Administration's plans to detain and torture foreign muslims as well. Chertoff gave specific advice to the Bush Administration about how to torture prisoners while creating a thin veneer of legal justification for the torture.</p> <p>Not content to crush habeas corpus and inflict pain on prisoners, Michael Chertoff was also instrumental in creating the Patriot Act, which gives federal government agents the right to gather information on Americans' private lives, including everything from our personal reading habits to the diseases of our dogs to the most sensitive information about our medical histories. Chertoff now supports efforts to expand the powers given under the Patriot Act to give the Bush Administration even more power to spy on law-abiding citizens. (Sources: <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? sid=05/02/03/159203">Democracy Now</a>, February 3, 2005; Chicago Sun-Times, February 11, 2005; Washington Post, February 8, 2005, Library of Congress; New York Times, February 11, 2005)</p> <p>Joseph Lieberman thinks that we should not elect a progressive to be President in 2008. That's one very good reason to say that electing a progressive President is probably a very good idea.</p> <li>Without a progressive leadership of the Democratic Party, progressive politicians within the Democratic Party will continue to be forced to abandon their progressive efforts and to support the right wing agenda. One particular example of the effects of this pressure was given by Democratic Congressman John Conyers in November, 2006.<Br><Br> John Conyers is commonly thought of as a strongly progressive member of the House of Representatives. In late 2005, Conyers introduced H.Res 635, a resolution that, if approved, would have begun investigations of George W. Bush's alleged crimes that would, in turn, have made formal recommendations on grounds for impeachment. By the time that the Democrats had regained the majority in the House of Representatives, however, John Conyers had been pressured by the House Democratic leadership to remove his support from the resolution. <i>"I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table,"</i> Conyers wrote to his supporters, soon after the election.<br><Br> If we elect a progressive president in 2008, this kind of pressure upon progressive Democrats in Congress will be countered with a new kind of pressure from the top. What we need is a leader of the Democratic Party who will pressure Democrats to support the progressive values of Democratic voters, not the right wing values of Republican voters. (Source: Email from Congressman John Conyers, November 15, 2006)<br><br> <li>One very important policy difference between the Democratic candidates for President of the United States was in December of 2006, as the House of Representatives pulled S. 3711 from consideration after it became clear to Republican leaders that the bill did not have a sufficient number of representatives to pass. That's a good thing, because S. 3711, also known by the War On Terror Era name of <i>The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006</i>, promoted a very foolish idea: Allowing more drilling for crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico. <p>One phrase ought to make it clear why oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is a foolish idea: <i>Hurricane Katrina</i>. The Gulf of Mexico is right in the middle of hurricane territory, making oil drilling there a very risky proposition. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/ 0,16441,1571591,00.html">When Hurricane Katrina hit</a>, for example, seven major oil spills took place, releasing more than 6.5 million gallons of crude oil and sending all that oil washing onto the ecologically sensitive shores of the Gulf of Mexico. More than 400 other smaller oil spills also took place as a result of Hurricane Katrina, releasing what has been estimated in total to be more oil than was spilled by the oil tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989.</p> <p>The vulnerability of oil drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico was made apparent to all Americans, as <a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/special/ eia1_katrina_083105.html">91.45 percent Gulf of Mexico oil production was shut down</a> by the storm and took quite a long time to recover. As a result, the price of gasoline shot up to record levels nationwide.</p> <p>It's ironic that Senator Peter Domenici decided to call this an energy security bill, because if we allow more oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, we will make ourselves less secure, not more secure. Our energy supply and our economy alike will become more vulnerable to hurricane damage. Our environment will become less secure as well, subjected to more and more immense spills of crude oil along our Gulf shores. We know for certain that more hurricanes will come to batter the Gulf of Mexico oil infrastructure. The only question is how soon the next big storm will come. These are not odds that America should be gambling with.</p> <p>Back in August of 2006, the <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm? congress=109&session=2&vote=00219">United States Senate voted to approve S. 3711</a>. In spite of the clear folly of increasing American dependence upon vulnerable oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Senator <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/votedem2008/571432">Hillary Clinton</a> voted with the Senate Republicans in favor of S. 3711.</p> <p>The other Democratic Senators who are expected to run for President in 2008 did not vote for S. 3711.</p> Senator <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/votedem2008/571449">Evan Bayh</a> voted against it.<br><br> Senator <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/votedem2008/677063">Joseph Biden</a> voted against it.<br><br> Senator <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/votedem2008/572242">Barack Obama</a> voted against it.<br><br> Senator <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/votedem2008/576089">John Kerry abstained</a> from voting on the bill.<br><br> <p>This vote is just one example of why it is important to examine the policy differences between the Democratic presidential candidates of 2008. Hillary Clinton voted to make our economy, our energy infrastructure and our environment less secure. The other Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate did not.</p> <p>Progressives need to know the difference. (Sources: Associated Press, December 6, 2006; The Guardian, September 16, 2005; Energy Information Administration Special Report, Hurricane Katrina's Impact on the U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Markets, August 31, 2005)</p> <li>The Democratic Party is never going to win over the racists, sexists and other breeds of bigots who make up a huge chunk of the Republican base of support. It's time for progressives to stand up for what they believe in, with no soft-pedalling, and no apologies. This is no time for triangulation. Let the Republicans grab for the votes of bigots. Democrats will more than make up for that if they offer a positive vision of a large-minded America.<Br><Br> <li>Among those national Democratic leaders who slid on over to the right side of Congress is Nancy Pelosi, now the Speaker of the House. Pelosi's slide toward Republican-friendly positions first became clear in the race for chair of the Democratic National Committee after the 2004 election. Nancy Pelosi endorsed a conservative Democrat, Tim Roemer. <p>How conservative was Tim Roemer? Roemer:</p> - built up a history of voting for the interests of big corporations at the expense of average working Americans.<br> - had consistently promoted an extreme pro-life agenda, - collaborated with the Bush Administration's efforts to construct a powerful system to spy on American citizens in the name of Homeland Security<br> - voted twice in favor of amending the U.S. Constitution to ban protests that "desecrate" the American flag<br> - voted to withhold US payments to the United Nations<br> - voted for Star Wars "missile defense" technology proven not to work<br> - supported government funding of religious organizations<br> - voted to repeal the estate tax on wealthy Americans<br> - was a member of Joseph Lieberman's infamous Democratic Leadership Council<br> <p>It's beyond bizarre that Nancy Pelosi, who gained her position in the House Democratic leadership through her steadfast adherence to liberal ideals, should so quickly turn tail and run off with Roemer's pack in the extremist right wing of the Democratic Party. Of course, Roemer himself is not the whole of the problem. One-time liberals like Nancy Pelosi are showing their weakness by changing their colors so abruptly, and the American people are paying attention. (Source: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/14/dnc.chair/">CNN</a>, December 14, 2004)</p> <li>The autumn of 2006 brought a clear sign of how much the Democratic Party is in need of progressive reform. 34 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 11 Democratic United States Senators supported George W. Bush and voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act (HR 6166 in the House and S 3930 in the Senate). <p>Some say that the Democratic Party should be a big tent, but when that big tent welcomes in politicians who are willing to help Republicans do away with the foundations of American law and liberty, such as <i>habeas corpus</i>, there is a serious problem. We need to ensure that we elect a progressive President in 2008 who will offer clear leadership in guiding the Democratic Party away from its accomodation of the Military Commissions Act. (Source: The Library of Congress)</p> <li><p><center><img id="image3984" src="http://irregulartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/reason103a.jpg" alt="So you want to know why we should elect a progressive as president in 2008? Consider this..."/></center><br /> <img id="image3985" src="http://irregulartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/reason103b.jpg" alt="Ralph Nader Used to work With Democrats in Congress and the White House to enact policies and programs that..."/><br /> <center><img id="image3986" src="http://irregulartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/reason103c.jpg" alt="helped a lot of Americans live better, less vulnerably and with more inclusive participation in government" /><br /> <img id="image3987" src="http://irregulartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/reason103d.jpg" alt="You may not like Nader. But you don't have to like him to understand that he moved to a 2000 presidential run after 8 years of a Democrat in the White House..."/><br /> </center><img id="image3988" src="http://irregulartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/reason103e.jpg" alt="The way to keep that from happening again is to bring people like Nader and people who voted for Nader back to a point where they have a place at the table."/></p> <p>(Source: An Unreasonable Man, IFC Films, 2007)</p> <li>In March, 2005, a law that should have been called the Morally Bankrupt Act passed the U.S. Senate. The law made it more difficult for average people who run into hard times to keep even the most basic of assets when they run into already rich megacreditors who want just a bit more profit. <p>The last ditch in this legislative slog was the House of Representatives, where the credit industry's pocket politicians display even fewer scruples. The solid wall of Senate Republicans (and the pathetic pastiche of Senate Democrats) who voted for this bill, 74-25, say that the high-profit, high-interest-rate consumer credit industry needs to be protected against struggling people.</p> <p>Consider that again: This bill was passed so that a very healthy industry could be protected against struggling people.</p> <p>Do you remember when, in this country, people were the central objects of concern?</p> <p>Silly me. That kind of concern is so 20th century. Everything's changed now. That's what they tell me at least. I see the same trees, the same streets, the same lamp posts. The same people. But the 56 Republican Senators (every single one) and 18 Democrats who voted this lemon through clearly see something different.</p> <p>We expect Republican Senators to sell out people's interests to their corporate paymasters, but it is sickeningly disappointing to see 18 Democratic Senators, politicians whose re-elections so many people have supported, turn their backs on people and take the side of the inhuman, inhumane moneymaking entities.</p> <p>Shame on Senators Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Byrd, Carper, Conrad, Inouye, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson (of Florida), Nelson (of Nebraska), Pryor, Reid, Salazar and Stabenow. They are betraying the best traditions of the Democratic Party. They are kicking unfortunate people when they are down. <p>I hope the flood of campaign cash sure to come their way balances out the dark ache of guilt they are sure to feel in their stomachs late at night, when they are all alone. No, come to think of it, I actually don't. (Source: Library of Congress)</p> <li>Why vote for a progressive candidate for president in 2008? Because if you don't vote for someone whose politics are based in their ideals, you instead get a politician who bends with the wind, altering policy positions to suit the latest fashion. Then you get embarrassing statements like this regarding Iraq: <blockquote>We are in a dire situation, using your adjective, in part because the Congress was supine under the Republican majority, failing to conduct oversight and demanding accountability...</blockquote> <p>These were the words of the accusatory Senator Hillary Clinton in last week's hearing regarding the confirmation of Lt. General David Petraeus to head up the military effort. Clinton intended this remark as an indictment of the Republican Party, but it applies just as well to herself. In the buildup to the Iraq war, she pursued the path of political least resistance at the time, declaring herself in support of the war in Iraq and failing to exercise her considerable power that even a minority Senator has to engage in oversight and demand accountability. She only came to critique the war in Iraq when a large manjority of Americans had already arrived at a critical point of view themselves.</p> <p>And even now that Senator Clinton has arrived at a somewhat critical stance regarding the war in Iraq, she continues to avoid the responsibility to engage in oversight and to demand accountability. As <a href="http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/16560709.htm">David Broder points out</a> in his most recent column, Clinton failed to ask a single question of the man nominated to run the war to its conclusion. Not a single question. Instead, she informed the General of her feelings about Iraq based on a recent trip of hers. </p> <p>Oversight would have involved asking General Petraeus to articulate strategy, and then asking follow-up questions based on the candor and good sense of his responses. Demanding accountability would have involved asking General Petraeus to make a set of commitments and to set standards by which his success could be measured in the future. But that was not politically expedient -- so Senator Clinton made a speech instead.</p> <p>Had Senator Clinton been "ideological" in her orientation -- a dirty word these days meaning that one bases one's actions on a set of coherent conceptual claims and standards -- her conduct and her statements would at least have been consistent. But she's failed to either remain firm in her ideas or even to identify why she might have changed her minds, leaving me to wonder which political winds will fill her sails next.</p> <li>In the election of 2004, progressives gave a tremendous amount to the Democratic Party. We gave huge amounts of money. We volunteered for days and days. We held campaign meetings in our homes. We voted, and we voted Democrat in spite of the reservations we had about the weak progressive records of some Democratic candidates, including a move away from some progressive principles by presidential candidate John Kerry. <p>We progressives gave so much, and tolerated so much, because we knew that the alternative would be worse. The Republicans now in power are following a theocratic, nationalist agenda that endangers the traditional freedoms that Americans have enjoyed for generations.</p> <p>So it was a double burden to now see that many of the Democrats who could not have won their elections in 2004 without the national progressive effort to support them, have betrayed us, and moved to collaborate with the ruling Republicans' effort to destroy all progressive elements within American civic culture.</p> <p>In March 2005, 14 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted to create a bill that did not just allow, but went so far as to encourage, discrimination in hiring on the basis of religion. This bill committed huge amounts of federal money to the purpose of financing organizations who refuse to hire anybody who is unwilling to convert to membership in the church of their bosses. These 14 House Democrats were given the opportunity to vote on an amendment that would have removed the religious discrimination clause from the larger bill. However, they voted against Robert Scott's Religious Liberty Amendment. (Source: Library of Congress)</p> <li>In February, 2007, Senator Diane Feinstein introduced S.594, the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act, to the United States Senate. The law forbids the United States government from spending money to use, sell or transfer cluster bombs unless the following requirements are met:<Br> - The cluster bombs are proven to have a 1 percent or lower rate of malfunction<br> - The cluster bombs will not be used against anything but a clearly defined military target, in an area where there are no civilians and in places where civilians do not ordinarily live<br> - A plan is submitted, with the costs included, for cleaning up all the undetonated explosives that come from cluster bombs, whether they're used by the US military, or by other countries to whom the United States has supplied the cluster bombs <p>There is a waiver in the law for the first requirement (for the malfunctioning rate of 1 percent or lower), in cases in which it is <b>"vital"</b> to use cluster bombs in order to protect the security of the United States. However, even in such cases, the President is required to submit a report to Congress which explains how civilians will be protected from the cluster bombs, and revealing the failure rate of the cluster bombs, as well as whether the cluster bombs are equipped with self-destruct functions.</p> <p>The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act is not a perfect law. I'm not too fond of the waiver. However, the law would be a big improvement over the status quo. Right now, there's nothing to stop the United States from using cluster bombs, as it did during the invasion of Iraq, or selling them for other countries to use, as was done last year with the cluster bombs that Israel used against the civilian population of Lebanon.</p> <p>The thing that makes cluster bombs so much worse than ordinary bombs is that they have a high failure rate, combined with a high number of small bombs that are spread over large areas of land by the larger bombs in which they are originally obtained. Cluster bombs are designed to kill people, not to damage buildings or roads. Like land mines, they continue to kill people long after the battle in which they were used. It is typical for a large number of these smaller bombs to remain undetonated, waiting to explode, after their initial deployment. The <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/ cluster.htm">Federation of American Scientists reports</a>, <i>"Studies that show 40 percent of the duds on the ground are hazardous and for each encounter with an unexploded submunition there is a 13 percent probability of detonation. Thus, even though an unexploded submunition is run over, kicked, stepped on, or otherwise disturbed, and did not detonate, it is not safe. Handling the unexploded submunition may eventually result in arming and subsequent detonation."</i> <p>Cluster bombs kill civilians when they are used. Our government knows this, and yet our government continues to manufacture, use and sell cluster bombs to foreign countries.</p> <p>Senator Feinstein deserves our thanks for introducing the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act to the floor of the Senate. Senators Edward Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Mikulski, and Bernard Sanders also deserve our thanks, for co-sponsoring the bill.</p> <p>Where are the Presidential candidates on this issue? There are six United States senators who are running for President. Not a single one of them has given support to the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act.</p> <p>Senators John McCain and Sam Brownback are Republicans. The other senators running for President are Democrats. They all have in common their dangerous neglect of the threat posed by American cluster bombs. This is a moral issue on which many Democrats and Republicans have failed. Five good Democrats have taken a stand against the uncontrolled development and spread of cluster bombs. Other Democrats in Congress have not. </p> <p>That failure includes Democratic Congressman and presidential candidate <a href="http://www.irregulartimes.com/goodleft/kucinich.html">Dennis Kucinich.</a> There is no bill at all on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to control the use of cluster bombs. What has Representative Kucinich, the supposed peace candidate, done about that? Absolutely nothing. </p> <p>The failure of most Democrats in Congress to support the effort to stop the use of cluster bombs is yet another reminder that there is a big difference between being a Democrat and being a progressive. In 2008, it's not enough to just elect a Democrat President. If we don't elect a progressive President, we can expect many more years of disappointment. (Sources: The Library of Congress; Cluster Munition Coalition; Human Rights Watch; Federation of American Scientists)</p> <li>An important reason to vote progressive in the 2008 elections, and not along a partisan Democratic line, is that if you don't vote according to principle, you'll get a pragmatic political result -- and political pragmatism is not pretty. <p>Take for example the case of Joe Lieberman, who popped into a meeting of a committee of which he is not a member to put in a special good word for George W. Bush's nominee to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Belgium. That nominee, Sam Fox, funded the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group in 2004 that injected outright slander into the presidential race. Such a person with a history of ham-handed public venom really should not be engaged in any diplomatic venues. But the ever-pragmatic Senator Lieberman vouched for Fox, "Sam Fox represents what America is all about, and that's why he will be, when confirmed, an extraordinary ambassador."</p> <p>Why would Joseph Lieberman say such a kind thing about someone who funds counterfactual, irrelevant dirty tactics in political campaigns? Boy, you've got me...</p> <p>Say, did I mention that Joe Lieberman recently received checks for a total of $21,000 from Sam Fox and his wife?</p> <p>Yes, Joe Lieberman is a very pragmatic politican, which is exactly what you get when you forget to vote your principles. (<a href="http:// www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-swiftboat0308.artmar08,0,4513074.story?coll=hc-headlines-home">Source: Hartford Courant, March 8 2007</a>)</p> <li>We can't say we weren't warned. Everyone knew full well two years ago exactly what sort of decision Samuel Alito would deliver as a justice of the Supreme Court. Here's what we at Irregular Times wrote two years ago about the Alito nomination: <blockquote>Look, for everybody who is working extra-hard to imagine a scenario in which Bush-nominated anti-choice nominee Samuel Alito might not vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, read on.<Br><Br> It doesn't get any <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/alito/111585stmnt2.html">clearer than this</a>:<br><br> "<i>It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to <b>help advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud</b> of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that <b>the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.</b></i>"<br><Br> Period. End of story. If the United States Senate confirms Samuel Alito, he will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Any Senator who votes to confirm Samuel Alito votes against a woman's right to control her own body. <br><Br> And now that this is Samuel Alito's presumed position, it is up to him, in public testimony, to affirm otherwise. Samuel Alito cannot say, as John Roberts did, that he believes petitioners to the Court need to believe he has no pre-set position on Roe vs. Wade. Clearly, the man does have a position. That cat is out of the bag. So any Senator on the Judiciary Committee who fails to use this and other material to grill Samuel Alito to the floor until he states his current specific position regarding Roe vs. Wade is grossly incompetent.<br><Br> Spread the word. Write a letter to the editor. Don't let this pass unmentioned. Samuel Alito's own explicitly stated position: <b>he believes women do not have the right to have an abortion</b>.</blockquote> <p>Everyone knew Samuel Alito was dedicated to the overturn Roe v. Wade, and yet he was confirmed. After talking a big game about confronting Alito on his abortion position, Senators gave him a pass and voted him through.</p> <p>Samuel Alito was confirmed for two reasons. First, George W. Bush was re-elected president in 2004, and second, there were not enough progressives in Congress to stop Alito's confirmation. Yes, there were enough Democrats. No, there were not enough progressives. And so Samuel Alito is sitting on the Supreme Court as part of a majority which ruless that <a href="http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/04/22/supreme-court-women-must-sue-to- prove-medical-need/">a woman has to go to court to prove her health is threatened before she can have what her doctor already believes is a medically necessary abortion</a>.</p> <p>With Samuel Alito on the court, majority rulings that prioritize authoritarian prerogatives over individual liberty will continue. Liebermans in the White House and Caseys in the Senate won't change a thing. And that's why it is essential for the elections of 2008 not to bring a Democratic victory to the White House and to the Congress, but a progressive victory.</p> <li>Barack Obama and Hiillary Clinton want to expand the size of the military, they say. <p>They say that they would end the war in Iraq, if they were elected President. They say that the spending in Iraq is taking too much money out of domestic spending.</p> <p>Yet, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both say that they want to expand the amount of money spent on the military. I don't understand it. Why spend more money on the military, after a war is stopped, than is being spent during war time?</p> <p>There is no major enemy the United States has that the military is capable of fighting. If the American military cannot capture Osama Bin Laden by invading and occupying the nation he's hiding in, then the American military is not going to be able to capture Osama Bin Laden by invading and occupying other countries.</p> <p>What is this expanded military that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seek for, then? The United States is not under any threat of a military invasion. The American military has proven incapable of stopping terrorist attacks. So why do we need a larger military? Why do we need more soldiers?</p> <p>Is it that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to increase military spending, and increase the number of soldiers, so that they can look presidential? Do they still think that what the United States needs is another President eager to send the military around the world?</p> <p>Maybe the reason that I don't understand why we need a big military is that I'm too far to the left, out of the mainstream that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to appeal to. If that's so, then that's so. I'm not about to support some crazy policy of politically-inspired militarism just because it's an effective electoral technique. I'd rather be out of touch with the American mainstream than to jump on this big military bandwagon.</p> <p>I am never more disappointed in the Democrats than when I see militaristic jingoism of the kind Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are promoting. Their use of big military spending to strike a pose is just one more reminder of why, in the 2008 presidential election, it's not enough just to elect a Democrat. We need a progressive President. (Source: The Hill, May 3, 2007)</p> <li>Early in May 2007, after talking to someone on the legislative staff of Senator Robert Byrd, I wrote an article patience with Senate Democrats as they go through the difficult, complicated work of trying to end the war in Iraq. The issues in getting a bill to the floor of the Senate to vote on are complicated, I said. <p>In a certain sense, that was true. Deciding which legislation to end the war to vote on next is a complicated process. However, the outcome we need is really not complicated at all. We need to get out of the mess in Iraq as soon as possible. Most Americans now clearly agree on that. The President of the United States has gone war-mad, and won't listen to the majority, so, it ought to be the task of Congress to end the war.</p> <p>Some in Congress are trying. There's <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senFeingoldWI.html">Senator Russ Feingold</a>, for instance, who gained the support of <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senReidNV.html">Senator Harry Reid</a> and other Democrats in the Senate to introduce legislation (S.Amdt. 1098 to S.Amdt. 1097 to to H.R. 1495) that would have required the United States to begin a military pullout from Iraq four months from now, and complete that pullout by March 31, 2008.</p> <p>Then, on May 16, there was a roll call vote in the Senate on whether to approve Feingold's legislation to end the war in Iraq. It was not approved. The reason: Many Senate Democrats were too afraid to vote for it. </p> <p>Why? Why, when the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and the majority of the American people want the Iraq War to end, are some Senate Democrats still afraid to vote to end the war? Put plainly, it was political cowardice. They voted that way because they didn't want to look soft. These Democratic politicians still think that the only way that they can look strong is to support George W. Bush in his vain quest to find some small scrap of victory in Iraq.</p> <p>It was 2002 all over again, with Senate Democrats so weak and agitated that they surrendered to the Republican pro-war nonsense without putting up a fight.</p> <p>These are the Democratic cowards in the Senate who <b>voted in favor of keeping the Iraq War going on without restriction</b>:</p> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senBaucusMT.html">Max Baucus</a> of Montana<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senBayhIN.html">Evan Bayh</a> of Indiana<br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senBingamanNM.html">Jeff Bingaman</a> of New Mexico<br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senCarperDE.html">Tom Carper</a> of Delaware<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senCaseyPA.html">Robert Casey</a> of Pennsylvania<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senConradND.html">Kent Conrad</a> of North Dakota<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senDorganND.html">Byron Dorgan</a> of North Dakota<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senLandrieuLA.html">Mary Landrieu</a> of Louisiana<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senLevinMI.html">Carl Levin</a> of Michigan<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senLincolnAR.html">Blanche Lincoln</a> of Arkansas<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senMcCaskillMO.html">Claire McCaskill</a> of Missouri<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senNelsonFL.html">Bill Nelson</a> of Florida<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senNelsonNE.html">Ben Nelson</a> of Nebraska<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senPryorAR.html">Mark Pryor</a> of Arkansas<br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senReedRI.html">Jack Reed</a> of Rhode Island<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senRockefellerWV.html">John Rockefeller</a> of West Virginia<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senSalazarCO.html">Ken Salazar</a> of Colorado<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senTesterMT.html">Jon Tester</a> of Montana<Br> <a href="http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/senWebbVA.html">James Webb</a> of Virginia<Br> When it comes time for you to vote for a presidential candidate in 2008, remember this shameful vote. Remember this painful evidence that many Democratic politicians are not at all progressive. In fact, they're anti-progressive.</p> <p>Don't just listen to what Democratic politicians say about themselves in their speeches. Pay attention to what they actually do. (Source: Library of Congress)</p> <li>It's just not safe these days to presume that a Democratic presidential candidate is progressive on the issues that matter. <p>Consider the poor, pandering performance of three Democratic presidential candidates on the issue of religion and politics. When asked by the Associated Press to tell voters which church they attend and how often, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Christopher Dodd scrambled to provide eager answers to prove that they're not just religious believers, but that they attend church regularly and dutifully. Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Joseph Biden reported their churches too.</p> <p>Hillary Clinton gushed about her "extended prayer family" who she describes as "faith warriors". Obama reported proudly that he attends church "frequently". John Edwards reported that he's got one church already, and is shopping for a second one.</p> <p>Only Rudolph Giuliani got the answer right. He refused to answer. "The mayor's personal relationship with God is private and between him and God," Giuliani's campaign wrote in response.</p> <p>It's shameful to see Democrats posing to prove how religious they are, as if the issue has anything to do with their qualification for public service. Do they really expect us to accept the idea that a candidate who is religious is more qualified to be President of the United States than a candidate who is not? Maybe what they actually believe doesn't matter so much to their campaigns. If the majority of Americans are more likely to vote for a politician who loudly proclaims Christian religion than a politician who refuses to do so, these Democrats are pragmatically happy to play along with that game.</p> <p>True progressives don't support a religious test for public office. Unfortunately, it's not quite clear that the Democrats running for President in 2008 are as fully progressive as they'd like us to believe. (Sources: Forbes, June 1, 2007; GetReligion.org, June 4, 2007)</p> <li>In 2006, the Democratic mantra was "change the committee chairs". Democratic activists gasped to each other, "Can you imagine what it will mean to have a Democrat as chair on every committee?" <p>Now, in 2007, we can see that Democratic chairs of congressional committees sometimes doesn't mean very much at all. Take, for example, the chairmanship of John Dingell over the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Representative Dingell is a Democrat, but he's a Democrat from Michigan, and views it as part of his job to represent the interests of Michigan's car manufacturing companies.</p> <p>The car manufacturing companies of Michigan are against efforts to strengthen the fuel mileage standards for cars, and so Representative Dingell is eager to help the Republicans delay any congressional action on the matter. Six months into the new Democratic Congress, John Dingell's House Committee on Energy and Commerce still had not taken any action on increasing the fuel efficiency of cars. What's more, Dingell announced that the committee would not even begin to consider such matters until the autumn.</p> <p>Thanks to John Dingell, we're seeing the same delay and denial of action on fuel efficiency that we saw when Republicans controlled all the congressional committees. Dingell's dodge is a great reminder that, when it comes to promoting fuel efficiency and protecting the environment, it's not enough just to vote for a Democrat and assume that everything will turn out all right. You have to be sure to vote for a genuine progressive. (Source: The Guardian, June 22, 2007)</p> <li>On July 23, 2007, John Edwards was asked to explain his negative attitude about equal rights for same-sex couples to marry. Blunt and yet evasive, he said, "My wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not." <p>What's missing from John Edwards's statement about opposing equal marriage rights is a justification. Edwards never really explained why he is against giving same-sex couples the right to get married.</p> <p>Edwards could claim that he is against same-sex marriage because he believes that marriage should exist only between a man and a woman. That's not an explanation, though. It's just a restatement of his opposition to equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.</p> <p>Edwards has, in the past, indicated that he's against equal marriage rights because he's a Southern Baptist. That's not much of an explanation either, though, unless Edwards is the type of person who believes whatever his church tells him to believe. If that's the case, then there's much to fear from a John Edwards presidency. After all, the Southern Baptists believe a lot of outrageous things. Does John Edwards, for instance, believe that it is a wife's duty to submit to her husband, and obey him as her master? If John Edwards rejects that Southern Baptist teaching, then why won't he reject the Southern Baptist opposition to same-sex marriage?</p> <p>Democratic voters deserve a real explanation from John Edwards. If he wants to earn voters' support, he ought to be willing to justify his opinions, not just state them without explanation. What about marriage between two people of the same sex does John Edwards think is wrong? Why?</p> <p>It isn't enough for Edwards to merely claim that it's not a relevant issue because he would not use his power as President impose his religious views on the American people. First of all, the moral reasoning John Edwards uses to justify denying equal marriage rights to all American adults is a relevant reflection on his general character and psychological fitness to be President. Secondly, in spite of what Edwards claims about keeping his prejudiced religious beliefs out of his work as President, he's made it quite clear that religion would be part of the basis for his opposition as President to legalizing same-sex marriage.</p> <p>The issue of marriage equality opens up a view to a rather shadowy side of John Edwards. Behind the smile and the talk of uniting America, John Edwards seems quite willing to accept the idea of two Americas with two standards of legal rights. (Source: CNN, July 23, 2007)</p> <li>During a Democratic debate this summer, Senator Joseph Biden gave what seems like the best reason NOT to support his campaign for President. Responding to a comment by Bill Richardson that a combination of diplomacy and United Nations peacekeepers ought to be used to deal with the violence in Darfur, Biden got testy, and said, "Look, I'm so tired of this. Let's get right to it. I heard the same arguments after I came back from meeting with Milosevic: We can't act; we can't send troops there. Where we can, America must. Why Darfur? Because we can." <p>Joseph Biden is tired? He's tired of Americans saying where we shouldn't send the American military to fight? Does Senator Biden really think that the problem with American foreign policy is that the government has been too restrained in its efforts to send the military to fight in foreign countries?</p> <p>The war policy of Senator Joe Biden was expressed in just one sentence from this statement: "Where we can, America must". Senator Biden wants to fight new wars "because we can." Wherever the United States can get away with it, that's where Biden wants the American military fighting a war.</p> <p>With a foreign policy philosophy like that, it's no wonder that Joseph Biden voted in favor of George W. Bush's plan to invade and occupy Iraq. Biden is no progressive, that's for sure.(Source: CNN, July 23, 2007)</p> <li>I'm disappointed in Hillary Clinton. <p>On July 23, 2007, when asked if he would commit to meeting with the leaders of Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Iran and North Korea, Barack Obama said that yes, indeed he would. Obama pointed out that American Presidents held summits with the leaders of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He also mentioned that the attempt to use the withholding of diplomatic contact as some form of punishment has not been effective.</p> <p>Barack Obama is right, of course. It's been three decades since Iran and the United States had a diplomatic relationship, and the lack of diplomacy has not resulted in the overthrow of the Iranian theocracy. On the contrary, lack of contact has made the regime more radical. George W. Bush's policy of not talking to North Korea's leadership made the nuclear crisis in that country worse, not better.</p> <p>In 2009, the new President will have the chance to overcome the foreign policy mistakes of the Bush presidency, and the best way to do that is to clearly demonstrate that the days of American obstinacy are over. Showing a willingness to listen to, and talk to, the leaders of all nations.</p> <p>Hillary Clinton, tied to the policies of her former President husband, did not react well. She seemed miffed at the idea of a new President being willing to talk to world leaders to whom her husband would not. With a knee jerk reaction, Clinton defended the way that things have been done in Washington D.C. for years. She called Barack Obama's proposal "irresponsible and frankly naive."</p> <p>It's a sad day for the Democratic Party when the supposed front-runner for President of the United States refers to talk as "irresponsible". The only thing to which face-to-face talks between the American President and leaders of other nations is irresponsible is the status quo. Frankly, the status quo is rotten. As for naivete, well, naivete is much to be preferred to fatalism.</p> <p>Hillary Clinton's snide remark at Barack Obama's vision of a new era of open diplomacy is the most stark reminder of the difference between these two candidates. Hillary Clinton is a fixture of the past. Barack Obama has the courage to look to the future, toward progress.</p> <p>When it comes to diplomacy, Barack Obama is the candidate who has the right to refer to himself as a progressive. Hillary Clinton, in comparison, seems too backwards-thinking, afraid and proud to extend a hand of reconciliation.</p> <p>For the sake of world community, Barack Obama looks like the better choice to me. (Source: Associated Press, July 24, 2007)</p> <li>Before Hillary Clinton gets so enthusiastic about calling Barack Obama naive just for suggesting that the President speak with the leaders of other nations, she might stop to think about the kind of naive behavior she has engaged in herself. <p>Here's a clue for her. Two years ago, Hillary Clinton gave another speech in which she called some other people naive. Here's what she said back then: "We've adopted a realistic foreign policy that is not based entirely on military might nor on the naive notion that we do not need the capacity to take tough action when necessary."</p> <p>Don't recognize the quote? That's all right. It's not one that Hillary Clinton is spending a lot of time reminding people of. This quote comes from July 25, 2005, when Clinton was speaking to the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of rightward leaning Democrats that Clinton belongs to.</p> <p>Can you guess what "realistic foreign policy" of the Democratic Leadership Council Hillary Clinton is talking about? Don't work too hard now, I'll tell you. It's the foreign policy of supporting George W. Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq. The Democratic Leadership Council was, after all, one hundred percent behind President Bush when he came up with the plan to start a war in Iraq. Every member of the DLC that was in Congress at the time, Hillary Clinton included, voted in favor of Bush's plan to rush the American military into Iraq.</p> <p>If ever there was a naive decision about foreign policy, it was the one that led Hillary Clinton to decide that George W. Bush seemed like the kind of President who knew exactly what he was doing, and could be trusted with broad war powers. Yet, Hillary Clinton now has the gall to call Barack Obama, who had the responsibility, foresight and maturity to oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq from the start, naive?</p> <p>I encourage Hillary Clinton to look back to this speech, and what she said. She called those who urged restraint in military spending "naive", because there were times when "tough action" would be "necessary". Senator Clinton was just plain wrong when she suggested that using "tough action" in Iraq was necessary.</p> <p>Hillary Clinton was wrong to call those of us who wrote, emailed and called her offices, begging her not to vote in favor of starting a war in Iraq, naive. If she is going to ask for our votes, she ought to at least have the decency to apologize for that insult to antiwar activists. Instead, last night, she compounded it with another slur against diplomacy.</p> <p>The truth is, when it came down to the time to decide the appropriate time for diplomacy in Iraq, Hillary Clinton was dead wrong, and Barack Obama was spot on correct. Hillary Clinton's forgetfulness of this fact may suit her conscience, but it does not reflect well upon her presidential campaign.</p> <li>On the evening of July 24, 2007, I was listening to the radio for a few moments while making myself a peanut butter sandwich in the kitchen when I heard about the stupidest thing I have ever heard coming out of the mouth of Howard Dean. <p>Howard Dean, now the head of the Democratic Party, was criticizing the proposal by Dennis Kucinich to end the war in Iraq in a relatively quick way by taking away funding for every aspect of the war except for the project of bringing American soldiers home safely. Howard Dean dismissed the idea by saying that if the Democrats cut the funding and ended the war now, then that would be the end of the Democratic majority in Congress, and then the war in Iraq would never be ended.</p> <p>What gymnastic thinking! Howard Dean was essentially arguing that if we end the war now, then we'll never end the war.</p> <p>Such a statement is obviously nonsense to us, but to someone like Howard Dean, it makes a kind of sense. You see, Howard Dean has for a long time now believed that ending the war and establishing Democratic Party control over the government are the same thing. Of course they're not, really, but Howard Dean has forged an automatic link between the two ideas. He started with the idea that the only way to end the war was elect a Democratic majority to Congress, and from there, quickly fell into the habit of thinking that having a Democratic majority in Congress and ending the war were the very same thing. The American people can see quite clearly now that Democratic control of Congress is in no way equivalent to ending the war in Iraq, but Howard Dean is still hoping that we'll buy the argument.</p> <p>Besides the obvious logical flaw in Howard Dean's argument, there's a severe chronological flaw. You see, Howard Dean was arguing against Kucinich's plan to end the war quickly, in a matter of a few months. However, Howard Dean implied that ending the war quickly would interfere with his plan to re- elect a Democratic majority over Congress in November 2008, which would then prevent the Iraq War from actually ended.</p> <p>Get out your calendar and do the math now. The 2008 presidential election is still more than a year away. The inauguration of the President and the next Congress does not happen until January 2009. So, if Dennis Kucinich's plan is to get the Iraq War done with quickly, in a matter of a few months from now, then how could the loss of the Democratic majority in Congress at the beginning of 2009 possibly interfere with the end of the war?</p> <p>Even if the withdrawal of the American military from Iraq took an entire year after funding for combat and training operations was pulled back, that would mean that the end of the war would take place in July of 2008, with the Democratic majority in Congress still intact. It would be absolutely impossible for a new Republican majority elected four months after that, and inaugurated two months later yet, to interfere with the plan. The theoretical new Republican Congress of 2009 would have to declare a new war in January 2009 and then invade Iraq all over again.</p> <p>It's all a matter of priorities. If the Democrats in Congress care more about ending the war in Iraq than they care about maintaining control over Congress, then they can end the war. If they care more about maintaining control over Congress than ending the war in Iraq, however, then the Democrats will argue about whether to end the war sooner or later, as they are now.</p> <p>What Howard Dean isn't counting on is that the Democrats could well lose majority control of Congress by not ending the war in Iraq. Progressives know that the best way to strengthen the Democratic Party is to show that its leaders have resolve, and are not merely playing around with the important issues of the day in order to remain popular. That's why, in 2008, when we choose a Presidential candidate, it's not good enough just to choose the Democrat. We need to choose a progressive candidate for President. (Source: Air America Radio, July 24, 2007)</p> <li>Democratic politicians who believe that their campaigns will benefit through the conspicuous pandering to the religious sensibilities of voters ought to pay attention to the effect that religious campaigning is having upon the Republican presidential candidates. Supporters of Republican presidential candidates Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are ripping each other apart with religion, fighting over who's a real Christian and who's not. Even when one of them tries to stand back from the fray and take the high road, the effort ends with a brutal stab at the religious authenticity of other Republicans. <p>Consider this recent opinion posted on the web site Evangelicals for Mitt: "It's one thing to, as I mentioned the other day, take into account a candidate's religion. It's entirely another to simply say, as an evangelical pastor in Iowa just did while explaining an attack he made on Senator Brownback, 'Protestants should vote for Protestants.' But if we evangelicals set the precedent in this election that that's the way we should do things shooting ourselves in the foot we can look forward to more ugliness just like this. We can also look forward to more bad governance, because what church you go to has little or nothing to do with what you believe politically and how you put it into action. And I say that as someone who, just like Rev. Rude, left the Roman Catholic church before becoming a Christian."</p> <p>So, to start with, evangelical Christians blasted Mitt Romney for being a Mormon, not enough of a real Christian.</p> <p>Then, when some evangelical Christians formed the group Evangelicals for Mitt Romney, to try to counter the Republican religious bigotry of the anti- Romney religious groups, they too were blasted for being faith-traitors, with the claim that Protestants should vote for Protestants, and all the other Christian Republican candidates be damned.</p> <p>The damage against Evangelicals for Mitt in that attack was incidental, however, because the attack was in fact aimed at Sam Brownback. Reverend Tim Rude (Yes, that's his real name) of the Walnut Creek Community Church in Windsor Heights, Iowa made the attack in a letter he wrote campaigning in the name of his church for Mike Huckabee. Rude wrote, "Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002. Frankly, as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about his discernment when compared to the Governor's."</p> <p>As Evangelicals for Mitt fired back at the Walnut Creek evangelicals, they managed to insult Catholic Republicans again with the writer commenting that he, "left the Roman Catholic church before becoming a Christian." So, the very Republicans who are trying to defend Mitt Romney against the charge that he isn't a real Christian because he's a Mormon are more than happy to attack Sam Brownback on similar grounds, claiming that he isn't a real Christian because he's Catholic.</p> <p>This kind of nonsense is the inevitable result of Republicans pandering to religious groups in the hopes that their churches will join their campaigns. If the Democratic candidates are smart, they'll stop trying to imitate the Republicans in making religion a campaign issue. Differences in religion are so divisive that they prevent people who should be political allies from joining together in common cause. There's no sense to these debates either. No one can win an argument over who is the most true believer. <p>While right wing Democrats have been pushing the idea