Question Number 5: What makes you a liberal? What are the values that underlie your allegiance to your chosen form of political belief?

The phrase "Liberty and justice for all," sums up why I support progressive social and political values and policies. This sense of fairness was deeply ingrained in me long before I knew what politics was.

I believe in compassion and respect for all God's creations, and I've been influenced by the saying attributed to the Iroquois confederacy, "In our every deliberation let us consider the effect on the next seven generations." This influences my views regarding the effect of policy on people (including other nations), animals, and the earth and environment as a whole. I believe we should have a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."

Government should not be something outside us that we try to make "small." (A dictatorship with no involvement of the people is the smallest form of government!) I also have a basic understanding that we are all interdependent. As much as we might like to think of ourselves as "self-reliant," such people do not really exist today. No one makes everything they need for themselves. We are all dependent on others for our food, clothing and shelter.

I believe we should have a government and an economy that helps to bring out the best in human potential, qualities and values. I think there is enough on this earth for all to live a decent life without resorting to wars over resources and "markets." I also value constant thinking, analyzing, and re-evaluating.

The right-wing agenda usually favors those who already have the advantage over those who don't - the wealthiest 1 percent over the rest of us, white over other "races," men over women, straight over gay, etc.

I believe what America needs now to solve the problems we face and to move forward is a more progressive direction than we have ever seen before.

How I developed this view is encompassed by my life. I grew up in a rural Southwestern Pennsylvania area at the tip of Appalachia. My father was a brakeman on the railroad and cynical about politics. My mother worked as an office researcher and social worker before marrying. Together, they both ran a small business for a decade. I did not realize it at the time, but I benefited greatly from pro-grams developed to fight the "War on Poverty" - bookmobiles, films, plays, lunch programs, etc. Much of the funding for these types of programs has since been cut.

As a very young child, I can remember always wanting to be good and to do good things. I could not understand children who thought doing bad things was fun. I always looked forward to attending church and Sunday school and prayed often. It hurt me when children made fun of others and I always came to the defense of the ones who were wronged.

I remember holding my hand over my heart and being so proud to be part of a country that was all about "liberty and justice for all." It seemed then that the main thing I should do to help the world was to develop my skills in math and science and be good at a scientific career. Automatically this would be helping towards liberty and justice, since that was the direction of our whole nation. Yes, I knew about racism and other injustices, but felt that was just due to uneducated people. It never occurred to me that intelligent or well-off people would support such things.

As a pre-teen and teenager, I began to see hypocrisy and cracks in the facade. When our minister died, we received word that we would be getting a minister from India. I remember my shock when some of the parishioners expressed feeling that they did not want a minister who wasn't white. Didn't they really believe we were all God's creations? Always interested in meeting new people, I looked forward to the minister coming. Then, I became disappointed when he seemed more interested in gold jewelry, his Cadillac, and other material wealth than in justice. He gave sermons saying that God supported the United States in the Vietnam War and that God did not support other nations.

I had friends with older brothers who had gone to Vietnam, and the protests were becoming larger. When they were small, my mother thought the protesters were just crazy. As the demonstrations increased, she decided she should read everything she could find about Vietnam. She became the only anti-war activist of sorts in our tiny town, putting out a newsletter on the church mimeograph (despite the differing views of the minister.)

We both became active in the McGovern campaign for president in 1972.

In 1974, I entered the University of Pennsylvania's School of Engineering. I decided to study bio-engineering. I loved math and science. I figured I could make the greatest contribution to the world by being good in a scientific career, since most people are not good at math and science. However, the coming year would instead be a turning point in my political development, with increased understanding of the importance of the role of class and corporate economic interests in national and world conditions.

The first semester I had to take one elective along with five math and science courses. I chose a course with the word "democracy" in the title because I knew I supported democracy. This was a turning point my thinking.

The course was about the coup in Chile a year earlier that overthrew a democratically elected government that was making improvements for the majority of people. We learned the role the CIA and U.S. corporations played in orchestrating the coup, and in installing the Pinochet dictatorship and paramilitary death squads. At first I could not understand. Why would my CIA, my corporations do such a thing? Weren't they for democracy and liberty and jus-tice for all? I didn't want to believe it. But the more I read and analyzed, the more I began to see it was true. I also became convinced by multitudes of evidence that the more U.S. corporate investment in Latin America, the worse the living standards of the majority of people.

Until then, I had thought that corporations produce jobs and make everyone's life better.

In 1974 and 1975, I also became friends with Iranian students who had been victims of the Shah and his SAVAK secret police agents. They told me about the role my government played in overthrowing a democratically elected government there. I started to see this was a pattern not just in Lain America. It was also around this time that I began reading of CIA and U.S. military support for General Zia of Pakistan who was supporting the training in Pakistan of extreme fundamentalist Islamists from Afghanistan. There was a progressive government in Afghanistan at the time, with women playing a major role in society. Again, I wondered why my government would be supporting fundamentalist Muslims who didn't believe women should even be educated.

The more I have read and learned, the more I've become convinced that the foreign policy that guides our country has virtually nothing to do with the "national interest." Instead, the economic interests of the top 1 percent are what rule. Then they convince us to spend our tax dollars and the lives of our young people to fight against our own interests. So, my basic values and increased understanding and analysis have led me to support progressive politics.

Tim Horner Blue stater

2004-09-06T17:29:00.000-04:00

Question Number 5: What makes you a liberal? What are the values that underlie your allegiance to your chosen form of political belief?

I am a liberal mostly because I assume certain things about human nature.

I believe that left on our own we will hoard and protect what is in our procession. We will also try to eliminate any competition that threatens our stores. I do think there is such a thing as altruism, but it is an extremely rare occurrence and it may not even exist in its true form (saving a stranger's child from a icy river and leaving your own to die is true altruism).

But just because this is our nature does not mean that it is the right way to live. I think the reason we are such successful mammals is that we have learned to over come our nature and structure ways for us to care from one another. It is somewhat counterintuitive from an individual point of view, but it is pure genius when we consider the whole group.

In fact, it is impossible for us to live in a society without some form of group sacrifice. If we do not look out for the young, the old, the weak and the slow, then we dissolve into separate entities, armies of ones, and we are back to survival mode.

We can do better than this. I think the basis of progressive liberalism is this attention to those who do not have as much as others. It is a check on the urge to hoard, protect and isolate.

Both of these elements are present in our American ethos, but we do not have enough compassion in our government. Conservatives tend to play on our desires to have, not our responsibility to give.

Growing up with Reganonmics I came to see that the trickledown theory is just that. When companies make profits, they do not hire more workers or raise salaries. They squirrel it away for themselves and corruption seems all too easy. Of course this is not true across the board, but how much proof does one need to realize that corporations are naturally greedy and selfish like the people that run them and the genes that run them. Not a pretty picture.

While it is indisputable that capitalism and a free market do increase the standard of living, it is based on human greed. We should not measure the wealth of this country in GNP but in the distance between the richest and the poorest Americans. That gap, sadly, has been widening.

As a liberal I believe that this is an important measure of who we are as a people. I also believe that government should have a role in closing this gap. We need to structure our society to curb our tendency to "take and spend."

Society can help by structuring compassion and making sure that we take care of those less fortunate than ourselves. This includes honoring personal privacy, health care, fiscal responsibility, job creation, and tax relief only to those who need it. I want to live in a society that errs on the side of generosity.

Before becoming a teacher, I worked for four years as a family therapist in the some of the poorest neighborhoods of Hartford, Conn. -- It's worst than you think -- and what I saw were a few people who were riding the gravy train, but the vast majority (90-plus percent) were trying to make a better life for their children. I learned that I had so much more than them simply because of the accident of my birth. I will never forget this fact. I have such trouble with the assumption that all people start life at the same mark.

Too many Americans were born on third base, and they think they hit a triple. I don't make much money, but I am happy to support a country that tries to support the weakest most oppressed members of our society. I am not so happy about supporting a country that favors those who were born on third base. One of the most revealing and disturbing scenes from Fahrenheit 911 is when Bush greets a crowd at a fundraiser dinner party. "What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." Maybe we put up with this elitism because we think that someday we will be a "have-more."

But for me, this attitude makes it difficult to consider Bush a Christian, at least one that reads any of the gospels.

More than anything, I am a liberal because of my Christian faith. Many Christians (especially Evangelicals like myself) have lost sight of their namesake. They live in fear of anything outside their world: mostly terrorists and liberals. I believe that being a Christian means being liberal. Too many Christians have favored a set of cultural practices – from aggressive intolerance of diversity (spelled D-E-V-I-L) to defensive protectionist patriotism – over the essence of what Jesus taught about carrying people's burdens, serving the less fortunate, praying for your enemies, answering evil with love, and doing everything in your power to give our wealth away to the poor. This is difficult stuff, but as a Christian, I simply do not see this in the conservative platform. This is important to me.

You can accuse me of living in some fantasy world, but in fact the fantasy world is the one where there are only two groups of people: those with us and those with the terrorists.

Now that I have children this is more than just ideas. It's serious stuff. I refuse to raise my children to fear the unknown or the "other." I would be so sad if all they thought about was protecting their wealth and watching over their shoulder for someone who might be trying to take away their "stuff." There was a time in my life when I was very conservative (college), but as I got older I realized that life is bigger than what you can "conserve" and life is boring if you live your life trying to protect something that does not need to be protected.

I am a liberal because I think we have lost our way and let ourselves be swayed by fear. That fear has manifested itself in a kind of nastiness that has gained ground in our society, especially in the corporate world. Being from the Midwest, I don't do well with nastiness and I was taught to be skeptical about the agendas of big business. I was raised to be kind to people and show them respect, even if they were different from me. I was raised to keep my anger or fear at bay and never let it rule my decisions. My granddad was a farmer and nothing seemed to phase him. He was able to live in the capricious world of crops, livestock, and the elements and still keep his cool. And no matter what he was honest and generous and tough as nails.

This administration has allowed fear and anger to form policy. It has allowed corruption and greed to take precedence over compassion and confident generosity. It has lost its cool. Before 9/11 I was a quiet liberal, now I am a flaming one.

Joe Franklin, Red Stater

2004-09-06T17:24:00.000-04:00

Question Number 5: Response to Blue Stater question: What makes you a liberal? What are the values that underlie your allegiance to your chosen form of political belief?

I agree with Ms. Falbo that government should not be something outside of us that we try to make "small," but it should never have become the "big" monster that it is today with a tax system so complicated it amounts to a subsidy for tax specialists and accountants. The monster is so big that only corporations and
special interests benefit. These special interests include education, law enforcement, military and etc. All are an extension of the government. Why should any extension of government need a lobbyist?

My work in the corporate scene was short and perhaps my understanding of corporate America is limited, but I truly believe that taxes and the cost of any government regulations are passed down to the consumer. With all the fuss over a major corporation which is now the focal point of criticism for its contracts in Iraq, I thought about literally thousands of workers it employed from Alabama to Texas. The top wages earned at this non-union company bought many homes, supported thousands of families, and brought "The American Dream" to many workers of a poor background and very humble beginnings.

The shenanigans of the CIA and Third World regimes go much further back than the 1970s. I have always remembered President Roosevelt's remark about Nicaraguan Dictator Somoza, "He may be a SOB, but he is our SOB." In dealing with Third World dictators I would imagine the rules are different and I have no problem with that approach. Neither am I condoning the CIA actions. My thoughts on the CIA and some of the elite fighting forces are that they appear to be a wild and crazy bunch, but thank God for them.

After loosing the textile industry in South Alabama in the mid-90s the former governor's administration (a Democrat) was instrumental in bringing the auto industry to this area. Many of the secondary manufacturers of this industry will require skilled workers, but are offering little more than textile wages of 15 years ago.

I can't see any connection of corporate America and partisan politics. When a candidate promises a better economy and more jobs I'm skeptical. These promises only tickle the ears of the ignorant electorate. I realize that the government can manipulate the interest rate and control the money supply, but I believe that the economy rules itself.

Perhaps our greatest division in this country is economic jealousy. I am not jealous of those with more.

I too can remember Reganonomics and "Carternomics" with its double digit interest and inflation.

As Christians, we are obligated to take care of the young, the old, the sick and the needy, but I do not know that this obligation is a responsibility of government. It certainly was not the intention of our founding fathers. I am of the opinion that entitlements are the beginning of the end for a democracy. How can our leaders with such great wealth know and understand the problems of the poor?

Entitlements are simply a means of them prostituting themselves for votes.

I can remember when my father plowed with mules, got his first tractor, our first car, cooking with wood, kerosene, and electric stoves. Telephone and television came in the late 50s. I still reside on a dirt road with little gravel which has two fiber optic cables (belonging to one of the nation's largest cable providers), buried underneath the road bed, but no service is provided to my house. Thank you, corporate America.

My siblings and I graduated college on the income of a small farm and a textile workers salary without loans or grants. I wasn't born on third base, maybe first base, and then advanced to third; but should I be forced to return to second base because of someone else's foul ball?

Cynthia Sneed, Red Stater

2004-09-06T17:20:00.000-04:00

Question Number 5: Response to Blue Stater question What makes you a liberal? What are the values that underlie your allegiance to your chosen form of political belief?

Actually, my first response to my esteemed colleagues' views of Republicans (once I realized they were describing my party and not trolls under a bridge in hell) was, in the words of rap artist Rodney King, "Can't we all just learn to get along?"

The idea that the Republican Party (the party of that billionaire Lincoln)is only for the "rich" is not true but makes a good bumper sticker.

Indeed, their very own candidate married his money by marrying the women who married her money who then inherited it from her dead Republican husband.

The Heinz-Kerrys, whose followers in the Democratic Party eschew all notions of capitalism and wealth creation even as they cash their dollar-denominated paychecks, own no less than six estates: Nantucket: $9.1 million for "windsurfing"; Ketchum, Idaho: $5 million for snowboarding and skiing -- the "family" room is 1,325 square feet and a 25-foot high "soaring" ceiling; Les Essarts in France owned by Forbes/Kerry (yes, that Forbes) cousins: no word on value in Eurodollars; Boston on Beacon Hill: $7 million; and "tony" Georgetown townhouse: $4.7 million.

Oh, wait! I forgot the most important property (sorry Pennsylvania, you got lost in the shuffle). There is the "small" 90-acre farm in Fox Chapel, Pa.: $3.7 million. At least the Heinz family fortune began in Pennsylvania.

That is nearly $30 million in six different homes alone for their guy.

Bush, net worth of $8 million (one-tenth of what even John Edwards has accumulated from physicians and your insurance companies), lives in the ugliest "earth-friendly" ranchhouse on the planet.

To this day I cannot understand how any self-respecting Southern woman would live in that house in, of all places, Crawford, Texas.

Bush also has been the beneficiary of his family connections but he is not trying to take away what little money we have under the guise of "you don't really need that money we could use it for the greater good."

The proletariat Heinz-Kerry's own a fleet of SUVs (necessary for the mountains in Idaho/Boston/New York/France and Pennsylvania), a $2 million yacht and a $750,000 powerboat (handy as father Kerry fishes to feed his family off the shores of Nantucket).

And then there is Teresa's toy - The Flying Squirrel, her very own Lear Jet. After all, surely one would not expect a Heinz-Kerry to actually board an "airplane" and sit in "first class." My God, she might be accosted by a Republican.

Of course, the senator has explained to us that none of the "fleet" of SUVs belong to him. They belong to the "family" (just like the French castle). Just like he explained to us all that we should only purchase vehicles made in Detroit (what, no France) while he is driving an Audi.

The Heinz-Kerrys sold George Clooney (you remember George, he was going to move to Europe with his pig if Bush won the election-yea!) their Italian villa prior to announcing his candidacy for the party of the "little people." No word on the sale price but the pig is ecstatic.

Fortunately for the Heinz-Kerrys, a young 25-year old Pennsylvania man named Henry Heinz started bottling horseradish in the fledging food processing industry during the infancy of that terrible period of oppression in American history-the industrial revolution. After horseradish came pickles, sauerkraut and vinegar, delivered by horse-drawn wagons to grocers in Pittsburgh, and within five years, Heinz and partner L.C. Noble were on the way to becoming one of the nation's leading greedy capitalist pigs - I mean producers of condiments.

In the banking panic of 1875, this overextended young enterprise was forced into bankruptcy. Heinz then discovered that the grocers he had been supplying were unwilling to extend credit even to feed his family (probably Republicans).

And thus he had to start again.

There was no "federal government" to bail young Heinz out of his troubles. There was no Kerry and Edwards to save them from the America had failed Henry Heinz and his workers in the first place.
There was only the Heinz brothers and Nobel, a free nation and a capitalist system that allowed the young brothers to rebuild that which was lost, to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps and continue with the American dream (nightmare if you listen to Team Kerry/Edwards).

Starting over in 1875, the Heinz brothers introduced one of the bright spots of the depression, tomato ketchup which my own great-grandmother mixed with hot water to make soup on days the family groceries were short.

Other products followed and the rest is history.

Now the Heinz company and the men and women who run it are branded as greedy capitalists wealth-seekers, Benedict Arnold pigs really, uncaring, unfeeling and incapable of any redeeming social value by the very individuals and their followers who live off of the largesse of the system that men like Henry Heinz, Henry Ford, Tom Edison, Alexander Bell and Estee Lauder made possible.

I don't know. With six mansions, a fleet of SUVs, a Lear Jet, a yacht, it looks like Kerry has fared pretty dang well under our greedy capitalist pig system.

Got a question?

2004-09-02T14:52:00.000-04:00

Do you have a question you'd like to see our Red State/Blue State contributors tackle? Send your suggestions to: bdavis@annistonstar.com

Joe Franklin, Red Stater

2004-08-30T20:21:00.000-04:00

Question Number 5: What makes you a conservative? What are the values that underlie your allegiance to your chosen form of political belief?

Conservatism has been my way of life since its beginning. My heritage is from conservative Christian parents and fore-parents. The values instilled in me by my parents consist of an honest day's pay for an honest day's work; if you don't work you won't eat; "waste not and want not"; if it's broken, fix it; don't throw it away; and pay as you go. All these values lead to a conservative way of thinking. If conservatism is instilled in your thought processes, how can one think otherwise when it comes to politics?

I am not aligned with any political party. I have voted in Democrat and Republican primaries and then voted a split ticket in the General Election.

I have never made a direct contribution to either of the national parties. I have however contributed to a few candidates from both parties. I can find weaknesses in both parties, but have more difficulty identifying with the liberals (Democrats).

My conservative belief has lead to my feeling that government has grown way beyond its fiscal responsibilities. I do not feel that the government owes me anything. It appears to me that most liberals think otherwise.

My home state, Alabama, has historically been a Democrat state. Progress and industrial grown began in this state in my early adulthood at or about the time that the state gravitated toward a two-party system. This too has influenced by conservative thinking.

My moral values prohibit my identification with some of the liberals' thinking on issues such as pro-homosexuality and abortion (suggesting that tax money be used to pay for such). I don't know if these are issues for any branch of government. However,
they have been made an issue!

My family background, my personal observations and experiences have contributed toward the development of my political conservatism. Even though I have acted foolishly at times in my personal life - I am no liberal!

Cynthia Sneed, Red Stater

2004-08-30T20:17:00.000-04:00

Question Number 5: What makes you a conservative? What are the values that underlie your allegiance to your chosen form of political belief?

My decisions are based on the party platform. The political party that holds the White House and Congress sets the economic agenda for the most powerful nation known to civilization. The party in power chooses federal judges, Cabinet members and determines policy for the economy, domestic programs and national defense issues. My primary issues are taxes, education and national defense.

I am a free-marketer and believe that the economy grows and everybody is better off if taxes are low and government interference in markets is low. We have undisputed proof that the capitalist system and the free market economy create wealth. For example, the latest housing surveys find that the average size of a European dwelling is 976 square feet, compared to 1,875 in the United States. The average size for poor households in the U.S. is 1,228 - or about 25 percent larger than the average European home. When you break it down to dwelling space per person, the differences are comparable - 395 feet for the average European to 721 for the average American and 428 for the average poor American.

Two economists, Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag, compared the number of households that have modern conveniences, including clothes washers, dishwashers, microwave ovens, TVs, personal com-puters, VCRs and automobiles. In 11 of the 13 categories, Americans households were more likely to have the convenience than households in ANY of the European countries. In Sweden, people have more phones and cell phones than Americans do but we have more of everything else.

Bergstrom and Gidehag report, "Major living standard surveys carried out in the USA show the poor to have a surprisingly high standard of living."

For instance, 46 percent of "poor" American families own their own homes. More than three out of four have air conditioning. Seven in 10 have a microwave oven and 97 percent own a color TV. Six in 10 have cable or satellite TV. The average "poor" family has an automobile.

We have, as the Democrats are always telling us, a nation of fat, poor people.

The two economists cite taxes as the primary reason. We complain about high taxes here, and we should, but the tax burden in the U.S. rose just 1.5 percent from 1970 to 1999, while most of the European countries saw double-digit percentage increases. More im-portant, the tax bite on the last dollar earned (the marginal tax rate) in European countries ranges from 60 to 90 percent. Bergstrom and Gidehag refer to this as the "tax wedge." Six of the European countries have tax wedges of 80 percent or more.

Bergstrom and Gidehag report the high tax wedges result from Europe's "extensive welfare system" that provides universal healthcare and free college education to all (just like John Kerry has said he would like to do here in America).

Democrats were not always "redistributionists" to the extent they are today. JKF (the president, not the senator) cut taxes to stimulate the economy. And the other JFK, at one time, very much wanted to reduce taxes "on the rich." When Kerry was running for the Senate in 1984 he strongly supported a plan that would have reduced taxes on the wealthy.

Presidents and political parties come and go but tax laws are forever.

Of course there are other issues such as the funding for national defense and what to do about terrorists attacks against America. Other issues such as the dismal state of education in America today and abortion is important but for me the three more important reasons are economic policy regarding taxes, national defense and education, education, education.

I have the privilege of dealing with the end results of social promotion, outcome based education and math without memorization (of math facts like multiplication tables). I deal with the end results of children who were given all A's and B's in high school - lest we diminish their self-esteem - but who have never read an entire chapter in a textbook, written more that a (I am not making this up) nine-paragraph term paper downloaded off the Internet. Children who are given "review sheets" to study for tests - always fill in the blanks instead of having to read the textbook.

Many Republicans are against the concept of "federalizing" education but education was federalized when the Department of Education was formed under Carter in 1979 and enacted under Reagan in 1980. Less than six months later the first Secretary of Education, Lamar Alexander, told President Reagan the if he did not do something about the Department of Education they were going to dismantle the public school system in America with unproven theories like social promotion and outcome based education. And so it was.

Tim Horner, Blue Stater

2004-08-30T20:10:00.000-04:00

Blue Stater response to answers of Question Number 5: What makes you a conservative? What are the values that underlie your allegiance to your chosen form of political belief?

This is how it should have come down:

The question is not whether the free market creates wealth, the question is what kind of wealth and at what cost. Is everyone getting wealthy? Does the system give everyone a fair chance, or is it structured to maintain those who have resources. One of the problems I have with this kind of thinking is that it assumes that the market is fair and that it does not discriminate between those with resources and those without.

The market is ruthless and driven by nothing but greed and consumption. You have to have money to make money. When our quality of life is measured in square footage and the number of appliances we own, then I am suspicious. Having lived in England for seven years, I can tell you that living space is not connected to happiness or wealth.

In some ways, the Europeans have an edge on us Americans because they are not plagued by the size of things. Bigger is not always better. So what if you have a larger apartment to be poor in? Is having a mortgage that you cant pay an advantage? Does paying 19 percent on your credit card make you happy? After all, you have that great TV and all those channels of interesting programming! It might make the economy happy, but does it make you happy?

If there is one thing that I am trying to instill in my children it is the realization that quality should always win out over quantity. And that quality is not found at the mall or on TV or even in the GNP. Quality is not the size of your house or your SUV or your erogenous zones.

I also think that comparing ourselves to other countries is a cop-out. As Americans we should compare ourselves to our own ideals. What happens when we compare is that the poor become the "poor." Maybe knowing that they have more things to plug in will stop them complaining. It comes masked as a kind of count-your-blessings thing, but really it is an appeal to maintaining the status quo and not changing a thing.

Conservatives tend to look back and long for the day when life was simple and good and wholesome. Surprise, that time never existed. Besides, America should always strive to progress. Who cares if we have bigger houses, more shopping networks, and an economy that dwarfs the rest of the world. We are Americans and that means that we have a responsibility to EVERY American.

An unbridled free market does not help every American. It is built on the backs of those that have less and cannot compete because of discrimination, education, or money. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that those who benefit from the system are more likely to want to keep it, but when the cost of that system overrides the American ideals of equality and fairness, then there is a problem. I don't want to be a part of that mentality even though I benefit from it.

What is comes down to is a flawed assumption: The market is good and government is bad. Both have their good side and their bad side. They both need to be present to help keep the other in check. Capitalism keeps us from sliding into socialism, which has not proved itself to be successful for all sorts of reasons. But government, when it is done well and with a social conscience, keeps us from becoming completely absorbed in our own pursuits and living as ruthless consumers. Without a balance of both we will not progress. That is one reason why I like to be a called a progressive. What is wrong with progress?

As for education, I am stunned that Cindy thinks that conservatives have done more for education.

As a teacher I could not disagree more. How can pulling the floor out from under education be a good thing? The idea that we need to go back to the one-room schoolhouse and the three Rs is ludicrous. I teach in the humanities where thinking and writing are extremely important. But year after year I see very privileged students come to college with little or no ability to write or think critically. They have been taught to do well on their tests so that their schools get all the funding they can.

My 13-year-old daughter caught this right away. "Daddy, why do they give more money to the schools that have high test scores? Wouldn't it make sense to spend more time on the schools that don't do as well?" Yes, but not with a conservative ideology that is built on the premise that you exalt the talented and leave the rest behind. No Child Left Behind is a wonderful idea, but that is all it is under this administration.

I share Cindy's concern with education but I do not see how this kind of fiscal austerity will result in the kind of students who can move America forward. We need educated Americans as much as we need trained Americans. Let's spend money on our kids, not military misadventures.

I have a tougher time with Joe's comments. I too grew up with the same set of maxims as him. My grandfather was a farmer and I grew up in a small Iowa town. I learned to fix my own cars because I could not see paying mechanics when I could do the work; same for painting my house, building my own deck, and renovating the attic this summer for the boys.

As I get older, I have to watch that I don't balloon out of control because I can't let anyone throw food away in our house. But I ride my bike to work every day because I don't like dragging around a huge chunk of metal. My kids are the same way; frugal, resourceful, and careful about consuming things. For me, all of my small town values have pushed me to be MORE liberal.

Look at the atrocious spending habits of our current president. Look at the waste and corruption and near total neglect of our natural resources. Talk about throwing food away! I simply do not buy the myth that this set of values (which I wholeheartedly agree with) leads to conservative politics.

But Joe's comments are more revealing than that. It's not that he is wholeheartedly supportive of the president - his previous comments are not blind party line politics - but he is adamant about one thing: He's no liberal! This, I believe, is what many conservatives think. It's not that Bush is so great, but the if the choice is between liberal and conservative, they will go with conservative even if it means voting for Bush to vote against Kerry.

There is a little of that thinking in me as well, mutatis mutandis. This aversion to liberals is partly the fault of the liberals who have done a less than satisfactory job of defining themselves in the marketplace of ideas. The last few months, however, have been exciting because for the first time in a long time, Democrats are united. But the word "liberal" as a smear is also a product of a relentless and mostly successful media campaign by conservatives to paint liberals as urban, latte drinking, Birkenstock wearing, idealistic, ex-hippie types, who are as brainless as the Republican rube stereotype. Both are equally false.

Liberals, or progressives as we like to be called now, need to do a better job defining ourselves. Many of us hold the same "family values" but we do not feel the urge to pound it over peoples' heads. I am not speaking about Joe here, because I get the feeling that he is not that type either. But for me, heartland values can just as easily lead to liberalism. Look at Iowa, Minnesota, and Alabama.

For me a crucial difference is whether we focus our energy on ourselves or whether these values are translated into the larger world beyond nationalism (called patriotism by many conservatives), the free market, and cultural practices. In both of the Red State descriptions, there is a concern for personal wealth and well being. In my opinion, this is provincial and limited. We can do better. Isn't the well-being of others equally important to our personal well-being? I am speaking in general here and am not trying to personalize this idea, but Cindy and Joe do represent this kind of emphasis. It is not something I share even if the values are the same.

Terri Falbo, Blue Stater

2004-08-30T20:06:00.000-04:00

Blue Stater response to answers of Question Number 5: What makes you a conservative? What are the values that underlie your allegiance to your chosen form of political belief?

To me, the essay by Joe Franklin underscores the inadequacy of using conservative versus liberal or Republican versus Democrat to talk about the main divisions in U.S. political policies and thinking today. I totally support the values he outlines as "an honest day's pay for an honest day's work," "waste not, want not," "if it's broken, fix it, don't throw it away" and "pay as you go."

It is the domination of our economy, politics and culture by giant wealthy corporations that subverts these values. Some people are born with so much wealth that they never have to do a single "honest day's work." Others work more than an honest day's work every single day of their life and still cannot make ends meet. Corporate policies denigrate the environment and encourage wastefulness and a throw-away society. Corporate advertisements are designed to make us feel totally insecure and unworthy if we don't have the newest, latest whatever - even if it means having to borrow.

The essay by Cynthia Sneed addresses the "free-market" ideology rather than values. As long as we continue to allow some people to have hundreds of thousands of times more wealth than others, then letting markets determine everything will create major problems. In the marketplace, one dollar equals one vote, so one individual can have hundreds of thousands of times more "votes" than another. At least, with government, we theoretically have one person, one vote!

The main problem I see with our government is that we have allowed corporations and "the market" to dominate it also – "the best government money can buy," as they say!

We need to have a culture of citizenship and a true government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Then we wouldn't even think in terms of government "owing" or "not owing." Instead it would be "we the people" coming together to decide what type of society we want and how we can best obtain it.

Many times it is more efficient and cheaper to produce or buy things in quantity (economies of scale). We can come together as a people to do this. We can "cut out the middleman," i.e.: those not directly involved in producing the service or good, but only there to make a profit.

As far as Bergstrom and Gidehag saying that the U.S. poor have a high standard of living - I would like to see them try to live on a total annual household income of under $18,000 per year as 20 percent of U.S. households do! (Or even the $34,000 annually, under which 40 percent of U.S. households fall.) The fact remains that most surveys show the U.S. with a lower standard of living than many European countries, and the buying power of the U.S. worker has been slipping since 1973.

As for morality, I feel treating others the way you would like to be treated is of utmost importance. Someone who is being honest in a personal relationship and treating the other person with respect and love is being moral, while someone being dishonest, disrespectful, or unloving is immoral - regardless of sexual orientation.

Cynthia Sneed, Red Stater

2004-08-23T15:37:00.000-04:00

Question Number Four: Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Aug. 9 that he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found. How does this affect the way you view his credibility on the issue of national security?

Sen. John Kerry has promised to "reform" the intelligence system to enhance national security and, since he was a sitting member of the intelligence committee, one would think that he would be well positioned to recommended sweeping and aggressive changes. The only problem is that he attended only 11 of the 49 public hearings (missing 77 percent of the public hearings) between 1993 and 2001. He missed the June 8, 2000, hearing on the National Commission on Terrorism, during which the committee was warned about terrorist threats faced by the United States and recommendations made to address the threats.

In 1994, a year after the first World Trade Center attack, Kerry missed every single hearing, including the hearing at the Joint Security Commission. He complained that most of the meetings were "closed-door," meaning that the attendance figures are not made public, but he has offered no evidence of his attendance at those meetings, either. Other members of the committee, including Republicans, are declining to reveal whether Kerry did or did not attend the meetings but did say that they would release the attendance records if Kerry requested that they do so, and to date Kerry has not made such a request.

John Kerry was, however, more consistent on Iraq than on possibly any other issue between 1990 and 2003. His positions on Iraq were as follows:

October 1990: "Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. . . . The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, Oct. 2, 1990, p. S14330)

November 1997: "It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Congressional Record, November 9, 1997, pp. S12254-S12255)

1998: "Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction." (news conference, Dec. 12, 1998)

July 10, 2004: According to the Boston Globe, Kerry and John Edwards accused the Bush administration of misleading the nation and of manipulating intelligence analysts to win support for the invasion of Iraq, though both senators stood by their votes authorizing the war.

Now Kerry has promised to withdraw our troops from Iraq within the first year as the French and Germans bring in their troops. John Kerry says that the French and Germans will send troops in place of the Americans to secure Iraq. Reporters covering the both embassies say neither country has given any indication that they would be willing to send troops for any reason.

Kerry, who said on Aug. 1, 2004, that it was time to realign troops away from Cold War stations and towards the new threat matrix, said on Aug. 16 that it was a mistake to move the troops from Germany and South Korea.

So Kerry is going to remove troops from the only place on the planet where America faces a national security threat (the Middle East) and keep the very troops he said he would move three weeks ago stationed in Germany and South Korea.

Now, what we have is a presidential candidate who has said for 13 years that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were threats to national security, that Iraq had WMD, and that Saddam would use those weapons. President Bush, having seen the same intelligence information that Kerry apparently had seen (maybe Kerry read the reports instead of attending the meetings), and dealing with the aftermath of an attack more devastating than Pearl Harbor, determined that, based on those intelligence reports, Saddam was a threat to national security and removed him from his government.

Now candidate Kerry says Bush had "misled" us into a war based on false information about WMD - which means that Kerry, too, was wrong about Iraq for the last 13 years.

People say Kerry has a credibility problem. My question is: What credibility?

Terri Falbo, Blue Stater

2004-08-23T14:25:00.000-04:00

Because I don't believe the use of force in Iraq had anything to do with our national security, it is difficult to answer this question as stated, but here goes.

On many news programs on and after Aug. 9, President Bush repeated that "Kerry said he would have gone into Iraq!"

To me, any credibility that President Bush and supporters had was ruined by their statements regarding this matter. Kerry's actual words and deeds were far different from what was attributed to him. Voting to give a president the authority to do something, should he feel the absolute necessity of doing it, is not the same as saying that you agree that the president, so authorized, did the right thing later, or that you would have done as he did. Kerry might have thought it important to show unity and strength as a threat - not realizing that the President would then choose to use his authorization when it was not necessary to protect the American people.

I must say that I do not agree that Kerry or the Congress as a whole should have voted to give the President authority to use force on that day in October 2002. Since the authorization vote, we've learned that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (which we also have learned had the United Nations inspectors been permitted by our country to continue their work). We have also learned that Iraq was not linked to Sept. 11 or to al-Qaeda. Even before the vote, there was already plenty of information available that indicated that the President, along with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense paul Wolfowitz, and others had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq since long before Sept. 11, 2001. Why? The most brilliant analysis I have seen so far appears in an article titled "Baghdad Year Zero" by Naomi Klein in the September 2004 issue of Harpers Magazine.

Many have said that the problem with the Iraq war is that President Bush did not have a postwar plan. Klein argues that there was and is a plan; the problem is that the plan is wrong. She refers to a statement by Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) that Iraq is "a huge pot of honey that's attracting a lot of flies." The honey is oil wealth, no-bid contracts, and enormous investment opportunities created by the lifting of sanctions and privatizing of formerly government-owned enterprises. The flies are the Halliburtons, Bechtels, Unocals, and venture capitalists. Simply put, the plan is to lay out as much honey as possible, then sit back and wait for the flies. This theory comes from the most cherished of conservative beliefs - that greed is good. With this view, the role of good government is to create best possible conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed. Anything promoting corporate profits is then defined as the "national interest" and in the interest of "national security."

The toll on our stance in the world. Because of that worldview, our foreign and military policy has too often fought against liberty, justice, and freedom throughout much of the world for more than 100 years (http://www.worldzone.net/famil/johnanderson/warisaracket.shtml). The totally undemocratic actions of American corporate and military interests have turned many people in other countries against U.S. institutions. Around the world, people from mature democratic nations have favored legislation that counteracts unbridled greed. When most people are free, they want restrictions on greed. Most free people want to join together and laws enforcing health and safety standards, environmental regulations, living wages, etc. This type of freedom inhibits the freedom of corporations to pursue their bottomless greed. The U.S.-backed governement has repressed Iraqi trade unions.

The toll on Americans. To date, almost 1,000 Americans have been killed in this war, and many times that have been injured. How many more will die, become injured, or suffer the multiple effects from depleted uranium poisoning? How many trillions of tax dollars will be diverted? There is no end in sight. In addition, our status in the world again has been tarnished. We are seen as occupiers, not liberators.

The Iraqi Toll. The U.S. military refuses to make public its own estimates of how many Iraqi civilians have been killed during the war. Approximately 12,000 Iraqi civilians have been reported killed (http://www.iraqbodycount.net), and many experts agree that the majority of civilian deaths do not get reported. An Iraqi organization, the People's Kifah, undertook a survey that documented more than 37,000 civilian deaths in just the first seven months of the war (March 20, 2003, through October 2003). In December 2003, the head of statistics for the Iraqi health ministry alleged that a survey it was conducting was ordered shut down by the U.S.-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority. Serious injuries and poisonings from depleted uranium add to the toll.

Regardless of who wins the election, we need to have a serious, uncensored national discussion about the phrases national interest and national security. Should we continue to allow our tax dollars and young people to be used for corporate freedom? Do we need to go through a national 12-step program, admitting that we have a long-term problem that has hurt ourselves and others - and making amends to those we have hurt? (Just because one group of people has hurt us does not give us the right to go out and hurt others who were not responsible.)

Will a Kerry victory allow for such a discussion? My hope is that it would.

Joe Franklin, Red Stater

2004-08-23T14:04:00.000-04:00

Question Number Four: Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Aug. 9 that he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would we found. How does this affect the way you view his credibility on the issue of national security?

Did Sen. Kerry make this statement? Did he qualify it with some long, confusing rhetorical dialogue - "I did; I did not . . . I will; I might . . . I will not . . . I'm for it; I'm against it . . . it's to be; it's not to be"? Who gave him this line, President Bush or Vice President Cheney? Has someone been plundering in Washington other than Sandy "Burgler"? He should have cleared this statement with Howard Dean's supporters before opening his mouth and inserting his foot.

Has Kerry ceased to flip-flop and totally flipped? Kerry supporters have described him as a very complex man. Now I believe them. I have detected considerable support for Kerry in South Alabama because of the voters' disapproval of the war in Iraq. If Kerry keeps talking as he did on Aug. 9, many of these voters may stay at home on election day.

It could have been much simpler for Sen. Kerry if he had attended those intelligence committee meetings and voted against the war powers resolution along with Sens. Kennedy, Byrd, Graham, and 20 others back in October of 2002. Kerry has hedged on the war throughout his campaign for president. Is he now trying to firm up his position on the war? He stated that as president, he "would have used that authority effectively." He had previously said that he would have formed a broader coalition. So, if he were president now, would be still be waiting on France and Germany to join in?

On the same day, Aug. 9, he told Stars and Stripes magazine that the guards and reserves are overstretched, that Bush had conducted a back-door draft, and that he [Kerry] supported the military strategy. He charged the administration with failing to send the troops all the equipment - body armor and armored Humvees - they needed and deserved, and that Bush had not deployed enough troops to establish security. make it secure. Kerry promised to make sure that the military has state-of-the-art equipment, create two new divisions in the army, and double the number of Special Forces troops we have to fight terror. How can he promise all this when his record shows that he has consistently voted against defense spending?

Perhaps Kerry suffered a memory lapse on Aug. 9. He forgot about the many Democrats who oppose the war in Iraq. Thus far, the Kerry campaign has repeatedly criticized President Bush for his prosecution of the war in Iraq and made a huge issue of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. In criticizing President Bush last week for withdrawing troops from Europe and Korea, the senator described North Korea as a "country that really has nuclear weapons," thus insinuating that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Kerry's campaign is best described as a revolving flip-flop. Maybe he is an evolving, revolving flip-flopper. How else to explain how he began his political career as an antiwar activist, did not support the Gulf War under the elder George Bush, and yet voted for the congressional resolution on authorizing the President?

And more to the point: With these incredibly contradictory statements, how can anyone put any credence in his national security plan?

Tim Horner, Blue Stater

2004-08-20T10:00:00.000-04:00

Question Number Four: Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Aug. 9 that he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found. How does this affect the way you view his credibility on the issue of national security?

This is how it should have come down:

Bush: "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."

Kerry: "If the President is asking if I would have supported this war on Iraq, then the answer is no. I would not have done what president Bush did. I would not have rushed to war based on scant flimsy evidence. I would not have alienated nearly all of our allies in the process. I would have considered the cost in human lives and I would have asked myself if attacking Iraq was really the way to capture Osama bin Laden and bring al-Qaeda to justice. If President Bush had considered these questions carefully, then perhaps we would not be in the mess we are today. But if the President is asking if I support my vote to grant the President the authority to use military force at that time in the diplomatic process with Saddam Hussein, then yes, I stand behind my decision."

But sadly, that did not happen. There is no question that Kerry fell down on this one. He did not seem to realize that the question was loaded. The question Bush asked was designed to put Kerry in an uncomfortable situation. It was a savvy, Rovey question, and Kerry fell for it. Instead of using the question to highlight Bush's mishandling of the war, he just said, "Yes" (or at least that is what came out of it). So none of all the headlines, even the question for the week, made the distinction between authorizing presidential authority and endorsing Bush's war.

I don't blame the media or the public. This is really a case of Kerry not stepping back and looking at the big picture. There is no denying that Kerry has a tough time translating his idea to the general population. Bush is great at making complex problems look simple. Unfortunately, simplicity usually translates into simplistic when it comes to real life. I wish there were only Americans and terrorists. Life would be so simple then. But it's not. This election may be asking us whether we as a people want our country to be run by sound bytes and clever gameshow repartee. Or maybe it is time for a more serious, thoughtful (even intellectual?) leader. If we want a more intelligent politics, we have to start paying attention to words and making thoughtful distinctions between actions and authority.

Has Kerry taken a hit on this one? Maybe. Maybe not. Kerry clearly is trying to position himself as a tougher -- and smarter -- president than Bush. He is trying to make a difficult distinction in one sentence: I supported the authority of the President but not the actions of the President. Mincing words? Maybe, but it is an important difference.

"Your honor, I cannot be charged with vehicular manslaughter because the state of Pennsylvania, of which you are a part of, granted me a valid driving license back in October 2002. They, or should I say you, gave me the authority to drive that car wherever I wanted. I ask you, judge, how can you sit there and accuse me when you authorized me to drive? (Looks like the judge is in the mood for waffles, huh folks?) Judge, I challenge you to answer this question: Knowing what we know now about my driving and the victims, a few of which were really bad people, would you have given me that license?"

I know what I would have said.

Joe Franklin, Red Stater

2004-08-16T18:06:00.000-04:00

Question Number Three: John Kerry's Vietnam War record has been called into question. One group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is being backed by several Republican backers of President Bush. It has launched a Web site and aired TV ads calling into question Kerry's medals awarded during Vietnam. A book, Unfit for Command by John O'Neill, suggests Kerry is lying about his war record. What do you make of such tactics? Should they carry much weight with voters?

There are many issues of more importance facing our country during the upcoming election than Sen. Kerry's war record. President Bush's National Guard record is not important, either.

If war records were a prerequisite for becoming president, former Sen. Bob Dole would have been elected or perhaps former Sen. Bob Kerrey. President Clinton would have never been elected.

Perhaps Kerry's record as an antiwar activist is the reason this issue is resurfacing. No doubt, a lot of veterans lost any respect they might have held for Kerry because of his post-Vietnam activism.

The interviews of [Unfit for Command coauthor] John O'Neill and [Vietnam vet and Kerry defender] Jim Rassmann that I've seen left me with the impression that both were creditable. O'Neill's position is nothing new. He's made his claims for more than 30 years.

I've not read the books concerning Kerry's war record or seen the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.

The veterans, both pro and con, have a right to be heard. There appears to be far more anti-Kerry veterans than those supporting him. It is difficult to believe all the recollections of these vets were bought! The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads may influence a handful of voters, but I doubt it. On the other hand, these voters deserve to know everything about any candidate's past because that candidate's future might have a huge impact on our nation.

Perhaps we need to focus on the troops in harm's way in Iraq. The Vietnam War is history today just as World War I was in the 1960. I don't recall any hoopla about World War I in the '50s or '60s.

The difference is in the veterans. Most from the "Big Wars" never discussed their experiences, seldom complained, and never bragged like some of those in more recent times. I recall hearing a long departed WWII veteran say, "The difference in a veteran and a veteran of a foreign war is, a veteran of a foreign war can tell a bigger lie and no one will dispute him." Even though this was said in jest, he might recant that statement if he were alive today. If the old veteran ever lied he sure as hell did not do it before the United States senate, in a signed affidavit or in a book.

A man of many faces and many positions, like Sen. Kerry, will glean votes for his war record and antiwar record! Oh well, the Republicans have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Democrats have . . . Michael Moore.

Most people in South Alabama had rather sit down to dinner or enjoy a ball game with the Swift Boat Veterans than give Michael Moore the time of day.

Is the problem John Kerry's war record or John Kerry's record of the war? Read his 1971 Senate testimony and the rebuttals by hundreds of Vietnam veteran’s (found on the Web and in numerous publications). It simply is not plausible that these veterans are liars. Neither is it plausible that they are all Republicans.

Terri Falbo, Blue Stater

2004-08-16T17:00:00.000-04:00

Question Number Three: John Kerry's Vietnam War record has been called into question. One group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is being backed by several Republican backers of President Bush. It has launched a Web site and aired TV ads calling into question Kerry's medals awarded during Vietnam. A book, Unfit to Command by John O'Neill, suggests Kerry is lying about his war record. What do you make of such tactics? Should they carry much weight with voters?

When a candidate makes any issue a cornerstone of his campaign, in general there is nothing wrong with opponents pointing out falsehoods or contradictions.

However, by the same token, it is also important to question their inconsistencies, veracity, and possible motives. In doing so, voters should not get so mired in minute details that we lose sight of the important overall issues such as the economy, war and the direction of foreign policy, health care, education, the environment, equal rights for all, etc.

An important fact to consider is that all Kerry's crewmates who are still alive are supporting him. The critics in the ad who say they served with Kerry were on other boats. It is possible that their perception of events that led to Kerry receiving one of his medals was different than the account given by Jim Rassmann, the life-long Republican who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for saving his life.

However, nothing I have seen on the Web site or heard on hours of right-wing radio proves to me an "unfitness to command."

In addition, the allegations raise many questions. Some of their claims just make no sense, and their connections with and financing by the same people who smeared John McCain and Max Cleland lead me question the motives of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Let's assume the Swift Boat ad claim that Kerry's medals are all based on lies is true. What does that say about those responsible for awarding the medals – and about the whole process?

John O'Neill and others involved claim Kerry was lying about being in Cambodia. (Since Nixon started secret bombing almost immediately after his inauguration, it stands to reason that there would have been reconnaissance missions in the month preceding.) They say Kerry lied about atrocities taking place in Vietnam. They never explain WHY someone would say they did something wrong when they didn't! It's more likely that people would lie to cover up a wrongdoing, as initially happened in the case of the My Lai massacre. It makes sense that someone who is hungry for power and money would say what those with the most power and money would like them to say (which is that U.S. corporations and military interventions are always in the right). But it makes NO sense for someone to lie to say their group did
something wrong when they really didn't!

It's interesting that the smear campaign against Kerry started to surface soon after the Toledo Blade reporters won the Pulitzer Prize for their series investigating U.S. military atrocities in Vietnam that linked the actions to official military policy and what historian Christian Appy terms the "doctrine of atrocity." The series was sympathetic towards both the Vietnamese victims and the U.S. soldiers, many of whom suffered emotional and mental breakdowns resulting from their wartime actions.

Rather than any real concern over how medals were won, it makes more sense that the following (in reverse chronological order) are the real motives behind the current anti-Kerry campaign.

Aug 2: A CBS News poll showed John Kerry even with the President among veterans who are registered voters. Veteran households make up 30 percent of the electorate and have in recent decades given the Republican Party at least 60 percent of their votes.

July: Release of Fahrenheit 9/11 causes people to think and to put some of the pieces together. (I've heard no mention in the media of my favorite part -- where George W. Bush tells a group at a fundraiser, "What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base.?")

April: Toledo Blade reporters win Pulitzer Prize for investigation of atrocities in Vietnam (mentioned above) – Swift Boat Veterans for Truth established in May.

August 2003: The Bush administration announced it was closing seven VA hospitals, despite reports of hundreds of thousands of veterans being forced to wait over six months for an initial visit to a physician at a VA facility. A thousand veterans and supporters protested in Waco, Texas, against the closing of a facility there while the president vacationed nearby.

April 2003: The Bush administration sent to the House its proposal for cutting $844 million from veterans' health care from the 2004 budget and almost $10 billion over 10 years. The 18 Democrats opposed the cuts, but an almost perfect party-line vote of 22-19 was to proceed. Only after constituents expressed outrage was the plan scrapped. The Defense Department planned to cut back the pay for the 148,000 troops in Iraq, but after criticism from Democrats, announced pay would not be cut.

March 2003: US Troops sent to Iraq.

Winter of 2002-2003: Marches and demonstrations throughout the United States opposing intervention in Iraq. Many labor unions (including the Philadelphia AFL-CIO Central Labor Council) passed resolutions against the impending war in Iraq, with statements such as, "The principal victims of a war will be the sons and daughters of working class families serving in the military and innocent Iraqi civilians."

Fall of 2002: Bush administration attention is diverted to Iraq, though there is no evidence of a connection with Sept. 11, 2001.

1971: Kerry testifies about atrocities in Vietnam.

1967: Founding of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

1964: Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to escalate the Vietnam War is based on misinformation or disinformation.

1940: Excerpt from speeches by Retired Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service, and during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico . . . safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."

1898: Randolph Hearst publications claim USS Maine was fired upon (despite lack of evidence) to get citizen support for sending troops to Cuba and the Philippines.

When will we learn?

Cynthia Sneed, Red Stater

2004-08-16T10:03:00.000-04:00

What John O'Neill, longtime Kerry nemesis and coauthor of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, should have done was hire an independent Hollywood producer to make his book into a feature film. The movie would be released at a glitzy film festival with fat cats attending the premier and would be nominated for, and win, an Academy Award.

Meanwhile, the producer would go to the Republican convention as a mega rock star, partying with the movers and shakers in the Republican Party. All of the major media anchors would discuss the "documentary" in a serious tone while newspaper editors across the land would refer to the O'Neill account of Kerry's Vietnam service as "troubling" and "worthy of investigation."

Of course, O'Neill would have to actually find a Hollywood producer to make the movie. Any book/movie about John Kerry while he is running for president would be met with the same derision and suspicion as the absurd "Clinton Chronicles." [The documentary] in which the Clintons were to have killed or been associated with the deaths of no less than 35 people over the entire course of their lives. I hate to say it, but by the time you are 40 years old people around you start dropping like flies, you find yourself reading the obituaries before the comics. If knowing 35 dead people by the time you are 40 makes you a murder suspect, I need a lawyer - quick.

Those actually keeping up with this stuff (the .0001 percent) are likely more amused than swayed. The Republican Party, very concerned about unregulated 527s that violated the spirit, if not the form, of the campaign finance reform laws, tried to halt the stop these groups unleashed by George Soros and Moveon.org to no avail. Now that the FCC has apparently agreed that it is fine to violate the campaign laws with soft money, conservative supporters - always a day late and a dollar short - have funded groups to run their own ads.

So, what we have is the playground brawl between the mega-millionaire bullies (no, not Teresa Kerry and Lynne Cheney): [moveon.org contributor] George Soros and [Swift Boat Veterans contributor] Bob Perry. We have Michael Moore versus John O'Neill, Fahrenheit 9/11 vs. "Unfit for Command," Hollywood megastars versus angry Vietnam vets. Those vets were vilified when they returned home - in large part because of Lt. Kerry's testimony before Congress that claimed that they were guilty of war crimes. (Kerry now "regrets" his choice of words. Duh.)

The number of vets signing the letter does interest me because there were 300 at the Swift Boat reunion and about 250 were willing to say they thought Kerry unfit to command the military. Of all the Swift Boat vets contacted fewer than 10 percent refused to sign the letter.

About 60 eyewitnesses to Kerry's service are cited in the book. The eyewitnesses were all in Kerry's unit, with each boat carrying seven or eight. The swift boats traveled together in groups of five or six meaning there would be 36 to 40 or more soldiers on the river together at one time. Some eyewitnesses were describing Kerry fleeing comrades who were under attack, disregarding orders, putting others in danger, creating phony film footage of his exploits with a home movie camera, and recommending himself for medals and Purple Hearts in reports he wrote himself.

Why so many Vietnam Vets, many of them lifelong Democrats, would lie about John Kerry - a man they served with in close combat - is unclear. I cannot ever remember any politician from either WWII or the Korean War having members of his own unit question his personal accounts of his service record.

If John Kerry gamed the system to earn his medals, then he was successful at the gaming and parlayed the game into a lifetime career as a politician. If John Kerry had some type of precognitive knowledge that one day he would be running for president, and therefore would need film footage of his duty during the four months in country, then good for him for thinking of making the home movies and group photos. (My father-in-law, who served two tours of combat duty in Vietnam, does not have home movies or photos to share or nary a Purple Heart. He did have a dog there for a while.)

I very much doubt that most Americans can tell you anything about John O'Neill and the swift boaters. Most of us do not live in the key "battleground" states never see any national candidate up close and personal. If either candidate comes to our town they charge $1,000 per ice cube for the event, leaving most of us wondering: "Who are these people that can afford to go to these things?" Then we realize it is Whoopie Goldberg and a bunch of fat-cat corporate executives with more money than common sense.

The rest of us, we take the kids to the beach, go fishing and cookout in the backyard. I do not believe that Michael Moore movies and John O'Neill books influence undecided voters because the vast majority of Americans get their political news from Comedy Central and The Tonight Show.

Tim Horner, Blue Stater

2004-08-16T09:03:00.000-04:00

On the surface this seems like a scathing accusation against Kerry. The commercial aired by the SBVT is very clever, but deceptive.

First, they say that Kerry is lying about what happened in Vietnam. They say that he lied about getting his Purple Heart. Even the doctor that treated him says that he lied about his injuries. And eyewitnesses say he lied about events. But exactly what the lies are is not revealed.

Step back for a minute and think about what they are saying. Are they saying that the military was giving out medals without checking with doctors or fellow crew members to corroborate the facts? Was it that easy to get a medal? These veterans are condemning their own military with these accusations. If there is a scandal, it's how the military awarded medals of honor (Purple Hearts even!) without checking the facts or the doctor who examined him. Is that what they really want to say?

No, they really don't want their own, or anyone's, military medals to come into question. What is really going on here is a very old grudge against Kerry for speaking out against the war in 1971. John O'Neill, who has consistently spoken out against Kerry and is currently on the SBVT Steering Committee, was President Nixon's answer to Kerry back in '71. O'Neill was an attempt to neutralize Kerry's effect on public opinion on the war. It did not work.

The latest SBVT commercial ends by saying that Kerry discredited his country, but not because of the medals or what happened on the swift boat. The real point of contention behind SBVT is his opposition to the Vietnam War.

This is a quote from a letter issued by SBVT addressed to John Kerry. "It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us.) Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war." The real point is not the medals; it is a 33-year-old grudge, and an ugly one at that.

And here's how you can tell that this is not really about the pursuit of truth. The mission statement from the SBVT reads: "We believe it is incumbent on ALL presidential candidates to be totally honest and forthcoming regarding personal background and policy information that would help the voting public make an informed decision when choosing the next president of the United States." I wonder what the SBVT thinks about Bush and his patchy service record (small as it is)? Are they satisfied that he has been forthcoming with all the details of his service to our great country?

It's tough to check whether Bush is lying about the 'lost days' in the National Guard ('72) because no one, not even commanding officers, remember even seeing him there. At least Kerry showed up for his physical. Are these concerned veterans going to apply the same level of scrutiny to our current President? How could any one of these guys vote for someone who took the easy road around Vietnam? If Kerry is bad, then they must hate both Bush and Clinton.

Who are these guys going to vote for: Nader? If I were a veteran (too young), I would have been appalled that Bush wore a combat flack jacket but never flew a mission. I'll bet Bush is doing everything he can to silence this group. What if they looked at his record? But that will never happen, and everyone knows it.

The twist to this is that SBVT is funded by conservatives intent on taking Kerry down a few notches. They are not concerned with anything other than seeing Kerry fall.

Why? Because he spoke out against an unjust war, and he angered some veterans with his accusation of unsavory actions committed by U.S. soldiers. Sadly, we are no longer strangers to that way wars can bring out the worst in us. We are watching a very ugly personal vendetta being played out in the media. It is the lowest form of attack, and it has the blessing of the conservatives. There is no substance here. We have no details, just words. Big, old, angry words. There is no other way to describe this underhanded attack: shameful.

Tim Horner, Blue Stater

2004-08-11T13:13:00.000-04:00

Question Number Two: In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Sen. John Kerry criticized the Bush administration on domestic policy, being especially critical on issues such as veterans, Medicare, and education. Bush counterattacked by declaring that he had "delivered" in all these areas. Whom do you find more persuasive? Has or hasn't Bush "delivered"?

I can't help remembering when Bush declared "mission accomplished" way back in May 2003, when we had lost only 175 American troops (we will hit the 1000 mark in a few months). Well, it was not accomplished. In fact, it was so far from accomplished that it makes me wonder what in heaven's name they were thinking. That is the disconnect between rhetoric and reality in this administration. I guess there is a new standard for presidents. If you say it, it is true. If you say, "Mission accomplished," it is. If you say, "Saddam had nuclear capabilities," he did. If you say he was funding, supporting, and scheming with al-Qaida, then he was. If you say there are WMDs, then there are. If you say you have delivered on the economy, the environment, jobs, security, and compassionate conservatism, then you have.

It all feels too much like a sales pitch. When you are selling something, you don't tend to dwell on the flaws. You accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative. Remember, we are dealing with a President who, when asked, could not think of one mistake he had made during his three years in office, not one! And this was during some of the most turbulent years of American history. In the midst of these tragedies and scandals, Bush has not fired a single person in his cabinet. Why? Because they have not made any mistakes either: Not Rumsfeld, not Ashcroft, not Powell, not anyone. According to President Bush, nobody in this administration has made an single error worthy of losing his or her job or even getting a hand slapped, himself included. Plenty of people have pulled out of this administration (former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill; former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke; Flynt Leverett, senior director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council; and retired Gen. John Shalikashvili), but no one has been fired. I don't know which is more frightening: a President who rushes to war based on flimsiest of evidence (and despite what they say, there were plenty of people in the CIA and FBI who knew this stuff was weak), or one who will not take responsibility as commander and chief for the actions of his own administration and make reforms!

So when Bush says he has delivered, I am skeptical, if not cynical. I sense that there is erosion within his power base. This administration keeps saying the same thing over and over, but people are beginning (finally!) to ask tougher questions. Sure, there are those who will stand behind the President no matter what happens to our country. They tend to think that if Bush is wrong, God is wrong. And God cannot be wrong

But a growing number of people are starting to see through this tactic. This is partly because Bush is behind the barrel right now. What are his choices? He can't run on his 2000 platform of bringing integrity back to the White House. But also he won't admit that Kerry is right about the millions of jobs lost, the damage to the environment, the tax cuts doled out to the rich, the loss of American jobs to overseas outsourcing, the massive deficit that amounts to a mortgage on our children's future, or the fact that terrorism around the world is at an all-time high. So he simply says that he has "delivered." End of speech.

In a tough complex world, nothing goes down as smooth as an easy answer and an empty assurance that it will be just fine (as long as we stay on Orange Alert, of course).

Nevertheless, I have a deep optimism in our ability as a nation to pursue the substance that should stand behind presidential declarations. America is based on this kind of skepticism. Incumbent presidents (Republican or Democrat) should have a tougher time because they have to get re-elected on their records as president, not on their promises for the future. By definition, Bush can't campaign the same way that Kerry can. Bush can't promise reform without undermining the last four years. So the White House is telling us that "it's not as bad as you think." There is no better demonstration of this tactic than this: When on July 15 the White House announced that the federal deficit for 2004 would be $455 billion (up from $374 billion in 2003), it declared this to be "good news" because five months earlier they projected that it would be $521 billion. I've got to try this technique. Next time I go out with my buddies, I will tell my wife that I probably won't be home for several days. Then, when I stagger in at 4:30 in the morning, I can say “Good news, honey! I'm home early!” Honestly, this spin is so crass you can see the strings. Not very impressive. All I am hearing is that, regardless of what we see around us, we need to trust our President to do what is right. Well, I think it is pretty obvious what happens when we do that.

Cynthia Sneed, Red Stater

2004-08-10T14:40:00.000-04:00

Question Number Two: In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Sen. John Kerry criticized the Bush administration on domestic policy, being especially critical of Bush on issues such as veterans, Medicare, and education. Bush counterattacked by declaring that he had "delivered" in all these areas. Whom do you find more persuasive? Has or hasn't Bush "delivered"?

Since I am a teacher, a university professor, I am going to focus on education. Team Kerry/Edwards, the Democratic National Committee, and the National Education Association are against No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and want to repeal the legislation. Kerry, of course, voted for NCLB before he decided against it: He is nothing if not consistent in his inconsistency. The provisions of NCLB are targeted to assessment and accountability. No more football coaches teaching geometry, no more drama teachers in economics.

Educators today in the K-12 system are willing to assess their programs, but they want to set their own standards and then determine themselves if they have met the criteria they developed. They despise standardized tests such as the ACT or SAT because they are reliable indicators of student performance, unlike inflated grades today. The average high school GPA is a 3.0 or higher, but that is not reflected in the ACT score.

What are the dastardly NCLB requirements liberals so despise _ and business school professors, along with those in hard sciences such as biology, physics, and computer science are cheering? They are as follows:

Highly Qualified Teachers: To be deemed highly qualified, teachers must have: 1) a bachelor's degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach (now, how unfair is that?).

States must measure the extent to which all students have highly qualified teachers, particularly minority and disadvantaged students and have a plan as to how to meet the goals of all children having highly qualified teachers.

Demonstration of Competency: Teachers (in middle and high school) must prove that they know the subject they teach Imagine! English teachers who can read and write! Math teachers who can actually count!

President Bush has provided more funding for K-12 education than any other administration. The 2005 budget includes more increases in the budget, a total of $37 billion dollars (up from about $25 billion) -- even though there is no evidence that simply increasing spending on education provides results.

There must be accountability and assessment. They are whining about a lack of funding while overall Department of Education funding by has increased 36 percent, from $42.2 billion to $57.3 billion. Funding for poor students has increased 52 percent. Funding for teacher recruiting and retention has increased 39 percent and funding for reading programs has increased from $286 million to $1.26 billion.

We spend untold billions on correcting the mass problems in K-12 and in remedial education for universities. If we can get them to do a better job in K-12, we will have more resources at the postsecondary level to train a skilled workforce to meet the challenges of a new century. Instead, we are spending time teaching children who have received 12 years of education the basics in math, reading and writing. What is wrong with this picture?

I really do not know how much more money they need to teach kids to read, write and count.

Two independent studies (Education Leaders Council; James Peyser, Chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Education, and Robert Costrell, chief economist in the Massachusetts Executive Office for Administration and Finance) have concluded that NCLB provides enough funding to cover the costs of implementation.

NCLB is the best thing to happen to education in America in 40 years, and all one need do to see the effectiveness of the legislation is to listen to the liberals and teachers' union members screaming about the "unfairness" of the requirements -- while watching the reading and math scores improve.

Anybody who doubts we are in need of a massive overhaul of the educational system in America need only go to their nearest university and ask for the demographic data on majors, especially those in science, computer science, and engineering. How many American students are enrolled? How many American minority students are enrolled? How many international students are enrolled? Why are so many international students studying engineering, chemistry, and computer science compared to American students? What does this mean for future domestic security? What does this mean for our children born, raised and educated here that they are not able to do the work, to understand the concepts it takes to become an engineer or physicist?

The decline of our public education system is the most insidious form of racism and bigotry because it deprives our children of their potential. When a child sits in the classroom for an academic year with a teacher who, maybe with the best of intentions, is not skilled for that course, that child is deprived of a year of learning and growth. When a child sits for year after year in a failing school with no way to move to another school and no hope of better teachers or learning environment, that child is deprived of hope.

As for Medicare, I only have one comment. President Clinton had eight years to provide seniors with some type of drug benefit with no results. The Democrats controlled the House and Senate for most of the last 25 years, when drug costs started steeply climbing, and never did anything. Team Kerry/Edwards apparently have a plan but have not revealed what their plan would require, other than to say they will allow importing drugs from Canada and overseas. Drugs from Mexico -- now there's a new concept.

Joe Franklin, Red Stater

2004-08-10T13:56:00.000-04:00

Sen. Kerry delivered a compelling, patriotic speech to the convention. It would have been great for an Independence Day or Memorial Day celebration, but for an acceptance speech it was soft and thin. Kerry gave no details for issues such as veterans, Medicare, and education.

He needs to: (1) clearly explain his tax reform. We want numbers; (2) lay out his plans on these issues, giving the costs and funding for these programs and pay the deficit; (3) show that his health care/Medicare proposals will not cause a train wreck for those of us struggling to pay for health insurance in the private sector; (4) show us the money; and (5) show us what legislation he has sponsored during his Senate career on furthering the above issues.

If there are no proposals on these issues in his record as a senator, the people of Massachusetts and the nation are the losers. If he has been aware for years of these issues and is only now professing them during this presidential campaign, the people are again the losers. Does one sit on these issues until they have presidential aspirations? Perhaps that explains why we have elected governors over senators for president in recent history.

The acceptance speech mentioned only two items regarding his Senate career: putting 100,000 cops on the street and working with Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) to find the truth on prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action, finally to make peace with Vietnam. The report on POWs AND MIAs, however, was inconclusive: No determination was made of POWs alive at the end of the war.

Yes, I believe President Bush has delivered on veterans, Medicare and education. What about the increase of over $20 billion in veterans benefits since 2001? (Note: Kerry has consistently voted against Veterans Administration and veterans health care.) What about the coverage for prescription drugs for seniors and disabled under Medicare? (Note: Kerry has missed numerous votes on Medicare issues.) What about No Child Left Behind, school choice, and other education issues? (Note: Where was Sen. Kerry?)

Terri Falbo, Blue Stater

2004-08-10T13:33:00.000-04:00

It is a sad statement about our society that as the wealthiest country on earth we have not found a way to provide health coverage for all of our seniors, quality education for our children, nor even adequate health care and sustenance for our veterans. Unfortunately, the policies of the current administration have moved us further away from these worthy objectives.

Medicare. When you really look into the Medicare prescription drug bill passed last November, you can see that it was written by - and to benefit - big drug companies rather than for our seniors and people with disabilities. It gives hundreds of billions in contracts and tax breaks to drug companies and the insurance industry, yet has enormous gaps in coverage, does nothing to control drug prices, and is already contributing to the worsening finances of the Medicare system, according to independent trustees who monitor Medicare.

* David Halbert, a Texas financial backer of President Bush (who happens to be a drug industry executive), personally crafted the new drug card program. His company was one of the first approved to participate in the program. A provision in the bill actually prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices - common practice in business when buying in large quantity. Another provision pushed by a coalition of big drug companies, the so-called Employers' Coalition on Medicare, will give taxpayer subsidies to HMOs who want to lure seniors away from traditional Medicare coverage. HMOs will get this subsidy even for reducing retirees' existing drug coverage. So this subsidy effectively provides a financial incentive to reduce retiree benefits, according to the Center for American Progress.

The Bush administration used Medicare funds to produce and distribute covert propaganda disguised as news stories praising the proposed law, according to the General Accounting Office, a neutral investigative arm of Congress. Also with taxpayer money, the Bush administration carried out a $12.6 million advertising campaign promoting the new Medicare drug law.

* Many seniors have sought relief from high prescription-drug prices by buying them illegally from Canada, where the government has been able to negotiate much lower prices. So far, no seniors have been arrested, but the Bush administration has opposed the proposed bill to legalize the purchase of Canadian prescription drugs.

Education. Many public schools in the United States are literally falling down around the children, with leaking roofs and cracking plaster. Maps, books, and other supplies are often pitifully out of date. Many teachers use part of their modest salaries to buy basic supplies for their students with their own money. It is not uncommon for classrooms to have over 30 or 40 students. While, undoubtedly, some exceptional students are able to learn in such environments, who could argue that such conditions make the task more difficult?

Some countries where excellent public education is a reality (such as Sweden) limit class size to 15 students per teacher. As many studies have shown, what's needed is the investment of more public money in the following:

* more teachers for smaller classes
* repair of dilapidated schools
* fuller funding for Head Start, Early Head Start, and other resources so children arrive ready to learn.

The policies put forth by President Bush and his advocates do absolutely nothing to address the main problems plaguing public education in the United States. Instead, the main idea they advance is that schools, teachers, and parents have to be “held accountable.” Then there is always the condemnation of “throwing money” at the schools. But these are code words and phrases designed to keep people from really thinking. No one would argue that anyone should be unaccountable or that money should just be thrown!

So how does the President think that everyone involved is held accountable? The main basis of his No Child Left Behind act is to administer more standardized tests and to slash funding for schools that do not have enough passing scores. The pressure is on everyone to teach and learn “to the test” rather than in learning how to learn or to develop cognitive ability. On top of this extremely narrow view of knowledge acquisition is woefully inadequate funding. Some states are rebelling and declaring that they will not comply with NCLB because it amounts to an unfunded federal mandate that is burdensome and likely to produce questionable results.

I say: Stop throwing the money at the companies that produce, administer, and evaluate the standardized tests and start directing it where it will make a real positive difference.

Veterans. Despite all the rhetoric, President Bush's record shows a blatant disregard for veterans, as well as those currently serving in the military.
Take spending on Veterans Administration health-care costs. VA officials have testified that it would take a 13 to 14 percent hike in the VA health care budget just to maintain the status quo. This is in line with recent inflation nationally in health-care costs. Even so, the President supported only a 5.4 percent increase. In August 2003, the Bush administration announced the closing of seven VA hospitals around the country, despite reports of at least 230,000 veterans being forced to wait more than six months for an initial visit to a physician at VA medical facilities.

In January 2003, the Bush administration announced it would cut access to health benefits for 160,000 middle-income veterans (Associated Press, 1/16/03). Then the President proposed more than doubling prescription co-pays for veterans earning more than $24,000. A Democratic amendment rejected that increase (Washington Post 7/22/03).

In summary, the President's policies have indeed “delivered” - to the giant corporations, insurance companies, drug manufacturers, testing companies, and military contractors — instead of to our seniors, children, veterans, or the welfare of the public at large.

Terri Falbo, Blue Stater

2004-08-05T14:30:00.000-04:00

On Feb. 25, President Bush announced his support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. At the end of his statement, he said that we should conduct this debate "in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency."

I would welcome such a discussion, but unfortunately this is not what I have heard. Instead, I hear the same emotional, fear-producing phrases repeated constantly, with little questioning and no reasonable explanations. The fact that I do not see the President and other advocates of the proposed constitutional amendment conducting the discussion with "good will and decency" leads me to believe that they are deliberately using it to stir up unfounded fears, divisions and hatred, and as a diversion from other issues. This does not mean, however, that the issue will have no impact on this fall's election. Unfortunately, prominent proponents of the constitutional amendment are probably correct in their assessment that they can sway some voters into not really analyzing the issues, but rather to vote based on negative emotions.

The President's Feb. 25 statement spoke of a few "activist judges" and local officials making an "aggressive attempt to redefine marriage" and "presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization." "Democratic action" is needed, according to the President, "if we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever."

Our own state's Sen. Rick Santorum recently said, "We're in the process right now of judges and vigilantes - people taking justice into their own hands," devaluing marriage, and "deciding to change the law without either the courts or the legislature acting."

Former Presidential candidate Gary Bauer, President Bush, and many other proponents of the constitutional ban have stated that every civilization known in the world has "defined marriage" in the same way for thousands of years!

So the basic message demagogued every day is: A few vigilantes with no decent values are aggressively changing timeless (God-given?) "meanings" and "definitions" and threatening the welfare of children, the stability of society, and the whole of civilization! Pretty scary, "evil" stuff! Maybe the work of the Devil!

But what about conducting this discussion in a manner worthy of our country? Instead of name-calling, instead of language cleverly designed to promote fear, hatred, and division, what about a reasonable discussion based on answering questions with real explanations?

If I could sit in a room with the President or Sen. Santorum, these are some questions I would like to ask: Why do you portray the judges in question "vigilantes" who are taking the law into their own hands and "redefining" marriage? I am sure they do not consider this to be what they are doing. For instance, the Massachusetts State Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. Couldn't it be that the judges really believe they are properly interpreting their state's constitution? Just HOW does extending marriage rights to all citizens "devalue" or harm marriage or children - or anyone, for that matter? (Can you answer concretely, without resorting to vague emotional phrases about changing meanings and definitions?)

How can you possibly say that marriage has been the same in all civilizations for thousands of years? I can remember being disappointed and a bit shocked as a child when reading the Bible, to find that there was no mention of the wedding ceremonies and vows I had witnessed repeatedly on television - and that quite a few great men of God had many wives! What about the human societies where the brothers of the mothers had responsibilities for raising her children - not biological fathers? And who could argue with the fact that the "commitment to love and serve" was normally a one-way commitment on the part of the woman until recently?

Why do you say the "purpose" of marriage is for raising children? If that is the case, then what about opposite-sex couples who are elderly or infertile? Or those who just don't want to have children? Should they be banned from marriage?

What kinds of policies will do the most to encourage the long-term commitment of people to each other, promote the welfare of children, and bring out the best of human values? What about economic policies that guarantee a living wage, time off with pay, child care, and good health care for all? (The June 17 report from the Project on Global Working Families found that the United States offers fewer working family benefits than most other nations.) This would ensure that these issues would not be sources of stress leading to tearing families apart. What about free marriage counseling? What about less promotion of a corporate/consumer culture and promotion of a culture of citizenship instead? Corporate culture is about thinking of the greatest returns for the least investment, me first, no longterm commitments or relationships, externalizing costs (making someone else pay) - that is, the worst possible human values.

Suppose we thought of ourselves mainly as consumers in a marketplace. Would that not promote a breakdown of society and decent human values? Everything and everyone becomes a commodity to be used, bought, and sold.

These are the types of questions that need to be seriously addressed to conduct a discussion with kindness and good will and decency. Are there any strong supporters of a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage willing to go the distance to have this debate in a manner worthy of our country?

Tim Horner, Blue Stater

2004-08-02T14:22:00.000-04:00

This attempt to move sexuality to the front of the political line is just another attempt for neocons to portray Bush as the "moral president." For the last year, at least, the Bush machine has been moving steadily to the right. This makes sense; this is where his support is. With Bush's fourth refusal to address the NAACP's national meetiong it became glaringly clear that Bush has no interest in courting voters that are not already predisposed to him.

In other words, Bush wants only to preach to the choir. Bush is not trying to regain disenfranchised Republicans, or even broaden his appeal. Ironically, he is trying to focus on a single demographic and make sure that he gets almost total devotion from them. These are the Evangelicals. This is the group that Bush seems most concerned with. He knows he will not get more than 8 percent of the black vote. He also does not care if he loses other voters who are offended by his I-am-not-going-because-they-weren't-nice-to-me-last-time attitude. Even though he took a fair bit of flak for this decision, in the end the balance may tip in his favor. Why? Because pandering for the black vote is not something that a "morally conservative" president would do. There is a Pandora's box of latent racism within Fundamentalist Christianity. (Save that topic for another day.)

But what does this have to do with the vote in the Senate about the "sanctity of marriage"? This is a religiously-driven issue. Marriage is described as a sacrament, meaning that God is somehow involved. Most Christians would not like to know that the earliest Christians did not see marriage this way. Marriage was not done in church. It was a legal procedure done to protect inheritance rights and guarantee certain privileges in society (sound familiar?). People were not married in church by priests until the Middle Ages!

More than anything else, the neo-cons need to keep God in the equation. It's their ace in the whole, and they are banking on this association for the election. Coupled with Bush's feelings about stem-cell research (excluding the study of Alzheimer's), liberals might think Bush is already as far right as he could go on this issue. Wrong. Many Christian political groups don't think he has gone nearly far enough to establish a "faith-based" society.

I don't think anyone believed that this amendment would actually pass the Senate. It served only to polarize politicians so that later, the voters could see who is for the "sanctity of marriage" and who, by voting against the amendment, supposedly is for a free-for-all in which any combination of people (more than two!?) could show up at a courthouse (even a church?!) and get legally married.

The whole issue is designed to make people choose. It is hoped that it will become a defining issue. And I have to hand it to them, they picked a good one, even better than the abortion issue. There is a great deal of ambivalence in our culture toward sexuality. This confusion is best seen in our attitude toward homosexuality. And now sexuality has been paired with marriage. The way the debate has been framed by the neocons (and I consider Bush to be a neocon, a category that does not include all Republicans) does not allow us to be tolerant of other people. Tolerance, from their viewpoint, amounts to endorsement, if not encouragement. If we tolerate gay marriage, we then endorse gay marriage, which means that we encourage gay marriage, which means that traditional (even biblical) forms of marriage will be undermined.

This is the same kind of thinking that told us that either we were for the war on Iraq or we were with the terrorists. It is the same tactic used to silence dissent during the war. If you question the President, then you strengthen the terrorists. The way this debate has been framed so far shows that Bush does not want debate or public discourse. He wants you and me to make a choice - a choice selected from his list of options.

This is nothing more than a trap to get people to make a decision that they might not choose to give priority in their everyday lives. I know that my marriage will not be eroded if two women get married. As a father with four children, I hope that if one or more of my children are gay (they are too young to know), society has room for them to enter into a love relationship without having to live secret lives.

And maybe that is it. Maybe we fear that if there are gay marriages, then our children will think it's OK and become gay. What kind of crazy thinking is that?

I can see one of my kids saying: "Gosh, Dad, I really can't decide whether to be gay or straight."

"Son," I reply, "marriage is defined as only between a man and women. I think you better go with the straight life. That way, you can get all those great benefits from the government. Plus you won't be looked down on as a second-class citizen."

"Thanks, Dad, I'll do just what you said."

What else but fear drives this debate - a fear based on insecurity? If the only thing going for traditional marriage is the perks, then we are in serious trouble. Even the religious angle does not hold weight. Yes, the Bible is tough on homosexuality, but it is equally tough on any kind of sex in which love is not at the center of our sexuality. Let's make a law that says that a man and woman have to love each other in marriage. Even to be found not to love each is to be in violation of the Constitution and therefore a criminal. Divorce would then be a criminal act. If you want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, then outlaw divorces based on "irreconcilable differences."

It's not that we should all just shut up about homosexuality - or any sexuality, for that matter. The issue is whether this is the kind of topic to have on a presidential platform. Bush has chosen, it appears, to run as the moral candidate (the irony of this is rich indeed). And so we see him pandering, not to black voters, or the poor, or the even the middle class, but to conservative Evangelicals who will not be satisfied until the Bible - and their selective interpretation of it - is our Constitution.

Gay marriage is a non-issue. If it has any relevance, that relevance lies in the arena of civil rights. I think most people instinctively know this, but the pressures of a presidency in decline have forced Bush to retreat to his power base.

I, for one, do not believe that America was designed to be governed by an aggressive, intolerant, Christian ideology. If we allow this kind of divisive tactic to split us, we as Americans will lose much of what is great about our country.

Joe Franklin, Red Stater

2004-08-02T12:39:00.000-04:00

The Senate recently rejected a Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned same-sex marriages. Some say this issue is simply a diversion from more important issues. Others feel it will have an impact on this falls election. How do you see it?

I do not foresee the rejection of the Federal Marriage Amendment having any effect on the upcoming election here in Alabama.

President Bush might get some attention over this issue, but if he loses any real ground in Alabama, it will be from other issues. There will be no repercussions from this amendment in the Bible Belt.

To be candid, I have not followed this story closely. As I understand it, the Federal Marriage Amendment would have defined marriage as a heterosexual union.

We already had the Defense of Marriage Act, which left the choice to define marriage to the states. Then, the Massachusetts Supreme Court gives the go-ahead for same-sex marriage without the voters or legislature getting involved.

We in South Alabama recognize three types of marriage: past, present, and common-law. One sure way to unite the less spiritual, the nonbelievers, and far right Christians is just to mention the gay culture. Folks here understand the gay culture about as well as they know and understand radical Islamic fundamentalists. Most have no desire to learn more about it, either.

It is amazing how such a small segment of our society gets so much attention in Washington. Who's next? The left-handed, the colorblind, or the obese? Now, that's a good one. We overweight folks need to unite. I know a lot of good ole boys that don't fit within their doctor's height-to-weight chart.

Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

Look at all the clutter that could be eliminated in courthouses throughout the nation. While we are at it, let's abolish divorces. (Now of that I've had a couple). More clutter eliminated. We could replace these Taj Mahal courthouses with trailers.

But listen to the lawyers scream! The more I think about it, it's the lawyers who really are pushing gay marriage legislation. More divorce litigation means more money. That's probably why the Massachusetts court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage: more money for the lawyers. I hope they realize that, just on the basis of biological reasons alone, there would be a decrease in child-support litigation. Just look at the money we could save.

There would be more for education, defense, welfare, and AIDS research.

If I remember my history, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. For a definition of these principles, go to the clergy, for God's sake; don't ask Congress.

To speak seriously for a moment, the Federal Marriage Amendment failure was disappointing to both "Wal-Mart" Republicans and "Granddaddy" Democrats. (For those who don't know about "Granddaddy" Democrats, they are sworn Democrats but walk and talk like "Wal-Mart" Republicans. When questioned about their party allegiance, they launch off into a tirade about "my granddaddy was a Democrat, and I'm a Democrat." The truth is Granddaddy would scratch out of his grave if he knew of the Federal Marriage Amendment failure.)

On the other hand, many people, including the old Democrats, don't care nor have no opinion. The sad part is that the common folk knew so little about the pending amendment.

An interesting observation regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment and same-sex marriage comes from African-Americans middle-aged or older. They are quick to tell you that marriage is for a man and a woman. These folks are 24-karat Democrats, the backbone and guts of the Democratic vote in South Alabama. Here they are in agreement with both "Wal-Mart" Republicans and "Granddaddy" Democrats. Ask a 50-plus-year-old African American working man from the dirty South, with calloused hands and streaks of salt in his sweaty shirt, and stand back - he may explode. He is going to tell you what a foolish question that is and what a fool you are for asking. Then he will explain that marriage is for a man and a woman and that there ought to be a law prohibiting two men or two women to marry.

The whole debate is not a partisan issue, not an ethnic issue, or a racial issue, but to these people it is a moral issue.

The sad matter is that with all the problems of our great nation, the U.S. Senate is debating this issue at the public's expense. For that matter, it is a waste of time and money for Congress, state legislatures, or the Courts to debate this issue. This whole debate is not worth two dead flies. Leave them in the closet and let God bring them out.

There is no intention to bash any of the aforementioned groups or make a joke of the sanctity of marriage. It is just a few thoughts I have about an issue with a lot of fruits and nuts on both sides.

Living Large in Lower Alabama,
Joe Franklin

Cynthia Sneed, Red Stater

2004-08-02T12:34:00.000-04:00

The Senate recently rejected a Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned same-sex marriages. Some say this issue is simply a diversion from more important issues. Others feel it will have an impact on this fall's election. How do you see it?

I believe the redefining of our traditional view of marriage by legalizing same-sex marriage issue is the most important social issue of this election. Democrats, stalwart champions of gay rights, are reluctant to discuss any support of gay marriage.

Gays and Lesbian are an important supporters to the DNC (just like the NRA or conservative Christians are to Republicans). They have made numerous promises to the gay community who have, in return, given Democrats their support and money.

During interviews prior to convention week, top Democrats were struggling with how to handle the gay marriage issue. "This convention will not be about those (gay rights) issues. It's not going to happen," DNC Chairman and Clinton acolyte Terry McAullife told the Boston Globe.

Our political leaders have an obligation to talk about same-sex marriage because gay and lesbian couples are legally marrying in Massachusetts, then returning home to their native states in hope that courts will force the states to recognize the marriages under Full Faith and Credit in the Constitution. The first such lawsuit was filed on July 20 by a lesbian couple in Florida, married in Massachusetts, who returned home to Florida and is suing to make that state recognize their marriage.

The Advocate writes that DNC chairman McAullife is among the "most dangerous men in America" in the fight for Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender (GBLT) equality. The magazine's Web site reported, "Commentator Laura Flanders blasted the chairman for the Democratic Party's 'going weak' in supporting civil unions instead of full marriage rights for same-sex couples, and for what she claimed was a lack of dedication to gay and lesbian rights despite the party's appeals to them for financial support."

Gay and lesbian advocacy groups must have had reason to believe that Democrats supported same-sex marriage, not just civil unions, for Flanders to have made those comments. I would like for the DNC leadership to explain how they can be for gay and lesbian rights in every single area but this one.

McAullife refused to give gays and lesbians a leading role at the convention. He refused to allow the same-sex marriage topic to be discussed. Considering how important gay support is to Democrats, it seems as if he is trying to mislead the American people about the relationship between the DNC and the gay and lesbian activist groups.

A leading gay rights advocacy organization bragged that gay voters could significantly influence the Democrats' choice of a nominee. "The 2004 Democratic presidential candidates, as a group, hold the most pro-gay positions ever taken by a field of candidates for president," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF).

Some of the issues the Democratic party ranked high on in a GLTF survey included: legal recognition of "domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriage; tolerance education teaching children that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice; hate crimes laws establishing greater penalties against homosexuals than heterosexuals; "comprehensive sex education" curricula that include the disputed theory of condom use to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS; homosexual couples receiving Social Security survivor and spousal benefits and allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military (killing the "don't-ask, don't-tell" policy).

The DNC should be honest about their support of gay and lesbian rights and discuss openly, at the convention, on national television, in prime time the issues the gay, lesbian and transgender community are lobbying for them to support and which ones Team Kerry/Edwards will support.

What the Democratic Party wants is for their politicians to argue same-sex marriage is a "state's rights issue," knowing full well that activist judges will overrule the legislators like they did in Massachusetts. The Democratic leadership understands that same-sex marriages and/or civil unions can become law without any liberal politician having to run on the issue and voters having no say in the matter. Judges will decide.

All one need do is look at how President Bush's conservative judicial nominees have been blocked in the Senate to understand the liberals agenda for the courts.

Republicans and conservative Democrats find themselves in the unenviable position of being branded "mean-spirited, bigoted homophobic religious fanatics" for opposing same-sex marriage while Democrats have found a way to support an issue that they concurrently oppose, in effect taking no position and making everybody happy.

Neither political party should be allowed to hide behind "what ifs" and doubletalk on this issue. If the Republicans are against these issues, they should say so in public and be specific in how they are going to address the unfair discrimination faced by gays and lesbians in America concerning taxes and Social Security. If the Democrats are for some of these issues they too should be honest. Oddly enough, the "compromise" of civil unions only applies to state issues while excluding federal benefits such as the assignment of Social Security to a life partner or filing "married filing joint" for a tax break, issues high on the gay rights agenda.

I think the American people deserve to know what each party considers thoughtful solutions to these issues before, not after, the election.