Are you committed to supporting the President's plan for healthcare reform?
President Obama has called for Congress to deliver on comprehensive healthcare reform that provides security and stability for the insured, help for the uninsured, and reins in the costs of healthcare for families, businesses, and government.
This requires a mutual commitment - all of us must pull together in order to accomplish this goal.
The status quo is unsustainable and morally unacceptable. We spend 16% of our gross domestic product on healthcare in this country - $2.4 trillion per year - and insurance premiums have more than doubled since 1998. Wages have remained flat while healthcare costs have increased, leaving families with less money in their paychecks. 45,000 Americans die each year because they don't have access to insurance, and a million more American families go bankrupt each year because of medical bills.
These issues don't discriminate. Rich and poor, labor and management, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, male, female, straight, gay - all of us are impacted by the drag of healthcare costs on our economy.
Will you join the President in supporting reform? Please tell your Senators and Representatives to pass reform this fall. We can't wait another day.
Post a comment to show your support, and share your ideas.
It's only been about six weeks since President Obama addressed Congress, but much has happened in Tennessee since that time. Unlike other states (such as Virginia or Missouri), Tennessee never had much of a staff presence in the state in the 2008 campaign. Consequently, we're used to doing more with less.
That "can do" attitude has shown itself recently as thousands of Tennesseans called their members of Congress on October 20th. Perhaps the most important contacts were to our Senators, Republicans Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker. As Alexander and Corker continue to hit the President with multiple daily attacks in press releases, TV appearances, and op ed columns, OFA volunteers are standing up to the distortions and delays and calling for significant reform to be passed this fall.
Last night, a dozen team members from the Nashville area gathered to make plans for the next two weeks. We have made November 4th a target day for action and celebration, as we mark one year since President Obama was elected.
In order to help President Obama keep his promises, we need to keep our promises. We need to do our part to bring change to Washington by staying actively engaged, even on an "off year" without an election. And as we head into the gubernatorial campaigns for 2010, Tennesseans are looking for candidates with real solutions on our budget crisis, education, green energy technology, and healthcare reform.
Tennessee's governor, Phil Bredesen, has warned about creating "unfunded mandates" for states by passing healthcare reform that pushes the economic burden onto the states. As a member of the Democratic Governors Association's healthcare task force, Bredesen has repeatedly warned that the federal government should not mandate an expansion of Medicaid without including some kind of support for states already facing budget crises.
We have a lot of work to do in Tennessee, but together we can find solutions that create more jobs, lower the cost curve of our healthcare system, and help families to get relief on rising healthcare costs.
I was out canvassing yesterday, and heard a story from one of my fellow canvassers - a new OFA volunteer who's just moved to a new community about an hour south of Nashville.
He shared this story:
"My neighbor pointed a gun at my dog yesterday. So that shook me up quite a bit. I mean, I understand the 2nd amendment and everything, but ... the dog is 8 months old.
"So I go outside and my dog had gotten out into the neighbor's yard and then I see the neighbor pointing a shotgun at my dog. I asked my neighbor what he was doing and he said, 'Well, I scared him, didn't I?' I couldn't believe it."
We've still got some work to do here in Tennessee. It's a basic lesson we need to learn - you don't point guns at your neighbor or your neighbor's kids or your neighbor's dog.
A friend of mine is frustrated with the lack of accuracy in media. 24-hour cable news/talk is interested more in sensationalism and entertainment than in providing "need to know" information. And it's hard to define what people really "need to know" in order to make decisions!
Here's what she said:
"The real problem with this discussion is that we are not distinguishing between information and entertainment. I believe that one of our corporate sins as Americans is that we have lost this distinction. As Christians we have a moral obligation to inform ourselves but we have no obligation to entertain ourselves. As a nation we have a moral obligation to demand that information be made available widely, consistently, and fairly. We ought not confuse t he F irst Amendment with some supposed “right” to be entertained by opinionated pundits who mimic our particular brand of hubris."
The right to free speech is protected by the Constitution. But at what point does free speech pollute our political process? And how can we work to get past the noise?
After US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) publicly announced his opposition to Dr. Sanjay Gupta for consideration as Surgeon General, I have seen a small flurry of emails and buzz about the position of Surgeon General.
Over the past 25-30 years, the office of Surgeon General has been largely unnoticed, although a notable exception is the work of C. Everett Koop to combat false advertising about smoking and promote smoking cessation programs. The role of surgeon general is largely seen as ceremonial, but in reality, the office is extremely important for advocacy, prevention education, and the use of scientific research to inform policy on healthcare issues.
The official Surgeon General's website says the following about the duties of the office:
The duties of the Surgeon General are to:
Source - http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/about/duties/index.html
According to TheHill.com writer Molly Hill, Rep. Conyers distributed a letter regarding opposition to Gupta's selection. Conyers argued: "It is not in the best interests of the nation to have someone like this who lacks the requisite experience needed to oversee the federal agency that provides crucial healthcare assistance to some of the poorest and most underserved communities in America."
The argument doesn't hold water. There is no question that Gupta has effectively guided healthcare policy discussions on CNN. His leadership skills are not in question, nor is his ability to effectively use research-based information to clarify facts and advocate to the public.
Where some of the opponents are really concerned is in Gupta's attempted refutation of Michael Moore's movie, "Sicko".
As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said, <blockquote>I don’t have a problem with Gupta’s qualifications. But I do remember his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko. You don’t have to like Moore or his film; but Gupta specifically claimed that Moore 'fudged his facts', when the truth was that on every one of the allegedly fudged facts, Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong.</blockquote>
According to an article in USA Today, Moore told CNN, "I'm about to become your worst nightmare." (http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-07-16-sicko-CNN_N.htm) Moore took it personally. And while I appreciate Moore's courageous effort to educate the public about our broken healthcare" I'm also concerned about the style and tone of Moore. I think we need to face facts: Michael Moore has alienated as many people as he's inspired. And while there are many people like me who have gradually warmed and converted to the concept of single-payer plans, I also recognize that there is tremendous political, social, and corporate opposition to any kind of government-funded healthcare.
Michael Moore did a very good job of factchecking the factchecker. I hope he'll continue to do this if Gupta becomes our surgeon general! But we all need to realize that there is a substantial chunk of the American public who have been hoodwinked by the right-wing media, the drug and insurance companies, and even their own family physician. We also need to realize that statistics lie, and there is perhaps no better example of confusion over statistics than the Gupta-Moore flap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR2U_SAWHdQ
There is something very symbolic about the appointment of Gupta. Because while Gupta has befriended the big pharma, insurance companies, and the medical business community, he has also had the courage to commit acts of journalism - to ask questions, get the data right, and present it to the public effectively. Even more importantly, Gupta has been willing to admit when he's wrong, and when the data and facts disprove the conventional wisdom in the medical community.
That's what the Surgeon General does.
The S.G.'s work on prevention is also an important component of the office. In this area, Gupta is a very effective communicator. He's learned how to identify experts in the medical community and give them a platform to speak. Where Gupta has room to grow is in his ability to speak with the public and engage "Joe Sixpack" as part of the national debate.
There are probably any number of highly qualified candidates for the job. But Sanjay Gupta is the most visible representative and is definitely a "highly recognizable symbol" of the nation's commitment to "get it right" on healthcare.
I just have one question:
How does a vote in favor of Proposition 8 in California demonstrate the agape love of Jesus Christ?
It's a question. I don't have an answer. I welcome your feedback.
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
So I tell you this, and insist upon it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.
You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.
- Ephesians 4:14-25
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is not truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
- John 8:44
But what if someone leads one of these little ones who believe in me to sin? If he does, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and be drowned at the bottom of the sea. How terrible it will be for the world because of the things that lead people to sin! Things like that must come. But how terrible for those who cause them!
- Matthew 18:6-7
Then you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
- John 8:32
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of a raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
- Hebrews 10:26-27
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
- I John 1:4-8
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/14/0944/37269/861/567660
I saw this blog and really appreciated the idea:
"Sean Hannity and Karl Rove have made it clear that they intend to go to the Democratic Convention and harass delegates. They do not intend to go there in a journalistic capacity but plan to start fights on the convention floor, bring a so called security entourage with them to intimidate others, harass delegates, and basically cause trouble. Therefore, the DNC should take their press passes and not let them onto the site. The same might be suggested for Bill O'Reilly. These people are not journalists, they are right wing smear merchants without an ounce of integrity in them."
I hadn't thought of it before. It's obvious to me that Hannity and Rove are not serious journalists. They are editorialists who are committed to promoting the Republican agenda. Not only that, but they have been engaging in lies, distortions, and smear attacks for decades.
One basic principle of journalism is a commitment to reporting the news, not creating the news. So, why should these so-called journalists be allowed to receive press credentials to attend the Democratic National Convention?
The Democratic Convention Committee ought to invest more in supporting serious journalists - especially citizen journalists - rather than these highly-paid talking heads from Fox News Channel.
Please share your thoughts in the comments section below. I'd really appreciate your feedback about this idea.
Thanks!
I work for Family Dynamics Insitute.
Family Dynamics Institute is a nonprofit organization working nationally to strengthen healthy marriages and prevent divorce. We do this by equipping church leaders to lead an effective marriage enrichment program in their community. We are unabashedly Christian, but we accept people of all faiths into our programs. We also encourage couples to pray together regularly, and teach a method of Christian prayer that is highly effective in improving intimacy and communication between couples. Since we do reference Scripture (without mentioning any other faith's holy writings), we have found that none of our programs are eligible for state or federal funding. This leaves us in a difficult position. California, for example, has invested several million dollars in developing programs to provide marriage education to couples through the state budget. They specifically exclude Christian and other religious programs because they want to avoid any appearance that they are using these programs to proselytize. The state of Texas has also approved a similar measure and is currently in the process of implementing a multi-million dollar marriage initiative. Like California, they are creating marriage resource centers across their state to train premarital educators and marriage enrichment program leaders. But they will not allow our Dynamic Marriage course to be considered for state funding because the class encourages couples to pray together and uses Scripture quotes in the class.
As an organization, we have seen again and again that getting couples to pray together helps them to improve their intimacy and communication. Most couples tell us something like this: "Praying together as a couple was one of the most important parts of the class. We had never done that before, but it really helped us to feel more connected to each other." And because we help couples to look at both Judeo-Christian "traditional Western" values regarding marriage, as well as contemporary cultural views and expectations about marriage, we help couples to look more deeply at their own culture-bound expectations of marriage in order to make the implicit explicit. This is tremendously valuable for couples, regardless of their faith background. It helps them to talk honestly with each other about how they think marriage should work, as well as helping them to learn about what makes the difference between the "masters" of marriage and the "disasters" of marriage (to quote John Gottman, a Jewish-American marriage researcher whose research is also referenced in our classes).
We have heard a range of opinions about our programs from church leaders and social service agencies. Some people are put off by the fact that we quote Scripture. Others are upset by the fact that we read a secular text in the class which is not "Christ-centered" or "biblically-based". Some churches are very pleased about the fact that we provide a bridge between church and culture. Some churches see the class as a way to evangelize to the community.
What we do know is that an astonishing 94% of couples who go through the class have a measurable improvement in their marital satisfaction. We know the class is highly effective and life-changing. And we know that divorce and family fragmentation costs our government $112 billion a year by a conservative estimate in research by Ben Scafidi. (http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/pressrelease.pdf) So we can also make the argument that marriage is a social good worthy of investment by our governments - divorce and unwed pregnancy leave more children in poverty, and create psychological vulnerabilities for parents, children, and families. There is little question in the social science research that the the best family constellation for children includes a family where children are being raised by their two, happily-married biological parents.
This is not simply a matter of faith or political hegemony. It is pretty clear research, and even a Unitiarian Universalist like Bill Doherty or an agnostic like Kay Hymowitz can outline the argument with little or no reference to "Christian family values". But the fact that happily married parents are most likely to raise healthy children does not answer the public policy question - should we as a government invest in rewarding or encouraging parents to secure their commitment to each other through a legal or religious marriage ceremony? Or, on the other hand, should we take extra steps to invest in supporting fragile families such as adopting parents, gay couples, remarried couples with stepfamilies, etc.? Or should we make no investment at all, simply allowing the "free market" to work it all out? And given the cost of welfare, child support enforcement, divorce courts, etc., what should we say or do about the costs of divorce?
These are not purely religious questions - people of similar faith can have strong disagreements about the role of faith in society, as outlined 50 years ago by Richard Neibuhr's book, Christ and Culture. These are sociological and political questions. And that's where our debate stands today.
My personal contribution to this debate comes from my theological perspectives. I believe that it's extraordinarily important for Christians to have an "Incarnational Ecclesiology" - to believe (following Paul) that we as church are the "body of Christ," and that each of us is a part of it. As Christians, we are too often divided into factions and denominations. We are a dismembered body, and that is not only tragic, but it's also traumatic. Because, just as a physically dismembered human body is horrifying, the dismembered body of Christ is revolting and unattractive. And so, following Christ in John 17, my constant prayer is that we may all be one - united in faith, hope, and love. And so, it is time for Christians to put an end to competitive and divisive arguments that disrupt and even destroy our witness. It is time for heresies and scandals to come to an end. It is time for each of us to live confessionally, admitting our personal and corporate sin and seeking Christ's redemption through the power of the Holy Spirit. And it is time for us to let go of the petty arguments and old grudges that keep us divided. Never before has there been more at stake. And never before has there been a greater opportunity for us to let go of our divisions and reconcile in our relationships with God and each other.
This blog post is meant to serve as "ground zero" for the recent New Yorker cover cartoon, which pokes fun at the whisper campaign against Barack Obama by the Republican party.
Please post info about the media coverage of the smear here, and check back for updates.
The following letter was written by members of Get Fisa Right, a group of Obama supporters committed to protecting Americans from unwarranted surveillance:
Dear Senator Obama,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to us with your post "My Position On FISA" dated July 3rd, 2008. In your response, you pledged to "listen to [our] concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn [our] ongoing support," and in that spirit, we would like to continue this conversation. We ask that you help transfer our passion and political activism into getting the FISA bill right -- now.
Senator, as a legal scholar who has done extensive study of our country's constitution you know that the FISA re-authorization bill currently before the Senate (HR 6304) threatens the rights guaranteed to American citizens in the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment.
One of the most troubling parts of this bill is its provision to provide retroactive immunity from civil lawsuits for telecommunications companies that may have assisted the Bush administration in violating the civil rights of Americans. You wrote in your statement that you "support striking Title II," which provides this immunity, "from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate."
We ask that you back up your words with action by addressing your constituents on the floor of the Senate with the same oratorical power you used in Philadelphia to lay out your vision of a 'More Perfect Union.' The American people have just as much right to know of the dangerous precedent this Congress would be setting by granting retroactive immunity to those who "may have violated the law" and allowing spying on law-abiding citizens as we did to relearn of segregation and Jim Crow. The arm of government oppression reaches far and wide, Senator, and we must beat it back on whatever front we find it.
We ask you to reconsider your current position on the bill as a whole and strongly oppose a bill about which you said, "I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power." In your statement you also wrote, "In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited." We agree. Our nation just spent the holiday weekend in celebration of our independence from unlimited government authority. America in 1776 wished to be strong and free. Much has changed in 232 years but Americans will never consciously abandon freedom.
Senator, while you wrote that not passing this bill would result in the government "losing important surveillance tools," these important surveillance tools are in fact blanket surveillance programs already underway solely due to the passage of the Protect America Act, which you rightly opposed and voted against. This is only one example of how, even without the provisions for retroactive immunity, this bill is still dangerous to the civil liberties of American citizens.
As we understand it Senator, your oath to uphold the Constitution requires you and others in the Congress to vote against HR 6304.
We appreciate your willingness to continue the discussion. We represent a large and vocal part of the movement you have nurtured and that has nurtured you during this campaign season, and include many of your most active and ardent supporters. As you have said time and again Senator, "we are the ones we have been waiting for," and we are here, working to bring about real change in Washington. We have grown to over 20,000 strong in the space of just a few days. We are lobbying our representatives, and working to get our friends, relatives and neighbors to do the same. We are organizing support for removing the immunity provisions for telecommunications companies and building opposition to this dangerous bill in its entirety.
Working together, we have a better chance to assist Senators Dodd and Bingaman, and can achieve what your commitment to us, your supporters, has been before your recent change in position. Together, we can protect our civil rights and continue to keep America safe. Please join us and let's work together to Get FISA Right.
-------
If you would like to join us, please call your Senator, join the group on myBO and Facebook, and help get the word out!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/04/obama-on-late-abortion-me_n_110884.html
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.
In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."
Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."
Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."
The health care exception is crucial to abortion rights advocates and is considered a legal loophole by abortion opponents. By limiting the health exception to a "serious physical issue," Obama set himself apart from other abortion rights proponents.
The official position of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group that endorsed Obama in May, states: "A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family."
The 1973 landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, established a right to an abortion, and a concurrent case, Doe v. Bolton, established that medical judgments about the need for an abortion could include physical, emotional and psychological health factors.
"Senator Obama has consistently maintained that laws restricting abortions must contain exceptions for the health and life of the mother," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said Thursday. "Obviously, as he stated in the interview, he has consistently believed those exceptions should be clear and limited enough to ensure that they don't undermine the prohibition on late-term abortions."
Obama's position is similar to that taken by a bipartisan group of senators in 1998 who tried to counter efforts to ban certain late-term abortions with their own legislation. That proposal, which failed, would have banned all late-term abortions except for those that are necessary to protect the physical health of the mother.
In a statement, NARAL Pro-Choice said Obama's magazine interview is consistent with Roe v. Wade.
"Sen. Obama has consistently said he supports the tenets set forth by Roe, and has made strong statements against President Bush's Federal Abortion Ban, which does not have an exception to protect a woman's health," the organization's statement said.
A leading abortion opponent, however, said Obama's rhetoric does not match his voting record and his previously stated views on abortion rights.
David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about."
"You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade," O'Steen said.
In the interview with Relevant, conducted on Tuesday, Obama also defended his opposition to restrictions on induced abortions where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods. Obama voted against such a bill when he was in the Illinois Senate. He has said he supported a federal version of the law that contained more specific language because he feared the Illinois proposal would have applied to all abortions.
"There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the 'Born Alive' bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill," Obama said Tuesday. "The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn't think it was going to pass constitutional muster."
How can we effectively prevent terrorists from organizing and planning attacks on US interests at home and abroad, but still protect the civil liberties that were trampled on by the Patriot Act, Protect America Act, and the recent FISA revision HR 6304 passed by the US House?
Please post your comments, along with any articles, information, or links, in the comment section below.
The pundits and the Republicans want to use Obama's so-called "flip-flop" on FISA to claim that he's just a typical politician. While he previously claimed that he would support a filibuster of any revision to FISA that provided retroactive immunity for telecoms, Obama recently said that he would vote for FISA if it contained the immunity and came to a vote.
Now, for the sake of argument, I will grant the dubious claim that Obama has changed positions. Let's assume that he has. Let's assume that Obama has "moved toward the center" as folks at Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars, Talk Left, Talking Points Memo, and other have recently claimed. And let's assume that Obama has opened the door for a flip-flop.
What does that say about the current state of affairs?
In my opinion, this is not Barack Obama's failure. If this FISA thing comes to a vote, and the telecoms get retroactive immunity, it won't be a result of Barack Obama's failure. It will be our failure.
It's our failure, because Barack Obama is just one man, just one vote. He's a junior senator from Illinois. And in the Senate, he's at the lower end of the totem pole.
Barack Obama is a political leader in American democracy. He's not a dictator. He's not a revolutionary. He's not a superhero. Barack Obama is a man who's running for president, and currently, he's the junior senator from Illinois.
How does democracy work? It works when we join together, speak with one voice, and demand the changes we seek. Democracy works when we build consensus. Democracy works when we bring new people into the process.
Democracy doesn't work when we filibuster. A filibuster can stop democracy in its tracks, but a filibuster can't make democracy work. One voice in the Senate can stop the wheels from turning for a little while, but it takes 41 Senators to stop a bill. And it takes 51 Senators to pass a bill. And it takes 60 Senators to overcome a presidential veto.
So, before you accuse Barack Obama of failing you, ask yourself this simple question: What have you done today to reach out to others? Barack Obama is just one man. We are the ones we have been waiting for.
There are no superheroes in American government. There are statesmen, but no superheroes.
http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/06/23/barr-rips-fisa-deal/
Libertarians like Bob Barr's position on this better than they like Obama's.
Libertarians are trying to get people angry about Obama so that they can win votes for Barr.
This is the revenge of the right. It's conservatism to the nth degree.
What concerns me is this:
1. Why do we claim that our "privacy" is being violated when in fact we are communicating with another person? There is no right to privacy that extends to communication between two individuals, unless that communication is protected by law. There is no invasion of privacy if two or more people are communicating. In other words, if you want privacy, then don't use your phone or email!!! DUH!
2. This idea that we should somehow sue cell phone carriers for responding to an executive order is ludicrous, in my opinion. When you signed on as a cell phone user, did you get a written guarantee from the cell phone carrier that your communications would not be monitored by third parties? Probably not. Did you get a written guarantee that your cell phone records would not be shared with the government? I doubt it. Again, if you want privacy, don't use a phone or email!
3. In all of this yelling and shouting, what we've missed is the fact that the agreement in the House (which is going over to the Senate) is a marked improvement over the existing situation, where the president is basically authorized under the Protect America Act to be able to conduct surveillance for any reason he sees fit. We forget that Sen. Obama opposed the Protect America Act, and we forget that the present revisions to FISA are in fact a compromise between the national security concerns of a post 9/11 world and the basic privacy concerns of our citizens. There is no one who has a right to come into your home, or to listen to conversations in your home, without a warrant. You still have a right to privacy.
In conclusion, it's great that you're all concerned about privacy. I am too. But as imperfect as this compromise is, let's not focus our attack on someone who is a compassionate friend of civil rights and liberties. Instead, let's focus our attention on the real enemies of civil rights - folks like Mitch McConnell, John McCain, etc.
It's probably easy for you.
You can just write off James Dobson as a doddering old fool who is stuck in a conservative mindset.
But it's not as easy for me. You see, I work for an organization that is working with churches across the country to prevent divorce and strengthen families, I am familiar with Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family. I'm familiar with his organization on a different level from most Americans, because I see the impact of his work on behalf of the family and on behalf of protecting families and children. In fact, my personal values are mostly aligned with the values of Focus on the Family. I'm an Evangelical Christian. I take the Bible seriously on its prohibitions of homosexual acts and I believe life begins at conception.
Like Barack Obama, Dr. Dobson does what he does because he believes strongly in protecting the welfare of children. Dobson, like Tim Russert and Barack Obama, speaks frequently of the importance of fathers in raising strong children. Dr. Dobson, like Barack Obama, speaks out about the importance of helping single mothers and developing policies that protect families.
You might think that these similarities would lead Dr. Dobson to support Barack Obama's candidacy and the thoughtful and passionate approach that Obama has taken, for example, in his Father's Day address to Apostolic Bible Church. You might think that, in the wake of Tim Russert's death, Dr. Dobson would fill the void and speak out against the vicious attacks and the smear campaign by members of the Christian church against Barack Obama.
You might think that. But you'd be wrong.
In his June 24 radio program, Dr. Dobson says that Obama's speech might merit at least 2 days of coverage. I think that would be a good idea. Because it's obvious that just one day of discussion led Dr. Dobson to focus too much on the negative, and not enough on the positive attributes of Obama's 2006 Call to Renewal Speech. His decision to pull excerpts of the speech made it appear that Obama is out in left field, far from the mainstream of most Evangelicals. (Odd, when you consider that the Call to Renewal group was made up of Evangelicals!)
Dr. Dobson began his June 24 program by noting that he spoke out in 1998 about the alienation of the Republican Party from the interests of Evangelicals. Dobson pointed to several examples, including some of his favorite issues like prohibiting abortion. But Dobson failed to note that the more recent shift in this country is related to the hubris, arrogance, and false accusations of the Bush Administration.
Dobson could have spent much more time talking about the absolutism in our nation and the impact that absolutists on both sides of the aisle have had in the deterioration of our families and our politics. But instead, Dobson spoke about the personal offense he took in being compared to Al Sharpton. Dobson referred to Obama's objection to pastors who deliver "more screed than sermon," but then linked Obama to his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Dobson didn't discuss the fact that Obama had spoken out consistently against Wright's inflammatory rhetoric. Instead, Dobson threw Obama under the bus. Dobson didn't commend Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech. Instead, he referred to Al Sharpton as a "black racist" and determined that Obama was guilty for "sitting for 20 years" under Wright's "tutelage".
Dobson said that Obama's speech in 2006 was "very telling," but he didn't tell us the truth about what it said. Tim Minnery attempted to claim that Barack Obama was trying to "disparage". Minnery then went on to claim that the only people who identify with an organized religion are Christians. Minnery backtracked on his claim moments later, saying that most religious Americans are "Judeo-Christian". But Minnery made the claim that Obama "is not even acknowledging the strong Judeo-Christian tradition."
Dobson could have discussed the fact that Barack Obama supports eliminating the marriage penalty, something that Dobson took the Republicans to task for not passing (4:55 into the program). Dobson talked in positive terms about his "friend, Laura Ingraham" who called for Republicans to speak out more about their conservative values. He distorted Obama's statements about the role of the Bible, claiming that Obama was distorting the Bible to fit "his own worldview." Dobson also made a gross mischaracterization of Obama by claiming that Obama believes that people of faith cannot bring their faith into discussions of public life. Obama said nothing of the sort, and what Obama did say was that you can't make laws based on your religious viewpoints, but rather on the basis of universal arguments.
It saddens me, as a believer and as a supporter of Barack Obama, that Dobson would decide to distort and discredit Barack Obama. If Dobson honestly cannot understand why millions of Americans (including many Evangelical Christians) would be offended by his statements, I would point him to the argument made during his June 24 program about John McCain and the marriage amendment under consideration in the Arizona State legislature. Dobson claimed that the Arizona State Legislature's Republican party lacked "backbone" because they did not put the marriage amendment on the ballot for voters. Now, reasonable people can disagree about whether or not you should put a marriage amendment on the ballot. But to attack people as lacking backbone simply because they disagree with your approach is both misguided and dangerous.
Millions of dollars have been wasted trying to define marriage, when we could be investing in the protection of marriages and the healing of families. Worst of all, the unrelenting and contemptuous attitude exemplified by Dr. Dobson is setting a bad example for men across this country. Divorce is caused by contempt. Divorces are filed by men and women who feel that their partner simply will not change his or her mind, or submit to a higher authority. And Dr. Dobson seems unwilling to submit to the higher authority of the American people or his fellow Evangelical Christians. He fails to see that reasonable people can disagree on the issues that he sees as absolute.
A true leader, in the eyes of Christ, is the one who picks up the basin and the towel to serve others. The real leader is the one who is the servant. Jesus told us that the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven must be a servant, not the one who lords power over others.
It is in this way that Barack Obama's Christian faith supersedes the Pharisaical self-certainty of Dobson, Ingraham, and other conservatives. Just as George W. Bush failed to acknowledge the possibility that he might be wrong about weapons of mass destruction, we continue to see conservatives engaging in character assassination of Barack Obama. I am not surprised or disappointed to see this kind of behavior from godless men like Rush Limbaugh. But to see it from James Dobson - a man whose work I admire and whose mission is aligned with my own - is disappointing beyond words.
I continue to pray for God's peace to reign in the hearts of James Dobson, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Phil Valentine, Hugh Hewitt, Chuck Colson, Oliver North, and John McCain. I stand on the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ when I speak out today in opposition to their destructive and antagonistic approach to political discourse. I call them to return to charity, civility, and honesty.
If you don't like Obama's position on abortion rights, then just say so. But don't claim that Obama says things that he doesn't say, or that he believes things that he doesn't believe. Let's stop the ad hominem attacks on Obama. Let's talk about the issues that matter, instead of making straw man arguments.
Stability.
According to research from the Barna Group, most Americans just want stability.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=301
There were six specific conditions that at least three-quarters of all adults identified as being very important elements in their ideal life. Those included having good physical health (listed by 85%), living with a high degree of integrity (also 85%), having one marriage partner for life (80%), having a clear purpose for living (77%), having a close relationship with God (75%), and having close, personal friendships (74%).
There were another half-dozen items listed by at least half of the adults interviewed. Those conditions included having a comfortable lifestyle (mentioned by 70%), having a satisfying sex life with their marriage partner (66%), having children (66%), living close to family and relatives(63%), being deeply committed to the Christian faith (59%), and making a difference in the world (56%).
The survey uncovered seven conditions that only a minority of Americans deemed worthy of including in their vision of their desired future life. Those conditions included having a college degree (named by 46%), being personally active in a church (45%), traveling throughout the world for pleasure (28%), working in a high-paying job (28%), owning a large home (18%), owning the latest household technology/electronics (11%) and achieving fame or public recognition (7%).
One of the big concerns for the Obama campaign, since around February, is that 527 groups, PACs, and other outside groups are buying ad time to attack Obama. For instance, Hillary Clinton's supporters created an anti-Obama 527 and claimed that they were promoting "issues important to the middle class". But really, they were just attacking Obama (ironically, Obama supports the same middle-class issues that Clinton does, so it became clear that they weren't promoting issues, just trying to attack Obama).
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/proclinton_527_prepares_fo r_oh.php
In the general, there is concern about "swift-boating" Obama like they did w/ John Kerry. Republicans are already sharpening their knives, saying that Obama is a liberal closet-Muslim naive inexperienced terrorist-appeasing high-tax-loving black supremacist. There would be two strategies available - one would be an agreement between McCain and Obama that they would both accept Public funding and that there would be some sort of FEC agreement prohibiting 527s from doing attack ads. The other would be to raise as much money as possible.
Obama and his election law experts (like Bob Bauer) determined that, since there was no way to prohibit or prevent 527s from engaging in misleading attacks, the best way to handle it was to use the Obama brand and raise money into the campaign directly. Since Obama has been trusted to address corruption and encourage fairness, the decision was made to just go ahead and refuse public financing. Obama needs to control the funds in order to control the message. (By the way, this is one reason why I don't donate to moveon.org.)
The GOP (and the Clinton campaign, before they stopped operations) have been piling on Obama for "flip-flopping" when in reality, the Obama campaign has been consistent. At the beginning, Obama's campaign said they'd be willing to explore an agreement with the GOP candidate that both candidates would only accept public financing. However, there was always the concern about 527s, and Obama said from the beginning that he felt 527s engaged in unfair attacks that ran contrary to the spirit of FEC policy.
Since the FEC is a paper-tiger right now, and they don't really have the leadership to prevent abuses of election financing, the Obama campaign decided to just drop the public financing idea. Again, this is not new.
