WHY PROGRESSIVES NEED TO BACK THE KERRY/EDWARDS TICKET:

Source:Email Forward
August 18, 2004

I'll be straight up with ya'll:

there a few other candidates who I would have liked to see get the nomination, before Kerry- but I am backing his candidacy 100%.

He is the best hope for a progressive agenda in this country.

Now- a lot of you may balk at that- and I understand why. Naderites, Cobb Supporters, and quite a few others will, most certainly, in the days to come, send me page after page of Kerry's questionable votes in the past. I'm not gonna read a single one of them- I don't have the time.

I am well aware of his posturing on certain issues, such as the military, Israel, certain free-trade agreements runs counter to the sensibilities of a lot on the progressive end of things.

But let me put it in black and white, up front:

Under Kerry the progressive agenda has a chance to survive

Under Bush, the progressive agenda hasn't a chance in hell. The details:

Kerry supports a woman's right to choose- Bush signs executive orders outlawing choice procedures. Kerry would overturn Bush's executive order banning US support of women's health organizations in the third world who offer planned parenthood services.

Dig this- because of the bush crime family's puritanical anti-abortion agenda- hundreds of thousands of women have been denied access to healthcare, because these health organizations dare to distribute condoms, or (gasp) offer a woman in danger of suffering a miscarriage a safe termination of her pregnancy...

I ask progressive voters- are you going to turn your back on these women's lives, simply because Kerry isn't pure enough for your tastes? If you do- their blood is on your hands. I hope you can sleep well, at night...

Kerry supports raising the minimum wage- Bush opposes it- he figures that millions of workers can live on less than subsistence wages.

I dunno if any of ya'll have ever lived in small-town america, and had no other employment opportunies, other than the local greaseburger joint, or the ubiquitous wal-mart- but I have...

Lemme tell you- there are MILLIONS in this country, living on a wage that the average american would laugh at, living in a state of poverty that would astound you. If you doubt me, write to me, and we'll take a road trip down to appalachia, and the mississippi delta- I'll show you stuff you never though could have existed in this great, rich, and powerful country.

Children are growing up malnourished, without health care- they even lack the educational services that we in the blue states take for granted.

So- I ask again: Progressive voters- are you going to turn your back on these poor kids, and their families, who are living on less than a subsistance wage? Go right ahead- I hope you sleep well, at night.

Bush still seeks to privatise social security- Kerry opposes this.

Ask your elderly relatives if they'd like their safety net taken over by the same folks who brought you Enron, Tyco, and Halliburton- I have a hard time thinking they'd think this is a very good idea...

A vote against Kerry is a vote to hand our greatest generation's trust fund into the hands of corporate predators.

Bush wants organized, christian prayer in public school- Kerry opposes it. Remember that arcane document, called the "Bill of Rights?" Read the first one- maybe that will fill you in a tad.

If progressives turn their backs on that, they turn their backs on our constitution- hope they can live with that- because I certainly couldn't.

And when it comes to the Bill of Rights- Dig this:

Bush wants to amend our constitution- our founding and most precious document- to exclude millions of our fellow citizens from equal recognition under the law. this would be the first time, since the birth of our republic, that our founding document would be amended to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS from our fellow citizens- If you haven't guessed, I'm talking about his "defense of marriage act", that would prevent states from allowing the issuance of marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

Kerry opposes this- when progressives turn their backs on Kerry, they turn their backs on these people.

Bush wants to go further than this- not satisfied with denying these fellow citizens the rights of marriage, he wants to deny them the legal rights granted by civil ceremony. Thus- it just ain't a religious issue- this is the systematic legal disenfranchisement of american citizens.

On the other hand, Kerry is in favor of letting gay and lesbian couples the right to enjoy the rights and benefits of civil unions.

Bush wants our tax dollars to go to religious organizations- Kerry doesn't. Again, I refer you to that pesky first amendment.

Now- I could go on and on, folks. You CANNOT TELL ME that there is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND KERRY, when it comes to issues that MATTER. I haven't even TOUCHED on bush's mishandling of stem-cell research and evelopmentnational security, the ecvonomy, his insane tax cut that has bankrupted the states, and the other virtiginous horrors that have issued forth from this white house.

Now- still- some out there will sweep these differences aside, and say that Kerry STILL isn't lilly-white for them.

Well- to them, I say this: If you're gonna wait around for Jesus Christ, the Dalai Lama, or Nelson Mandella to get the Democratic Nomination, you're gonna have a LONG wait. Progressives have a VESTED IINTEREST in backing Kerry.

In the last election in 2000, a lot of us showed our strength by going to the ballot box and voting for Nader. The democratic party stood up and took notice of us, for the first time, in a while.

If, this time around, we put out efforts behind the Kerry/Edwards ticket, they will again stand up and take notice. We will be able to go to the Kerry White house and say: "You owe us one."

again, it needs to be said:

Under Kerry the progressive agenda has a chance to survive

Under Bush, the progressive agenda hasn't a chance in hell.

I keep repeating to people: we progressives need to take over the Democratic party, instead of shunning it out of moral absolutism that would make the taliban blush.

The Christian right was able to take over the Republican party, despite their moral absolutism- and now, they run the show, and their morals are becoming national policy.

True- the christian right has two advantages over the progressive movement:

For one- well- forgive the Star Trek reference- but they're like the 'Borg- they enjoy a collective groupthink that allows them to act like a single organism.

Progressives, on the other hand, think for themselves- they like to argue, think, and come to an intelligent conclusion, when considering issues. Religious conservatives don't suffer from this- they already know all the answers...

Secondly, Religious conservatives took over the party with such ease, because they did it under the radar- silently, and away from the prying eyes of c-span. Most republicans aren't even aware of how deeply the religious right has infiltrated their party.

Progressives, on the other hand, are activists by nature- we agitate, hand out petitions, march in demonstrations- we keep ourselves as visible as possible.

Somehow, we need to make our presence and issues visible within the democratic party- and the best way to do this, now, is to use the energy that brought us out on the streets on February 15th, 2003, the energy that kept us fighting for Kucinich, the energy that no other political force can muster, to help elect John Kerry as the next president of the United States.

Bartcop's most recent rants

Source:Bartcop
August 17, 2004

Report Shows How Bush Is Squeezing Middle Class

Source:THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
August 17, 2004

President Bush is now barnstorming the country claiming his record shows that he cares about America's middle class. On everything from taxes to health care to workers wages, the President says he has fought for average Americans. But a new comprehensive report shows that in almost every key economic area, he has actually gone to bat for his wealthiest contributors, at everyone else's expense.

According to a cover story in this month's American Prospect, Bush has pushed policies that benefit the major special interests funding his campaign, while rejecting commonsense, bipartisan proposals that would help the middle class. On taxes, for instance, Bush has claimed, "If you're struggling to get into middle class and you feel like you're paying plenty of taxes, take a look at my agenda."[1] Yet, as the Prospect report points out, Bush's tax policies have actually shifted more of the tax burden off of the wealthy, and onto the middle class.[2] His policies have also raised federal fees on the middle class, and forced state and local governments to raise middle class taxes to deal with the record federal deficits.

On health care, Bush has said he is working "to help more American families get health insurance."[3] Yet, as the Prospect report shows, the only major initiative Bush has offered is an industry-backed proposal that experts say could further raise health insurance premiums and deductibles for average Americans. Similarly, Bush has refused to support real legislation to lower the price of prescription drugs in America.

On wages, Bush has said he wants to help Americans earn better paychecks - but as the Prospect report shows, he has simultaneously refused to support a minimum wage increase while pushing to eliminate overtime pay protections for millions of workers.

Read the full American Prospect report online here, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1291765&l=50799.

Sources:
1. "President Emphasizes Minority Entrepreneurship at Urban League," The White House, 7/23/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1291765&l=50800.
2. "CBO Report: Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich," Yahoo!News, 08/13/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1291765&l=50801.
3. "Remarks by the President at Traverse City, Michigan Rally," The White House, 07/23/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1291765&l=50802.

Jim McGreevey: "I Am A Gay American"

Source:Arianna Huffington Newsletter
By Arianna Huffington
August 16, 2004

On Thursday, my day started at eight in the morning speaking togetherwithNew Jersey Senator John Corzine at a breakfast sponsored by ANGLE --an organization consisting of the gay and lesbian leadership of SouthernCalifornia and a magnet for political candidates running for office and raising funds.

A couple of hours after I had left the breakfast, where I had been surrounded by successful gay men and women -- business people, politicians, accountants, even a priest -- my phone started ringing off the hook. New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey had just resigned and announced that he is gay, and it seemed as if the bookers from every television talk show in America -- from CNN's "American Morning"to ABC's"Nightline" -- had simultaneously had the exact same thought: "Let's get Arianna Huffington."

I was the proverbial two birds being killed with one stone -- a political commentator whose ex-husband had come out as gay. As the day progressed, it became clear that this was a story unfolding on so many levels only a Shakespearean drama or a Verdi opera could do justice to it.

There was the personal, the political, possibly the legal, and who knows what else to be revealed by the time we get to Act Five. But we are still in Act One. And in Act One the spotlight is on then ex us of the personal and the political.

McGreevey's resignation announcement was undoubtedly the best political speech he's ever made. It was powerful, compelling, emotional, and in sharp contrast to the pre-packaged speechifying we are so accustomed to hearing from politicians.

At this profound crisis point in his political and personal lives he sounded almost liberated. It's hard to resist playing armchair psychoanalyst and wondering: Did McGreevey unconsciously make certain choices -- like putting his lover on the government payroll in a high-profile position he was not qualified for -- in order to force upon himself Thursday's public announcement: "I am a gay American"?

We can't, of course, know what was going on in McGreevey's psyche, buthiring his lover, Golan Cipel -- an Israeli foreign national unable to obtain a federal security clearance to be the homeland security czar of New Jersey (and at a salary of $110,000 a year, no less) -- is the height of recklessness, and only makes sense as a taxpayer-funded cry for help. Clearly no good could come of such an appointment -- unless the governor was unconsciously hoping that the appointment would eventually force his hand.

Otherwise, he would not have flaunted his closeness to Cipel, leading him to self-destructive acts such as accompanying Cipel and a realtor on a walk-through of a townhouse the newly arrived Israeli was about to rent a short distance from McGreevey's house. It's textbook human behavior: the harder you try to suppress the truth, the more inevitable it is that it will find a way to come out.

"Thinking that I was doing the right thing," he said, "I forced what I thought was an acceptable reality onto myself, a reality which is layered and layered with all the, quote, 'good things,' and all the, quote,'right things' of typical adolescent and adult behavior."

It's worth noting that McGreevey made this statement on the same day that the California Supreme Court annulled the state's 4000 same-sex marriages, raising the question: What if the world were a more welcoming place where gay people could have in their lives all the "good things" and the "right things" without having to pretend they're straight?

After all, does anyone doubt that it's exponentially harder to attain elective office if you're openly gay? How else do you explain that we have no gay senators, only three gay members of Congress, and an openly gay governor of New Jersey only until Nov.15? But even if Jim McGreevey did not want to hold public office, if he just wanted a marriage and children -- natural urges, perhaps as powerful as the sexual one -- the easiest (and indeed the only legal way) to do so remains opting for a heterosexual relationship.

So the human costs we only got a glimpse of on Thursday -- a shattered marriage, the anguish inflicted on his parents, his wife, his daughters -- are not just the result of his personal choices but of the roadblocks society continues to place in the path of the complete acceptance of gay men and women.

By the time the curtain comes up on this drama's Act Five we could beinthe middle of a serious political scandal that may force McGreevey tostepdown even before Nov. 15. Or we may be in the middle of his political resurrection, looking not at a tortured politician with a secret draining away precious energy but a free man fully -- and finally -- acceptinghimself. Either way, he had to practically drive the car right off thecliff in order to put himself on the road to Thursday's declaration. Andthat's an indictment of our society and our political culture wars.

So until the final curtain falls, let's seize the moment to reaffirm, loudly and without reservation, that to be gay is to be normal --whether you're a governor or a gardener, a public figure or a very private one.

Wil Ferrell Video

August 5, 2004

http://kintera.sitestream.com/ferrell_qt_hi.mov

July of 2004 Newsletter from America's Best Christian




By Betty Bowers
July 8, 2004

Dear Acolytes:

Well, I finally closed my autographed Bible long enough to read The Da Vinci Code. I had put it off because I like to savor anything that embarrasses the Mary Worshippers in Rome -- or the Supreme Court. Frankly, the whole conceit caused me to reflect, in my modestly perspicacious way, upon how such a disproportionate sampling of the history that is actually remembered is set in motion by the woefully indolent. For example, the tawdry French Revolution might not have occurred had Marie Antoinette been more inclined to while her moments at Versailles baking and distributing cakes rather than simply sniping about them. And, perhaps, 3,000 American lives might have been spared had our own more-noblesse-than-oblige royalty George W. Bush actually gotten off of his presidential posterior after being told Osama bin Laden planned to use planes to attack the United States -- instead of treating himself to a month-long dawdle on his horse-free facsimile of a ranch.

Which leads me, of course, to Jesus and the notorious Biblical namedropper Mary Magdalene. Leonardo would have had nothing to paint on that dirty back wall in Santa Maria delle Grazie if Jesus and Mary had shared their last meal in a more discrete location. Had they dined at home, they would have been able to keep their relationship removed from the tenacious gossips at the Priory of Sion and its artistic chronologists. Yes, they never would have been caught if only Mary -- the other one, His mother -- hadn't been so lazy and had prepared her Son (who never asked for much) a lovely hot, home-cooked meal. But for the wont of maternal domesticity, Jesus wouldn't have spent His Last Supper in a Palestinian trattoria hoping that Judas got stuck with the bill. And Jesus and Mary Magdalene would never have been subjected to the galling -- and Gauling -- infamy of being the J-Lo and Ben of their time, in a romance destined for doom, but not before being memorialized by the Renaissance version of fresco-paparazzi. And poor Mary would never have had to flee, like some deposed Third World despot, to the South of France. As president of Bringing Integrity To Christian Homemakers, I wave a non-stick spatula dismissively in Mary's presumably heavenward direction.

So close to Jesus, I allow Him to cash a check for a full $60 over the face amount without photo ID,

Mrs. Betty Bowers

America's Best Christian
Spiritual Advisor to Mr. & Mrs. George W. Bush

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

Source: Center for American Progress
July 7, 2004

From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue

GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout

BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea

BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

***HELP PLACE THE IMPEACH BUSH AD IN THE NEW YORK TIMES***

Source: http://www.VoteToImpeach.org
July 1, 2004

Dear VoteToImpeach / ImpeachBush.org Member,

We have received an overwhelming response to the urgent appeal fromRamsey Clark for contributions to a major advertising campaign. We arealmost there. We need to raise an additional $15,000 for the placementof the next full page ad in the New York Times. A copy of theimpeachment ad can be found at our website www.VoteToImpeach.org orwww.ImpeachBush.org. The New York Times ad is scheduled to run in thenational edition in the first few weeks of July.

Impeachment now is the only way we, the people of the United States,can assure the country and the world that we will not tolerate crimesagainst peace and humanity by the government. Knowing what we know, towait for the election is to tolerate what has been done and risk more.As the ad campaign makes clear, the one appropriate constitutionalmechanism to hold the high officials of the Bush administrationaccountable for these high crimes is impeachment.

Anything less than impeachment allows the criminals to walk free withimpunity, and fails to send a deterrent message to those who aspire toleadership, including the presidency. The people of the United Statescan make a difference by insisting that Congress initiate impeachment proceedings. The national advertising campaign can get the message outto millions of people around the country who are outraged that the BushWhite House has not been held accountable and who want to send apowerful message demanding that these criminal acts be ended, exposedand that public accountability be had.

Can you help us in this last push by making a generous contribution forthe ad campaign? We want to thank the many VoteToImpeach /ImpeachBush.org members who have already sacrificed to make thiscritical effort possible. We appeal now for everyone to step forward.You can make a donation online through our secure server by going to http://www.VoteToImpeach.org/donate.htm , where you can also getinformation to write a check.

We would like to share with you a letter to the editor printed recentlyin the Boston Globe under the headline "Impeach Bush." Writing lettersto the editor, in addition to the advertising campaign, is a veryeffective way of reaching people."

I could not agree more with most of Robert Kuttner's sentiments in hisJune 9 column. But I believe he errs in suggesting that only DefenseSecretary Donald Rumsfeld should be impeached and tried as a warcriminal for the Abu Ghraib scandal. He opines that President Bush canbe dealt with through the democratic electoral process. The democraticelectoral process failed us in 2000 when Bush was appointed, notelected. Since very little has been done to improve the integrity of theelectoral process in the interim, it may fail us again.

"Even if Bush is not reelected in November, sending him off to pasturewith a hefty federal pension and Secret Service protection at taxpayerexpense hardly seems a fitting way of holding him accountable for hisactions while he was president. He will leave us with tatteredinternational relations, a huge public debt, dirtier air and water, anovercommitted military, and unresolved wars in two small countries. Apublic debate about his conduct, triggered by impeachment hearings, isvery much needed to clear the air in America. Congress should do its joband initiate impeachment proceedings -- now."

Mary Ann Schwenk
Kalamazoo, Mich.

It is evident that the political climate is turning in the country. Therecord breaking turnouts for the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 is just onesign that the people want justice, they want action, they want to seethe U.S. media tell the truth. The movement to impeach George W. Bushhas become a political factor from coast to coast. We want tocongratulate everyone in the VoteToImpeach / ImpeachBush.org movementfor the individual and collective efforts that have made this possible.Now we must increase the pressure through a massive publicity andeducational campaign that reaches people throughout the land.

Sincerely,

All of us at VoteToImpeach.org

Free Pass From Congress

Source: Washington Post
By Henry A. Waxman
July 6, 2004

In the past four years there has been an abrupt reversal in Congress's approach to oversight.

During the Clinton administration, Congress spent millions of tax dollars probing alleged White House wrongdoing. There was no accusation too minor to explore, no demand on the administration too intrusive to make.

Republicans investigated whether the Clinton administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. They examined whether the White House doctored videotapes of coffees attended by President Clinton. They spent two years investigating who hired Craig Livingstone, the former director of the White House security office. And they looked at whether President Clinton designated coal-rich land in Utah as a national monument because political donors with Indonesian coal interests might benefit from reductions in U.S. coal production.

Committees requested and received communications between Clinton and his close advisers, notes of conversations between Clinton and a foreign head of state, internal e-mails from the office of the vice president, and more than 100 sets of FBI interview summaries. Dozens of top Clinton officials, including several White House chiefs of staff and White House counsels, testified before Congress. The Clinton administration provided to Congress more than a million pages of documents in response to investigative inquiries.

At one point the House even created a select committee to investigate whether the Clinton administration sold national security secrets to China, diverting attention from Osama bin Laden and other real threats facing our nation.

When President Clinton was in office, Congress exercised its oversight powers with no sense of proportionality. But oversight of the Bush administration has been even worse: With few exceptions, Congress has abdicated oversight responsibility altogether.

Republican Rep. Ray LaHood aptly characterized recent congressional oversight of the administration: "Our party controls the levers of government. We're not about to go out and look beneath a bunch of rocks to try to cause heartburn."

Republican leaders in Congress have refused to investigate who exposed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose identity was leaked after her husband, Joe Wilson, challenged the administration's claims that Iraq sought nuclear weapons. They have held virtually no public hearings on the hundreds of misleading claims made by administration officials about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda.

They have failed to probe allegations that administration officials misled Congress about the costs of the Medicare prescription drug bill. And they have ignored the ethical lapses of administration officials, such as the senior Medicare official who negotiated future employment representing drug companies while drafting the prescription drug bill.

The House is even refusing to investigate the horrific Iraq prison abuses. One Republican chairman argued, "America's reputation has been dealt a serious blow around the world by the actions of a select few. The last thing our nation needs now is for others to enflame this hatred by providing fodder and sound bites for our enemies."

Compare the following: Republicans in the House took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database but less than five hours of testimony regarding how the Bush administration treated Iraqi detainees.

There is a simple but deplorable principle at work. In both the Clinton and Bush eras, oversight has been driven by raw partisanship. Congressional leaders have vacillated between the extremes of abusing their investigative powers and ignoring them, depending on the party affiliation of the president.

Our nation needs a more balanced approach. Congressional oversight is essential to our constitutional system of checks and balances. Excessive oversight distracts and diminishes the executive branch. But absence of oversight invites corruption and mistakes. The Founders correctly perceived that concentration of power leads to abuse of power if unchecked.

The congressional leadership is wrong to think that its current hands-off approach protects President Bush. In fact, it has backfired, causing even more harm than the overzealous pursuit of President Clinton. Lack of accountability has contributed to a series of phenomenal misjudgments that have damaged Bush, imperiled our international standing and saddled our nation with mounting debts.

Asking tough questions is never easy, especially if one party controls both Congress and the White House, but avoiding them is no answer. Evenhanded oversight is not unpatriotic; it's Congress's constitutional obligation.

The writer is a Democratic representative from California and ranking minority member of the principal House oversight committee.

THE FIRST GREAT DECISION OF THE KERRY PRESIDENCY

Source: Arianna Huffington Newsletter
By Arianna Huffington
July 7, 2004

The choice of John Edwards as No. 2 on the Democratic ticket is the first great decision of the Kerry presidency — a mature, self-confident choice that bodes well for the Kerry campaign as it kicks into high gear.

It wasn't based on looking at a map and trying to figure out who could deliver the most Electoral College votes. It wasn't based on whom Kerry felt most comfortable hanging out with.

It was based on who was the best choice for the country.

Instead of picking a running mate who had the strongest resume on paper, Kerry picked the one who had the strongest vision for the country — a vision that can help Kerry bring heart and soul back to American politics.

Judging by the hysterical reaction of the GOP, there are many things about John Edwards sending a cold shiver down Karl Rove's reptilian spine. Here are five:

One. He can help Kerry make this campaign about what kind of America we want to live in — a campaign not just about policies and programs but about our fundamental values as a country.

Throughout his primary campaign, Edwards showed an uncanny ability to frame his positions in the language of morality and traditional American values.

"I believe we can build a better life for our families," he said during a Democratic primary debate. "But it has to be based on the values of hard work and responsibility, not accounting tricks and corporate greed. I want to bring your values, the values of Main Street America, to Wall Street and then to Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to give this White House back to the American people."

This is a linguistic battlefield that has been dominated by the right since the 1960s. Edwards' ability to speak to core American ideals like hard work, fairness, faith and family — the values that built America — will help Kerry reclaim key words and concepts like "morality" and "responsibility" from the recklessly irresponsible and grossly immoral GOP.

It's not by accident that this is the first quality Kerry cited when announcing Edwards as his running mate: "John understands and defends the values of America. He has shown courage and conviction as a champion for middle-class Americans and those struggling to reach the middle class."

George Bush wants to define this campaign in terms of right and left. John Edwards will help make sure that it comes down to a discussion of right and wrong.

Two. Edwards' core theme of the two Americas — "one for the powerful insiders, and another for everyone else" — helps sharpen the differences between the two tickets, and underlines that, far from being a uniter, George Bush has been the ultimate divider. As Edwards evocatively paints it, Bush has created two school systems, two health care systems, two economic systems, two tax systems and even two systems of government, all designed to benefit "those who never have to worry about a thing" — and at the expense of ordinary Americans.

This is not a debate Bush and Cheney want to go anywhere near. Because they know what will happen if the truth of Edwards' message is digested by the American public. Edwards has shown a commitment to putting poverty-fighting front and center in his campaign, sending a message that dates back to the beginnings of this country: We are all in the same boat together.

"I want to take a moment to talk about something you're not hearing presidential candidates talk about enough," he said in his signature stump speech. "The tens of millions of Americans who live in poverty. We pass them on the streets in our cities. They are the families that crowd our shelters and turn to our small-town churches for food. In the America you and I build together, they will be forgotten no more."

This powerful and patriotic populist vision stands in direct contrast to the dark "every man for himself" rallying cry of the conservative movement, which is epitomized by Grover Norquist and the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition, founded on a toxic mix of tax cuts and gutted social programs.

As Edwards put it during his presidential run (and will no doubt repeat many times now that he has a much bigger megaphone), "2004 is a make-or-break election because we need to create one America again. And that is the one thing George Bush will never do. Dividing us into two Americas — one privileged, the other burdened — has been his agenda all along." If it wasn't obvious in 2000, it certainly is now.

Three. Without wearing it on his sleeve, Edwards' comfort with matters of faith, morality, and religion will allow Kerry and the Democrats to make an unabashed appeal to the millions of Americans whose spiritual beliefs are central to their lives.

The Bush Republicans have made it clear they believe that God is on their side, blessing everything from the war in Iraq to the president's multitrillion-dollar tax cuts to the destruction of the environment. Edwards' central message of fairness and economic justice puts the question in play: Which is the true political morality? Opposing gay rights and abortion or heeding the Biblical admonition, "We shall be
judged by what we do for the least among us"?

During the Democratic debates, Edwards was asked if, like Bush, he felt God is on America's side. He responded by quoting Lincoln, who, when asked in the middle of the Civil War to join in prayer that God is on "our side," replied: "I won't join you in that prayer, but I'll join you in a prayer that we're on God's side."

Edwards' championing of those left behind will help America reclaim the moral high ground that Bush abandoned.

Four. Edwards can help Kerry ride the wave of idealism that was unleashed after Sept. 11. Rare among populist politicians, Edwards radiates optimism and inspires hope. "This election is not about what we are against," he said before the Iowa primary, "it is about what we are for. … We offer a new beginning for America based on hopes, dreams, and endless optimism — not fear, greed and attack politics."

This spirit is the perfect antidote to the pessimism the GOP is desperately trying to tag Kerry with. And it doesn't hurt that Edwards has got charm and charisma to burn, is the most natural politician the party has to offer, has a great story of humble beginnings and triumphing over adversity and personal tragedy, and can move an audience to tears with his heartfelt oratory.

Five. Edwards has made a very successful career out of eating folks like Dick Cheney for lunch in courtrooms all across America. He'll know exactly how to wield Halliburton like a stiletto. I give Cheney 30 minutes before he drops his first F-bomb. I can't wait.

The Republican attacks on Edwards as "unaccomplished and inexperienced," "out there in left field" and, above all, "Kerry's second choice," sound like wishful whistling past the graveyard. Edwards' selection has not only energized the Democratic base — which was pretty energized anyway — it has, more importantly, the potential to arouse the dormant passion of the 50 percent of eligible voters who have given up on voting.

All in all, not a bad payoff for a fallback plan.

BUSH TRIES TO KEEP HALF MILLION VETS IN THE DARK

Source: THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
July 27, 2004

President Bush celebrated the July 4th holiday by praising veterans, saying"we're proud of your service, we're grateful for the example you have setfor America."[1] But a new report shows that more than half a millionveterans are going without health care benefits owed to them - and the Bushadministration has tried to keep those veterans in the dark.

According to Knight-Ridder newspapers, 572,000 veterans nationwide "aremissing out on disability payments from the Veterans Administration"[2] eventhough they are owed those payments from their service. A large portion ofthese veterans are not receiving their payments because they do not knowabout them - a situation the White House has tried to perpetuate. In 2002,VA officials were ordered by the Bush administration "to cease efforts toenroll new patients into its health care system." The directive said it was"inappropriate" for local VA workers to attend health fairs, open houses andcommunity meetings to educate veterans about what their eligibility and toenroll them in health care programs.[3]

The President's efforts to prevent veterans from getting the benefits theyare owed came at the same time the White House was squeezing veteransprograms overall. Specifically, the President has drastically underfundedveterans health care programs, leading to major veterans groups calling hispolicies a "disgrace" and noting his most recent budget falls $2.6 billionshort of what is needed this year alone.[4] The President also raisedpremiums that veterans pay for their prescription drugs.[5]

Sources:

1. Presidential Remarks, WhiteHouse.gov, 7/04/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2826192&l=44009.
2. "Thousands of disabled vets lack disability payments due to poor agency
outreach, stigma," Knight-Ridder, 7/01/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2826192&l=44010.
3. "VA says `no' to new patients - Service," VFW Magazine, 9/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2826192&l=44011.
4. "VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans VFW Appeals
to Congress for Relief," VFW.org, 2/02/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2826192&l=44012.
5. "Bush calls for electronic medical records," CNN.com, 4/28/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2826192&l=44013.

Bush Ducks for Cover as NRA Opens Fire on Assault Weapons Ban

Source: Arianna Huffington Newsletter
By Arianna Huffington
June 23, 2004

Today's column focuses on the NRA's outrageous efforts to pressure Congress into allowing the federal ban on assault weapons to expire -- efforts that, unfortunately, are working. Please read the column then go to stoptheNRA.com and sign their petition calling on President Bush and Congress to renew the assault weapons ban.

Attention al-Qaida sleeper cells, domestic terrorists, school shooters, David Koresh wannabes and bloodthirsty lunatics everywhere: Be sure to mark Sept. 13 in your day planners because — thanks to President Bush and his GOP pals in Congress — your murderous missions are about to get a whole lot easier.

You see, that's the day the 10-year old federal ban on assault weapons is set to expire, making it perfectly legal to buy, sell and own a whole new line of domestically produced rapid-fire killing machines.

You heard me right: Unless something changes in a hurry, combat-ready weapons like the AK-47, the Uzi and the TEC-9 assault pistol — weaponry designed to mow down large numbers of people as efficiently as possible — could once again be flooding the American market. And thanks to the gaping loopholes in our gun laws, everyone from disgruntled teens to Osama bin Laden's henchmen will be able to legally obtain this kind of ferocious firepower at gun shows without even having to undergo a background check. It could be cash-and-carry mayhem.

After the U.S. Army toppled the Taliban, our soldiers found an al-Qaida training manual that included an entire section lauding the ease with which prospective terrorists in the United States could legally stock up on assault weapons, "preferably an AK-47 or variations."

It was "Jihad for Dummies" — but it's our leaders who are acting like idiots.

Bowing to the demented demands of the no-gun-law-is-a-good-gun-law crowd at the National Rifle Association, Republican congressional leaders have steadfastly refused to bring to a vote legislation that would extend the assault weapons ban. And the president has failed to put any pressure on Congress to do so. This despite the fact that, during the 2000 campaign, he said, "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," and just last year White House spokesman Scott McClellan unequivocally affirmed that the president "supports reauthorization of the current law."

Given his much-touted commitment to keeping us safe, you'd think that the renewal of the assault weapons ban would be a high priority for the president. Especially in an election year.

After all, recent polls show that over 70 percent of Americans support keeping the ban on the books. So does every major police organization in the country. Even 64 percent of gun owners support the ban, realizing that outlawing weapons that feature flash suppressors, silencers, folding stocks, bayonet mounts and large-capacity ammo magazines is not an attack on the Second Amendment — it's self-preservation.

But instead of using his bully pulpit to push for the ban's renewal, Bush is feigning support for the measure while effectively ensuring its demise. The reason is as simple as it is craven: It's all about placating the NRA, which has promised to withhold its presidential endorsement until after the assault weapons ban has expired.

What a profound failure of leadership.

By playing politics with our safety, the president has shown where he really stands on his signature issue of national security. If keeping Americans out of harm's way were truly his top priority, he'd stand up to the gun lobby and demand that Congress do everything in its power to keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals, drug dealers and terrorists.

At the very least, he should pressure House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to put the ban to a vote and force our elected representatives to choose publicly between appeasing that most special of special interests, the NRA, or acting in the public interest.

Gun control advocates, including those at the Brady campaign, are teaming with law-enforcement officials to make a last-ditch attempt at shaming Bush into doing the right thing. But time is running short: Factoring in Congress' summer recess, there are fewer than two dozen legislative days left for lawmakers to renew the ban.

How the president responds could prove to be a deciding factor in November.

Voters who have had their toenail clippers confiscated at airport safety checks before being allowed to head out on their summer vacations may not look kindly on a leader who, for no other reason than political expediency, makes it easier for the real bad guys to arm themselves with weapons of massive destruction.

The NRA has promised to deny its coveted "A" rating — and the millions it contributes to those who receive it — to any candidate who votes for extending the assault weapons ban.

We should make it crystal clear to those running for office that, if they fail to keep these killing machines off the streets, we will withhold something even more powerful. Our votes.

Graduation 2004: Pomp and Crummy Circumstances

Source: Arianna Huffington Newsletter
By Arianna Huffington
June 16, 2004

It's that time. And I’m not talking about cicadas. It's graduation time,and all across the country high school seniors are tossing theirmortarboards into the air and heading off to face a future filled withhope, promise - and soaring college tuition and fees.

It's one of the few areas in which the GOP really has taken the country toa higher level.

The cost of a college education at a four-year public university has risena devastating 35 percent since George W. Bush took office. He promised tobe "the education president," but in what we now know to be the classicBush bait and switch, he then did just the opposite, delivering atax-slashing economic agenda that forced public colleges and universitiesin all but one state to raise tuition in 2003.

As an added little gift for the new grads, the Bush administration'slatest budget-cutting guidelines will lead to a $550 million reduction infederal assistance to those college students in need of financial aid.

Happy graduation, kids! Enjoy your decades of indebtedness - at leastthose of you who are not forced to forego college altogether.

How did we get to the point as a society where low taxes are moreimportant than providing the opportunity for as many of our children aspossible to get a higher education? Where we'd rather shut students out ofcollege classrooms than shut down the tax shelters that are costing statesbillions in revenue each year?

Nowhere are these perverted priorities on greater display than inCalifornia, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is steadfastly refusing evento consider closing corporate tax loopholes or raising taxes on the top 1percent - even in the face of a multibillion-dollar budget deficit.Instead, he is looking to balance the budget on the backs of the mostvulnerable - including the state's college students.

He has put forth a budget proposal that would, among other things, slash$660 million from the state's public colleges and universities, increaseundergraduate tuition over the next three years by more than 30 percent(this on top of a 40 percent tuition increase since 2002), deny admissionto 25,000 qualified students, cut financial aid, lead to larger classsizes and fewer course offerings, and eliminate state support for outreachprograms that help prepare disadvantaged students for college.

Other than that, it's very education-friendly.

How we respond to this draconian hatchet blow to the heart and soul of California's longstanding commitment to higher education will tell us alot about ourselves. It will help define what kind of a state and countrywe want to live in - and what kind of society we will leave our children.Has the American Dream been replaced by a Dystopian Nightmare?

Has theLand of Opportunity morphed into the Land of "I Got Mine, Who Cares AboutYours"?

After relentlessly and rightly impressing on the young people of Americathe idea that a college education is the doorway to the jobs of thefuture, will we reward their years of hard work by slamming that door inthe face of tens of thousands of them - including many who graduated nearthe top of their class?

It would be a dreadfully shortsighted, and ultimately destructive, move.Allowing higher education to become harder and harder to afford is notonly hurting students - it is damaging America's long-term economicprospects.

Today a college education is no longer a luxury, it's a necessity. It's the source of our future employment base and it's what will allow us toremain competitive in the global marketplace. On average, college gradsearn $1 million more over their lifetime than students who don't continuetheir education past high school. In other words, penny-wise, poundfoolish.

But it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. Education is an essentialpart of the well-being of our democracy. People who are undereducatedoften feel unequipped to participate in the political process.

The good news is that there is still time to stop this bloodletting. Thequestion is: Will Democratic leaders in Sacramento have the necessarybackbone?

In Washington, it took three years of Bush walkover victories and theinsurgency of Howard Dean to give national Democrats the spine transplantthey so desperately needed.

Back in California, it's the students themselves who are providing themettle: Over the last six months, a student-led movement has spearheadedthe protest against cutting the rungs in the ladder of opportunity.They've marched, lobbied, signed petitions and gone to jail.

While barnstorming college campuses around the state last month with StateTreasurer Phil Angelides, who has proven to be a true leader in thiscause, I was inspired and impressed by the students' passion and refusalto accept the idea that denying them an education is an acceptable way tosolve the state's fiscal crisis.

It's time for the rest of us to join them atop the moral high ground anddemand that our leaders stop sacrificing America's college students - andthe public interest - while protecting the narrow interests of those atthe top. What kind of America do we want to live in? There's still time todecide.