Striking Out Fear PDF Print E-mail
Written by Richard Klass   
Monday, 15 June 2009

As published on Huffington Post, June 12, 2009 12:58 PM

 

As a kid I was a Red Sox fan. Still am. I was not quite 12 years old in 1952 when Jimmy Piersall broke in as a rookie outfielder. One of the more inspiring stories of the Red Sox Nation is that of Jimmy Piersall's battle against severe mental illness at a time when such afflictions were less understood or tolerated. The story of his struggle and ultimate triumph is chronicled in the 1957 movie Fear Strikes Out, based on his autobiography. The Democrats in Congress should take a lesson from Jimmy Piersall.

 

Ever since 9/11 too many Democrats have tended to cower in fear when George Bush, Dick Cheney and the GOP started swinging fear bats. Only when the war in Iraq turned so terribly bad did many have the courage to stand up and denounce the fear mongering. And, sadly, only when the economy went so bad and the war dragged on did the American people see through the concocted fears about national security in general and Barack Obama in particular to strike out fear in November 2008.

 

But there are three outs in an inning and Republicans, especially the former vice president are back to hitting Democrats with fear bats. And too many Democrats in Congress have reverted to pre-November 2008 patterns of behavior. This time the issue is Guantanamo and the fate of the prisoners there. The GOP naysayers in Congress and the titular leadership troika of Dick, Newt and Russ cannot defend what happened at Guantanamo nor make an honest case for keeping it open. George Bush advocated its closing but as was too often the case, did nothing to turn rhetoric into action. The current Defense Secretary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Attorney General want it closed.

 

So when the facts fail and the moral argument has been lost, the GOP default position is fear. With wild stories of released inmates roaming our streets, running day care centers and umpiring little league games, the GOP has distorted the issue and frightened the electorate and cowed too many Democrats and otherwise sensible Republicans on the Hill. What utter nonsense! There are many places where the terrorists can be safely held in the United States, the 490-bed SuperMax Security prison in Florence, Colorado already holds 33 terrorists with no adverse affects. The town council of Harin, Montana offered its brand new and empty 464-bed prison for such use but the Montana senators -- both Democrats -- were no profile in courage, whining "not in my back yard." This and the anticipation that, Ahmed Ghailani, would soon be the first Guantanamo prisoner to be sent to the U.S. for trial in Manhattan, prompted a Gail Collins column in the NY Times asking "When Did Cowboys Get Whimpy?"

 

When will Democratic members of Congress learn the lesson the fear is a winning tactic for the GOP as long as it goes unchallenged. As with the anti-Obama fear mongering during the campaign -- "socialist", "traitor", soft on terrorists"-- standing up, exposing these fear tactics for what they are and relying on the ultimate common sense of the American people are the best way to combat fearmongering. When it is confronted and shown for what it is, the American people will turn their backs on it. Whether quoting FDR on only having fear itself to fear or remembering Jimmy Piersall's story that fear can be struck out, it is time for Democrats to stiffen their backbone, stick to the moral imperative of closing Guantanamo and stand behind President Obama.

 
A NEW DIRECTION FOR VETERANS & TROOPS PDF Print E-mail
Written by Lorin Walker   
Thursday, 04 June 2009

Under Democratic leadership since 2007, New Direction Congresses have made historic gains for America's Troops, Veterans, and Military Families.

 

Progress made and efforts underway can be found on the Speaker's site.

 
Listening to Lincoln PDF Print E-mail
Written by Burton Housman   
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and for his orphan.

—Abraham Lincoln,
Second Inaugural Address,
Saturday, March 4, 1865

 

Nearly a century and a half after he said them, Lincoln's words call us once more. But the nature of combat has changed. The line between combatants and civilians is blurred. The range of weapons exceeds what the eye can see. Even heavy, high-speed vehicles are little protection against improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) aimed at their most vulnerable spots. IEDs, cheap and easily triggered by a cell phone, have enough power to leave vehicle-size craters in the ground while mixing infectious contaminants into the cauldron of injury.

 

Unlike the huge numbers lost in the warfare of the last century when, beginning in World War I, millions of young men simply never came back to their homes, these days many more U.S. combatants return from war. More and more of those with terrible wounds—lost limbs, traumatic brain injuries, guilt that cannot be shed, a lost sense of distinguishing right from wrong—now survive. The press keeps track of fatalities; however, swifter responses of more skilled medical care mean that those with life-altering injuries far outnumber those who die. Whereas some 40 percent of those wounded in World War II died and some 30 percent died in Vietnam, in Iraq the fatalities have been reduced to 10 percent.

 

We are desperately learning how to bind up wounds. Our capacity for averting death far exceeds our ability to restore to health.

 

Read Mr. Housman's piece on Friends Journal

 
Card Check and Gut Check PDF Print E-mail
Written by Wash. Post - Harold Meyerson   
Friday, 15 May 2009

If our nation was governed by business's version of democratic choice, we would hold elections to determine the winner, but nearly half the time the incumbent would remain in power even if he lost.

 

In its campaign to derail the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), business has fearlessly depicted itself as the defender of elections and the secret ballot as well as the foe of the dread "card check" -- the process, championed by unions and included within EFCA, that would allow workers to sign union affiliation cards rather than compelling them to go through a ratification election in which harassment and firings of workers are all too common.

 

But the kind of democratic choice that business favors is choice without consequence -- a position made clear by its opposition to the other key component of EFCA: binding arbitration between company and union if they've been unable to agree on a contract within 120 days of a union winning the election. A study of first-contract negotiations by John-Paul Ferguson and Thomas A. Kochan of MIT's Sloan School of Management makes clear why such arbitration is needed. After surveying 22,000 unionization campaigns between 1999 and 2004, the authors found that even after a majority of workers voted for a union, they actually reached a contractual agreement with management (which is currently under no legal obligation to come to an agreement) only 56 percent of the time.

 

Heads, management wins. Tails, the employees lose.

 

Read the complete article: Washington Post

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

contribute-button-actblue.gif
Candidates

Search for a Candidate


Read Our Questionnaire

 

2010 Endorsed Candidates   

 

2009 Endorsed Candidates 

 

2008 Endorsed Candidates

 

2006 Endorsed Candidates

 

All Veteran Candidates Seeking Office by Year

       2010 Vets  

       2009 Vets  

       2008 Vets

       2006 Vets

 

 

Contact Us

Main Contact Info
 
Staff
 
Advisory Board
 
Board of Directors/Officers