Undoing Eight Years of Stupid

Sometimes the worst brings out the best

On election night, hope was palpable. A sort of jittery excitement filled the air at the Catoosa Democratic Headquarters in Ringgold, Georgia. A year ago, the local party was lucky to have twenty people at a breakfast meeting. Now, giddy Obama supporters edged past each other in the crowded banquet hall, sharing smiles and ogling the vast array of t-shirts and buttons. “Your grandparents were right,” read one sticker, “Vote Democratic.”

For decades, this area has been Democratic. That’s the reason we are known for having some of the best public schools around. It’s the reason we have a fabulous library, and a learning center that not only rescues individual educations, but actually boosts the local economy by increasing wages so that it brings in more revenue than it costs taxpayers. Nationally, Democratic values have brought us the social security program that supports the elderly, a public education system that ensures every child in America has the right and responsibility to go to school, help for the mentally ill, assistance for the impoverished and health care for poor children.

Curiously, the Republican Party has managed over time to misconstrue the notion of family values. Somehow a number of Christian voters have been convinced that Christianity is about denying rights to people who don’t believe like we do. Jesus was never into that. Jesus came to heal the sick, bind up the broken hearted and preach good news to the poor.

As the hours passed and the soft drinks disappeared at the election party, it became apparent that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States. Our excitement was tempered by the memories of the 2000 election. It was not until the election was called with a wide margin that the true celebration began. White Democrats clapped and laughed and danced in the streets, vaguely wondering why the black Democrats had slipped away early. Then the sound of church bells pealed through the chilly air.

For days, the reality of what had taken place was still sinking in. “I can’t stop crying every time I think about it,” wrote my friend in New York, sounding so much like another friend in Hawaii and another in Canada. Suddenly a nation known for its racial divide had leaped from prejudice redneck status to multiculturalism, becoming an inspiration for reconciliation advocates in Europe and all over the world.

Not one to bask long in the glory of a moment, Barack Obama immediately got back to work. Less than one month from the election, he has already chosen most of his officials and cabinet members, including Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker as top economic advisor. Obama’s choices have thus far proven to be centrists and have sometimes crossed party lines (case in point, keeping Robert Gates as Defense chief.)

The task that lies before the President-elect is not an easy one. If the election was hard-won, economic and foreign policy success will be more difficult still. Some have even suggested that the Republicans were relieved not to win this cycle. After all, who wants to shoulder responsibility for the mess that Bush has made? The ship of state is not easy to turn around. It may take a decade or more to recover from the economic devastation of the Bush economy and quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then again, maybe it is all easier than it sounds. It doesn’t take a genius to do better than Bush; Obama is probably overqualified. How does one undo eight years of stupid? A lazy but clean solution would be simply to make a list of every policy Bush in enacted, and reverse it. The Patriot Act is a good place to start.

The problems Obama is inheriting are no more daunting than those faced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We love and revere FDR because he took on leadership at a time when the nation was utterly devastated. Through creative strokes of genius, FDR not only salvaged the economy; he used the crisis as an opportunity to build infrastructure, spur innovation and strengthen American ideals.

George W. Bush’s legacy as the worst president in history presents an opportunity to the next president. If Barack Obama acts timidly and only tweaks the failed Bush policies, he can expect to be caught in the same quicksand that has brought us to this point. If Obama acts boldly, he can create a legacy as a leader who brought the United States out of depression and war, into a time of peace and prosperity. On the heels of “the worst president ever,” Obama can be the best president yet.

Why do they stay?

Middle class voters and battered women's syndrome

As an advocate for abused women, I’ve heard the question a thousand times. Rather than asking why some men abuse or why society does not punish such criminals, people will invariably ask, “If women don’t like being abused, why do they stay?”

There are a number of incorrect assumptions in that question. First, it assumes the responsibility for abuse lies not with the abuser, but with the victim. This is obviously not true.

Second, the question assumes that abused women stay. Statistically, they don’t. It may takes months or years for a woman to safely extricate herself from a violent partner, but most women are so resourceful that eventually they do escape.

I understand the rationale for the question. Lately I’ve been wondering the same thing about middle class Republican voters. Year after year, Republican officials fleece the middle class. They regale us with promises of spending cuts, only to demand more pork than all their predecessors. They claim to be socially conservative while engaging in gay restroom hookups and chasing after teenage boys. They start wars they cannot finish and spend money we do not have. Even as they use patriotic language and religion to entice more recruits for their wars, they cut funding for veterans programs and wounded soldiers.

Throughout eight years of Bush, it has been discouraging to think that our children’s children will still be paying for this war. If McCain wins the 2008 election, our children’s children will still be fighting this war!

It is the middle class that bears the burden. Proportionally, ours is the greatest tax burden. Do middle class Republican voters really believe corporate welfare and tax cuts for rich people will “trickle down” to the average Joe? If it were true, Joe should be rich by now. Instead, Americans are poorer in real dollars than we have been in several decades.

The health care crisis also hits the middle class the hardest. The poorest citizens are still eligible for Medicaid, while programs like PeachCare that help the middle class are gutted and insurance companies are deregulated so they can invent more exceptions that fall outside covered expenses. These days it is hard to know which is rising fastest: deductibles, premiums or the cost of medicine.

Georgia Republican officials are no better than those on the national level. While middle class Georgians struggle with widespread fuel shortages, Governor Perdue and Senator Mullis run off to Spain. While Georgia public schools are failing (some so badly they actually lost their accreditation) and Georgia test scores are falling, school superintendent Kathy Cox goes on “Are You Smarter than a Fifth-grader?” to show off her knowledge. Middle class Georgians do not care how smart Kathy Cox is. We care what our own children are learning in the public schools we are funding with our tax dollars.

Like violent marriage partners, Republican politicians keep promising to change. Even though McCain and Palin support the Bush policies 100%, they somehow claim to be the party of change. Stealing Obama’s lines, they tell us to vote for them if we do not want “politics as usual.” Yet they cannot point out a single aspect where their policies will differ from the president who has the worst popularity rating ever.

Like other abusers, Republican politicians use religion and guilt to keep their victims in place. They set up “prayer groups,” non-profit organizations and TV preachers to proclaim that voting Democratic will imperil our souls. These are the same preachers who threaten women with the wrath of God if they divorce their abusers. When faced with a Democratic candidate who is a born-again Christian vs. a man who divorced his wife for his mistress, the abusers simply make up lies. Obama is a Muslim, they say. Since there is absolutely no evidence for this claim, they make him a closet Muslim, and an unpatriotic guy who befriends terrorists, to boot. None of this true, but lying is no big feat for an abuser trying to hold onto his prey.

Just like abusers everywhere, McCain and Palin claim to be mavericks to whom the rules do not apply. They condemn other politicians for pork barrel projects even though Alaska holds the record for per capita ear marks. They condemn lobbyists in politics, even though Sarah Palin was the first mayor to hire a lobbyist to bring pork barrel money to her little town of Wasilla. McCain continues to push for endless war in Iraq, even as American citizens and Iraqi officials call for an end to the occupation. They’re mavericks, all right.

Four more years of Bush-as-usual is not what voters want. In every state, middle class Americans are tired of war. Yet, for the presidential election, the Republican Party has selected the most crazed war hawk in American politics today. Why do they stay?

As with abused women, the question assumes too much. They don’t stay. They won’t stay. Sooner or later, middle class voters will be brave enough to leave the Republican Party behind.

Let them run

The past few weeks have been very interesting for runners of all kinds. An athlete who could not run was carried. An athlete who can run was finally told he could. And in politics, Hillary Clinton was barraged with yet more calls to stop running.

Over 200,000 viewers enjoyed the YouTube video of Western Oregon University athlete Sara Tucholsky’s first home run. In a game against Central Washington University, Tucholsky hit the ball over the fence. At first base, she tore a ligament in her knee. When the umpire mistakenly ruled that one of her own team members could not run the bases for her, two Central Washington players picked her up and carried her around the bases. All over the blogosphere, Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace are heralded as heroes for the selfless act that cost them the game but won them a place in our hearts -- and an entry on Wikipedia.

In other sports victories, double amputee Oscar Pistorius won the right to compete for a spot in the Olympics. Pistorius was born without fibulas (the long thin bones that run from knee to ankle.) Surgeons amputated both his legs below the knee when he was eleven months old. Running on special carbon-fiber blades, Pistorius holds the 400-meter Paralympic word record at 46.56 seconds.

Pistorius is not quite there yet; the qualifying requirement for the 400-meter event in Beijing is 45.55 seconds. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had barred Pistorius from all able-bodied competition including the Olympics, considering his carbon-fiber running blades a “mechanical advantage” over other runners. Their fear was not that he would fail, but that he might succeed.

If Pistorius makes the cut, he will not be the first Paralympian to qualify for the Olympics. Natalie du Toit, a swimmer from South Africa, qualified for the 2008 Olympics on May 3rd. Du Toit was already competing internationally when she lost her left leg in a motorcycle accident. Du Toit swims without a prosthetic, so fairness was never questioned. A poem on her wall states, “It is not a disgrace not to reach for the stars, But it is a disgrace not to have stars to reach for.”

Like Du Toit, Hillary Clinton is a person who is not easily contented by merely having stars out there. Both women are driven to win. In either case, a win represents far more than a personal victory. Clinton is hardly disabled in the political arena – indeed, America would be hard-pressed to come up with any candidate who is sharper, more well-known, or more qualified to lead our country than Hillary Clinton. Yet, in the political arena, merely being female is still a gigantic perception liability, almost like an athlete competing without a limb.

Throughout Clinton’s campaign, this column has recorded and analyzed a steady stream of media misogyny used to smear the senator and former first lady. While much of the onslaught is presented as humor, it is notable that comic references to Clinton’s sex are invariably negative, and frequently downright hateful.

Since Obama first became a serious challenger, pundits have called for Clinton to drop out of the race. As Clinton’s campaign noted, the drop out cries followed Clinton’s victories, not Obama’s. Clinton had become like the runner on carbon-fiber blades, and much of society wanted to deny her the right to even be a contender – not because she could not win, but because she just might.

Obama now commands a strong lead, but a Clinton nomination is still mathematically possible. Why should the Democratic nomination be ended prematurely? Some Democrats want to end it so the Democratic Party can unify against John McCain. Yet polls show that Clinton is a stronger candidate against McCain. Democrats may shoot themselves in the foot by trying to silence their best candidate.

Quitting now would not only mean giving up the nomination. It would also represent an enormous loss to women everywhere. What woman has not been pressured with these same tactics to “just go home?” Month after month, women continue to hear that they cannot “have it all” (i.e. family and career), even as the majority of American women continue to do just that. We are inundated with magazine articles, Internet essays and news items telling us that women are “opting out” and just going home in large numbers. The facts prove otherwise, but it does not stop the media from feeding the guilt complex carried by working mothers and discouraging us with claims that we cannot succeed.

Being female is still a disadvantage in many fields. Where women have made inroads, they still do not receive the same wages and honors accorded to men. The more education and training a woman has, the less likely she is to earn as much as her peers. The wage gap between male and female physicians, for example, is much greater than the wage gap between male and female cashiers.

Oddly, many feminists are among those calling for Hillary to pull out of the race. The Democratic contest has opened a generational divide between older and younger feminists. Younger feminists are apt to say that the gender of the candidate is completely immaterial, so long as he or she supports feminism.

Older feminists recognize a troubling historical parallel. In the 1800’s, the feminist movement was strong and suffragettes were closer than ever to their goal of votes for women. Many suffragettes were also abolitionists, and were willing to temporarily lay aside the cause of votes for women in order to fight slavery. After the Civil War, the feminist movement spent a great deal of energy and resources fighting for the rights of black men, including the right to vote. As a result, black men received the right to vote fifty years before women.

At a campaign stop in Kentucky, Hillary Clinton responds to those who urge her to quit. “You don’t stop democracy in its tracks. You don’t tell some states that they can’t vote and other states that have already had the opportunity that they’re somehow more important. I want everybody to vote and everybody to help pick our next president.”

So run for all you’re worth. Run in your dark pantsuit. Run on your carbon-fiber blades. Run till the wind in your ears drowns out the incessant whining of those who tell you to go home. They’re only afraid that somehow, against the odds, you just might win.

The truth about universal healthcare

Republican Party spokespersons big and small are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to combat the positive message of the Democratic Party. Over the next few months, you will hear them call good evil and evil good in order to trick America into four more years of Bush-style fear-mongering, war-mongering and recession.

Healthcare may be the issue that shipwrecks their good-is-evil message. For years, Republicans told us that “universal healthcare” was a dangerous, wicked Democratic plan that must be opposed. They said if everyone had healthcare, there would be no healthcare at all! Back when most voters had adequate healthcare coverage, we swallowed the lies. We believed that if healthcare were extended to the masses, it would no longer be as good for us.

Times have changed. Many of us are finding ourselves under-insured, with huge deductibles to meet before our policy ever kicks in. Many more are uninsured altogether, either because we cannot afford the employee portion of the premium, or because our company can no longer afford to offer health insurance. Will people with little or no healthcare really buy the “universal healthcare is evil” mantra?

Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko” really brought the issue to the forefront of the American conscience. It is not that Americans did not know about the crisis. Many of us have experienced it first hand. What the movie and the buzz about it revealed is that the healthcare crisis is widespread. We are not alone in our struggles.

In fact, one survey found that 30% of respondents had delayed seeing a doctor about a known and potentially serious medical condition, because of inability to pay. Medical inflation is currently twice as high as the standard rate of inflation, meaning this problem will not resolve itself. Workers are paying more but getting less, with premiums rising four times faster than wages.

Let’s consider it from another angle. Every American child has the right to an education, whether or not her parents can afford private school. There are schools on every corner – private schools, public schools, and kitchen-table home schools. To be sure, the public education system has flaws. (So do private schools and home schools, but nobody talks about that.) Despite the flaws, we can still say this: Any American child can walk through the doors of the public school house and receive an education.

Unfortunately, I know some people who would like to see public education abolished. As you can imagine, they are people who can easily afford to educate their children privately, and they do not appreciate having to foot the bill for other people’s children.

In the dreams of the selfish, their little Richie would never have to compete with the smart but poor kid down the road. Only the wealthy would be able to educate their children. As for the rest of Americans, well, they just need to be trained for manual labor and subordinate positions to little Richie.

Most of us would be appalled at such thinking. We have been raised to believe that a basic education is every child’s birth-rite. Aren’t health and life more important than education? If every child has the right to be taught to read, then does not every child have the right to receive treatment for a life-threatening condition like asthma?

Universal healthcare simply means healthcare for all. Private healthcare plans will not be eradicated any more than private schools have been eradicated. Those who are happy with their current healthcare can keep it.

Health care is at least as important as public education, public libraries, public transportation and other services that we make available to all citizens. It is time for the United States to step into the twenty-first century and provide healthcare for all Americans. To help us do that, vote Democratic!

Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com

Why we need to elect Democrats

Are you concerned about family values? That’s why we need to elect Democrats. Democrats founded the Department of Education in America. Democrats passed the Family and Medical Leave Act to prevent working parents from being fired when they have to leave work to care for a sick child. That act had been on hold for years because Republicans opposed the idea.

Republicans also opposed the World Health Organization (WHO) code to hold formula companies accountable for their unethical marketing tactics that harm mothers and babies. While the rest of the world signed the WHO code in 1980, babies in the United States had no protection from unscrupulous corporations until Democratic President Bill Clinton took office. Democrats have a bill before the House now to protect breastfeeding mothers from discrimination and offer them a tax break for contributing to the public health.

Speaking of children, Democrats also implemented the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program that provides health care for millions of poor children. Democrats continue to fight valiantly for the program in the face of funding cuts and repeated vetoes by Republicans.

Are you concerned about Christian values? The last president who actually attended church was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The next-to-last president to attend church was a Democrat, too. Jimmy Carter preaches, teaches and has written numerous devotionals. As for the current crop of presidential hopefuls, Democratic frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a history of Christian faith that includes conversion, church membership and attendance. By contrast, McCain is so loosely attached to any church that he changed his credentials from “lifelong Episcopalian” to “been a Baptist for years” mid-campaign.

Are you looking to protect our personal freedoms and civil liberties? That’s why we need to elect Democrats. Republicans have conceived attack after attack on the rights we hold dear. Bush launched the Patriot Act, suspending the right to habeas corpus. Habeas corpus protects us from unlawful arrest by preventing authorities from detaining a person without evidence of a particular crime. Without habeas corpus, we can be arrested without ever breaking the law, and held indefinitely.

Republicans continue to chip away at our civil liberties by spying on Americans through the telephone companies. Although the companies’ actions are illegal and a violation of privacy, blanket immunity protects the companies from prosecution.

Perhaps you are concerned about the economy and prefer to vote for fiscal conservatives. That’s why we need to elect Democrats. The last president to balance the budget was a Democrat. The last president to preside over a budget surplus was a Democrat. Republicans have not so much as broken even since the Nixon era. In fact, President Clinton left office in 2001 with a $127 billion surplus. By 2005, President Bush had burned through that extra money and accumulated a $319 billion deficit.

After another term of Bush, the deficit has spiraled to $9,413 billion at the time of the writing of this article. The deficit will be higher when you actually read this piece, since it is increasing by $1.7 billion per day. In case you’re wondering what this means to you, your personal share of the budget deficit is $31,001.26 and rising.

Sure, Republicans will cut funding in the name of tax relief. They cut school lunch programs, health programs, and help for the elderly. They cut school funds to help special needs kids – both gifted and learning delayed. Federal and state cuts mean that individual school districts must raise property taxes, suspend programs, or lay off teachers. Look around you and notice that they are doing all of the above just to make ends meet and stay solvent.

Republicans like to call Democrats “tax and spend.” In reality, it is Republicans who tax and spend – but they cut important programs while doing so. They spend everything in the budget and more, then use the budget as an excuse to hurt the helpless. After your child’s special needs teacher is let go, do you think you will receive a tax refund based on her lay-off? Hardly. That money is needed for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The war against Iraq costs Americans some $275 million per day. According to the New York Times, the $1.2 trillion (that’s over a million millions) spent on Iraq up through January is enough money to fund the following U.S. improvements: An unprecedented public health campaign that doubles cancer research funding, treats every unmanaged diabetic and heart disease patient, and saves millions of lives through global immunization. In ten years, this program would only use half the money. We could also fund a preschool program for every 3- and 4-year-old in the country, and give New Orleans a gigantic reconstruction boost. The rest of the money could be spent improving national security by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which Bush chooses to ignore. We would still have money to finance the war in Afghanistan to hold back the Taliban, and fund a peacekeeping force to stop genocide in Darfur.

Are you concerned about security in a time of war? That’s why we need to elect Democrats. Let’s look at security on a local level. Notice that the sheriffs of Whitfield, Walker and Catoosa counties are all Democrats, and all known for their ability to keep order and provide safety. Nationally, the same is true. It was a Democratic president who won World War I. It was a Democratic president who won World War II. What exactly is the Republican war legacy? Vietnam? Korea? Afghanistan and Iraq? Republicans do not even declare war properly. They surely don’t know how to declare peace.

Democratic leaders are our best hope for a brighter future.

Setting the record straight

Evaluating election rumors

With a flimsy platform and no strong candidate, Republicans are hoping to win the November election on whisper campaigns and character assassination. Let’s check out some of their claims.

No, Hillary Clinton did not defend the Black Panthers who killed and tortured Alex Rackley. Hillary Clinton was a student at that time, not an attorney or a politician. She attended the trial as a volunteer observer for the ACLU, but had no impact on the outcome. Like many students, she was concerned about whether the black defendants were receiving a fair trial, and she participated in protests calling for a change of venue.

No, people who oppose the Clintons do not meet an untimely demise. The “Clinton Body Count” is so preposterous that no reasonable person could entertain the idea. For a body-by-body debunking, see http://www.snopes.com/. The shorter version is: If Hillary Clinton had a 50-person hit list, wouldn’t the Republicans be all over that? She would certainly be sitting in jail for connections to even one murder.

No, Secret Service agents did not claim Hillary Clinton was rude and arrogant, mistreating her agents and even charging them rent. As early as 1993 Time Magazine reported a known political trick in which spurious Clinton stories were “leaked” to the press. Often these stories were attributed to anonymous Secret Service agents as a way to lend credibility to the false claim. As for rent, the Clintons are entitled to receive $1,100 per month for housing Secret Service agents in their Chappaqua, NY home – but they turned down the money.

No, Obama does not refuse to pledge the flag and yes, he has flags on his website. Obama has been videotaped pledging the flag. His website is red, white and blue (mostly blue.) The background centers on an eagle holding a shield and flag. His logo, shown multiple times on every page, is an interpretation of the American flag and the theme of hope (the sun rising over a field) all framed as a big O.

No, Obama does not attend a covertly Muslim church that excludes whites. Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC). The membership of TUCC is predominantly black, and the church places great emphasis on honoring African heritage and promoting the idea that “black is beautiful.” However, all people are welcome at the church, which adheres to the theology of the United Church of Christ.

No, Obama did not take the oath of office by swearing on the Koran. That would be a strange thing for a Christian to do. Obama was sworn in on the Bible.

No, John Edwards did not cause the 2004 flu vaccine shortage. The urban legend states that John Edwards sued a pharmaceutical company on behalf of a man who contracted the flu after receiving the vaccine. Supposedly the threat of further litigation ensures that no pharmaceutical company in the Unite States will dare to make the flu vaccine. The legend claims that the 2004 flu vaccine shortage resulted from contamination of a flu vaccine facility in the UK. This one is false all the way around. John Edwards never litigated a flu case. Anyway, the flu vaccine is manufactured in the United States. It was a US facility that was shut down due to contamination, resulting in the shortage. The real reason few pharmaceutical companies produce flu vaccine is because the profit margin for flu vaccine is very slim.

What about the Republican candidates? Is there a whisper campaign against them? Every email I have received has been against a Democrat. Even searching for GOP candidate names along with “urban legend,” I came up with very few stories, all of which are substantiated by reputable media outlets.

Yes, Senator McCain supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. In 2006 and 2007, McCain joined with Ted Kennedy in supporting Senate bills that would give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He also denounced and voted against an amendment designed to stop illegal immigrants from receiving social security benefits through identity fraud. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, which provided in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. Later he said he would have voted against his own legislation – but in fact he was absent when the vote was taken.

Yes, McCain is being swift-boated. There really is a group called Vietnam Veterans against John McCain. They claim that Senator McCain committed treason and does not deserve his medals because he gave the enemy information while he was being tortured as a POW. According to McCain’s own account, he did give the enemy information – some true and some false. For example, when asked to name the members of his squadron, he listed the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line. McCain is a war hero as far as I am concerned, but it is true that this group exists and that they insist otherwise.

Yes, Mitt Romney transported his dog in a cage strapped to the top of the car during a 12-hour journey to visit his parents. The 1983 misadventure was reported in the Boston Globe last June. Romney clarified that he attempted to shield the dog with some sort of makeshift windshield. The scared pooch developed diarrhea, so Romney stopped at a gas station and hosed down the dog, the carrier, and the back of the car. Romney’s campaign-trail response to pet-loving critics: “They’re not happy that my dog loves fresh air.”

Speaking of dogs, Snopes confirms that Mike Huckabee’s son was fired from his job as a Boy Scout Camp counselor after he killed a dog by hanging. John Bailey, then director of Arkansas state police, claims Huckabee refused to allow police to investigate whether the boy violated animal cruelty laws. Huckabee says that Bailey is just a disgruntled employee. Huckabee says the dog was mangy, emaciated, and threatening, and that his son acted out of compassion.

Yes, Huckabee had a prominent role in the release of a serial rapist in Arkansas. Worse, the decision to release Wayne Dumond 25 years early appears to be politically motivated. Dumond was convicted and incarcerated while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. One of the victims, a seventeen-year-old high school cheerleader named Ashley Stevens, was distantly related to Clinton. Republicans seized on the connection to claim that the man had been wrongfully convicted.

Soon after election, Governor Huckabee began to agitate for Wayne Dumond’s release. In his book, “From Hope to Higher Ground,” Huckabee states that he worried Dumond might be innocent. He was callous enough to say this to Ashley Stevens when she begged him to keep Dumond behind bars. According to the Huffington Post, Huckabee’s office kept the visit secret, as well as letters from numerous victims warning that Dumond would strike again. They were right. Dumond then raped and then suffocated a 39-year-old woman. He was arrested again, the day after he allegedly raped and murdered a pregnant woman. Huckabee’s response amounts to “Who knew?” Other times he has blamed Clinton for Dumond’s release, pretending the commutation happened before his term.

In an election of this import, voters must make the effort to find out the truth. Don’t go into the voting precinct next Tuesday with a head full of lies. Cut through the urban legends – and even the campaign rhetoric – to consider a candidate’s true stance on the issues. Past voting records are the best clue.

We can believe that Democrats will institute nationwide healthcare coverage – and that Republicans consider it unnecessary. We can believe that Huckabee will be soft on crime and add to his 1,000+ pardons. We cannot believe McCain on immigration or Romney on abortion, because their positions are shifting and do not match their voting patterns. We can believe the Republicans when they say they will extend the war in the Middle East for 100 years or more. We can believe Democrats when they say they will end the war and bring troops home.

Who’s crying in their coffee now?

Media attempt to manipulate the election fails – this time

Just before the New Hampshire primary, the media was abuzz with the claim that Hillary Clinton was coming unraveled. Multiple sources claimed she had been crying. One columnist called it a “weepfest” while others speculated that it may be a calculated attempt to “cry her way to the White House.”

Most pundits said she was finished. AP writers even claimed to have inside information that she was planning a pull-out. Every story implied she was crying over her loss in Iowa and impending loss in New Hampshire.

Being the curious sort, I went to You-Tube for the video clip. She was not even talking about Iowa or New Hampshire. She did express herself passionately. At one point her voice, hoarse from campaigning, quavered a bit.

But there was not a single tear shed. How does one have a “weepfest” without tears? Yet this moment of perceived weakness was recounted and embellished in the media as they gloated over Clinton’s supposed political burial.

As the New Hampshire primary votes were counted, it was interesting to watch the news reports roll into Yahoo News and CNN. As Clinton took the lead, the AP article was updated to state that Clinton and Obama were “dueling for New Hampshire” -- yet it continued to claim she was considering dropping out. As her lead grew, reporters kept claiming the race was neck-and-neck.

When the New Hampshire primary was over, CNN put it like this: “Clinton wins back women, narrowly takes New Hampshire.” Actually, Clinton earned a higher percentage of votes in New Hampshire than Obama earned in Iowa.

Seems to me the pundits and reporters were intent on taking the woman candidate down. They presented to the world a caricature of Hillary Clinton crying in her coffee while her campaign team whispered about withdrawal. They believed, like all good Republicans, that if you repeat a story over and over, it becomes true. They hoped that voters would not cast their ballot for a “loser.”

When Clinton won New Hampshire, the pundits could not say “We were wrong.” They certainly would not admit “We misled the public.” So they had to say, “Wow, look what we did! We made all those silly women voters feel so sorry for Hillary Clinton that they actually voted for her!”

I have some news for the news people: Your projections were wrong. Hillary Clinton was always popular in New Hampshire. The primary voters did not cast a sympathy vote. They cast their votes based on a concept called issues.

In fact, exit polls showed that the greatest Clinton voting gap was not between men and women. It was between women with jobs and women without jobs. Women who are currently looking for work voted for Senator Clinton in faith that she can turn the economy around and strengthen the job market.

Although female voters were significant, Clinton was also favored among certain other groups, including college-educated voters of both sexes and voters over forty.

Hillary Clinton is well-respected among party Democrats. Democrats are well aware of Senator Clinton’s work. We know better than to believe the biased media that paints her as super-liberal or overly divisive. Clinton has a history of reaching across the aisle and getting things done. She is a known quantity. She’s a safe bet. In states where primary voting is limited to the parties, a strong Clinton showing is expected.

Radio preachers and Republicans always lament “the liberal media.” I’d like to know where this so-called liberal media can be found? You can’t tune the radio without coming across a horde of ranting, slobbering right-wing extremists, yet it is nearly impossible to find a left-leaning speaker.

Television and the air waves are owned, dominated, and narrated by conservatives. They falsely divide Democratic voters into groups, claiming “Obama will win the black vote” and “Hillary will win the woman vote.” Neither blacks nor women vote as a block – and if they did, it would create a real problem. Over half of black voters happen to be women. A fair number of female voters happen to be black.

The American media is not liberal. What we have is a sexist media that will prognosticate endlessly about Hillary Clinton’s hair, cleavage, laughter, voice, tears, clothes – anything that can be used to remotely suggest that women are something ‘other.’

Commentators make sexist remarks without impunity. Imus was publicly reprimanded for making racist comments toward female athletes, but what if those players had been white? Chattanooga radio personalities make sexist comments about female athletes, lamenting that they cannot watch sexy, half-clad models on the court rather than muscular women who know how to handle a ball. Few listeners complain, so long as race is not mentioned.

You would never hear the pundits discuss how well Obama meets their stereotypical perceptions of bi-racial men -- Not the same way Clinton’s femininity has been picked apart. That’s not to say that racism is not a major barrier in American life and politics, but at least it has been consigned to the whisper campaign. Woman-hating is still a public and accepted American pastime. Unfortunately, the media is no exception.

Media Matters has launched a campaign against MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews for his sexist remarks toward Clinton. His comments include referrals to Clinton as a "she devil," an “uppity woman” and a "strip-teaser." He called male Clinton supporters "castratos in the eunuch chorus." Other times he has called Senator Clinton "Madame Defarge,” a Charles Dickens character who spent her time knitting a register of people she wanted dead. On four occasions Matthews has depicted Clinton as a woman who wants to smother a baby in a crib – the baby, of course, being Senator Obama.

Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh both refer to Senator Clinton as "Nurse Ratched." Nurse Ratched is the sadistic woman who terrorizes mental patients in “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”

Intelligent voters make their choice based on the issues that are important to them, not media caricatures. I, for one, will vote my conscience.

copyright Jeannie Babb Taylor
http://www.jeanniebabbtaylor.com/

Racism, sexism and representation

Primary picks to make your vote count in 2008

Several readers have requested my primary picks. Here they are, from numerous angles and with a humorous twist.

If I were a super-conservative religious male (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who believes that men are created in God’s image and women are lesser beings, I’d vote for Mike Huckabee. I’d sing hymns in my head while standing in line, and whisper “Amen” when I put my hand on the TV screen. On the way home, I would buy six months worth of groceries in anticipation of the 23% “Fair Tax” to come.

If I were a rich libertarian who wants to tell other Americans that their education and health care are none of my concern, I’d vote for Ron Paul. I would still have to stop for groceries on the way home. I would especially stock up on medicines, meats and other FDA-approved goods. There is no telling what toxins might be added once Ron Paul eliminates the FDA and gives us back our “health freedom.”

If I were the head of a powerful and corrupt corporation, I would vote for Mitt Romney. He’d be someone I could work with -- someone who understands that the bottom line is far more important than the lives of a few babies or the long-term health of women. Romney understands that government is just another form of business.

If I were a secretly gay conservative male bent on suppressing the lifestyles of openly gay liberal males, I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani. With his quick flip-flop from supporting Gay Pride to suddenly endorsing a marriage amendment, it is obvious he has no real scruples and will comply with whatever his handlers say on the matter. I’d try to remember to remove my lipstick before going the polls, and make sure my slip was not showing.

If I were a war-hawk with a T-shirt reading, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” I’d vote for John McCain. I’d invest some money in Dyancorp and Halliburton. Then I’d send my son to Canada, knowing that McCain has stated he does not mind if the troops are in Iraq for a hundred, a thousand, a million or even ten million years.

If my greatest concern were the economy or healthcare – perhaps as a plant worker, a school teacher, a parent, an honest business owner or just a middle-class American struggling to pay the bills on time -- I would vote for a Democrat. Any Democrat I liked.

Then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, confident that if Democrats win the economy will soon improve and taxes will be held at bay. Democrats are historically much better at managing the national budget, and they don’t tax things like groceries and medical bills.

I’d go home with a smile on my face, knowing that soon our borders will be secure and the government will be targeting the corporations who bus in illegal workers – not raiding and breaking up families. I would feel relieved that our men and women in uniform will soon be coming home – with solid veteran’s benefits when they return. I’d take my family out to eat, hopeful that my candidate will win and the American economy will at last begin to recover from eight devastating years of Bush.

The differences between the top three Democratic candidates are slim. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are all intelligent people with a solid history of serving Americans. I would be honored to cast my vote for any of them.

The differences between the Republican candidates are greater, and the chasm between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is gaping wider every day. Republicans want to kill, and Democrats want to heal. Republicans want to squeeze the life out of the American lower and middle class, while Democrats want to salvage the economy and strengthen the middle class. Most Republicans want to expand and escalate the war in the Middle East. Democrats want to bring ‘em home.

On February 5th, Georgia voters have the opportunity to make history. We can help put the first black person or the first woman on the national ballot. People of color are underrepresented in American government, as are women.

Women comprise the majority of voters, but only 16% of Congress. No female presidential candidate has ever before appeared on the national ballot for either major party.

Point this out to some Republicans and they will act like they’re vaguely sorry they didn’t think of it first. “It’s not that I’m against a woman president,” they’ll say, “just not THAT WOMAN.”

Very few can give a substantive reason for opposing Hillary Clinton. More common are knee-jerk reactions based on mischaracterizations or outright lies. Republicans frequently characterize Clinton as a super-divisive liberal, but anyone who follows her actual votes and agendas sees a very different picture. Clinton is a moderate.

Then there is the so-called “Clinton Body Count” that has been regurgitated from the 1990s and is re-circling the Internet. This piece of work claims to be a list of all the people who have died “mysteriously” because of their connections to the Clintons. The connection may be tenuous (such as Bill’s chiropractor’s mother, or a person who once lived in Arkansas) and the mysterious death usually is not mysterious at all. Nonetheless, it’s good fodder for fools who say “I got it in an email, so it must be true.”

Sadly, the United States is far behind the times in granting women full access to the government. Other countries have had women in the highest office as far back as the sixties. Great Britain has had Margaret Thatcher, India had Indira Ghandi, and Israel had Golda Meir. Pakistan, Turkey and Bangldesh are all Muslim countries that have placed women at the helm. This short list does not even touch on the extensive list of women who have ruled as royals, stretching from pre-history to modern times.

Who could have imagined that America would cross into the new millennium and journalists would still be asking, “Is America ready for a woman in the White House?”

We should ask ourselves how satisfied we are with the male who has been in office the last seven years. If we elect another man like Bush, we can expect four more years like the last seven.

Hardly anyone favors a candidate solely on sex or skin color. Such traits illicit more votes against than for. Yet there are many people who consider Clinton’s sex and Obama’s color an important part of who they are and how they will lead. All else being equal, many women (and indeed some men) prefer a female candidate. Likewise, many people consider Obama’s skin tone a perk rather than a liability.

What do you call it when a woman votes for Hillary Clinton because she’s female, or a black person prefers Obama because of the color of his skin? It’s called representation.

Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com

It's called democracy

A group of men sat down to fire off a letter to some politicians who were overstepping their bounds. Searching for the perfect phrase, Benjamin Franklin borrowed the words of his Italian friend, Phillip Mazzei. He wrote, “All men are created equal.”

The Declaration of Independence was not merely a letter from a colony to her mother country. It was a rallying cry for justice to the oppressed. What is remarkable is that the men who wrote it were hardly oppressed. These individuals had in fact enjoyed the privilege of money and status, both in England and in colonial America. It was their own rights they were laying down. In declaring independence from England, they were not so much seeking equality as offering it.

Some speculate that they did not fully appreciate the import of their statement. Did they really understand that some of their own offspring would find these very words used against them, to dismiss their black slaves and scatter their fortunes?

Did any of them guess that their granddaughters would someday see their own destiny in these documents and demand the right to vote? We can only guess.

The women’s movement and the abolitionist movement were born in that pen stroke, but it would be over a hundred years before every American adult acquired voting rights. It would be even longer before non-white children were granted equal access to education. Women are still not guaranteed equal rights under the law.

Since the framers of America first put pen to paper, our country has continued toward the dream of democracy – but the progress is not linear. There are fits and starts. Certain forces propel us forward, even as certain constraints yank us backward. At the heart of those opposite pressures, there is always a vision – a vision for democracy, or a vision for elitism and inequality.

We see these opposing forces on local, state, and national levels. Locally, the forces of progress want to see our counties and municipalities grow, expand and move forward. We want our children to have theatre opportunities. We want the student who drops out of school because of poverty or pregnancy to have another chance through GED programs. We want abundant libraries, strong health departments, and adequately funded fire and police departments.

Then there are the conservative curmudgeons. They would prefer to play politics with the futures of our police officers and firefighters, tax the YMCA, and de-fund the learning center. They especially hate every vestige of fine arts or culture, such as the Colonnade, Catoosa County’s theatre and banquet hall. They talk about stripping the Colonnade of funds, but the gleam in their eye makes me think they would prefer to burn it to the ground.

They do not appreciate the value these entities bring to our community, and they certainly do not think that ten or twenty dollars of their property taxes should go to support such a thing! After all, they can afford a private gym. They don’t use the library or the health department and they certainly have no need for a learning center.

The same divide exists at the state level. From the time of the Reconstruction until the turn of the Millennium, Democrats lead Georgians to greater freedom and greater opportunity. Democrats worked to make Georgia a leader among the Southern states. They brought rural regions into the modern era through the power of electricity. They built health departments and hospitals. They supported local governments and focused resources on education. Democrats instituted the HOPE Scholarship, and they fight every year to protect it from Republican raids.

As a result of these efforts, economic opportunities abounded, education improved and was offered to all, and average Georgians began to live the American Dream. They finished school. They bought homes. They found rewarding work. They started businesses.

For a while, the forces of progress propelled Georgia forward. As a result, our strong schools and good job market lured more people to the state. These people brought their own ideas, including their own politics. Soon the tide turned and Republicans were in control of Georgia for the first time since Reconstruction. Ever the enemies of progress, Republican leaders cut funds for education, tossed children off PeachCare, brought back gerrymandering, and passed laws to take away the homes of the elderly on Medicaid.

The contrast between democracy and the GOP is seen clearly at the national level. If you’re not sure what the Republican vision is, just take a look at the places where they have forcibly taken control. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Their vision resembles oligarchy more than democracy. A few powerful people or corporations reign over a huge population of poverty-ridden little people with no hope, no future, and no opportunity.

You can predict the Republican stance on most any issue simply by asking, “Who does this policy benefit, Big Business or the common citizen?” At every turn, the GOP protects the interests of “the haves” at the expense of “the have-nots.”

It’s not that Republican leaders hate the poor. Actually, they love poor people – the same way hawks love crunchy little squirrels. They need a steady supply of desperate families to rent their slums, take out their high-interest payday loans, supply property for their foreclosure mills, and otherwise support Republican nobility.

But we Democrats have a different vision for America. We can imagine living in a land where no child ever dies from an abscessed tooth. We believe that the heritage of every American child should include healthcare, education and opportunity – not national debt, trade deficits and lead-tainted toys.

It is because of this vision Democrats founded the Department of Education and the school lunch program. Democrats also implemented the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program that provides health care for millions of children -- and Democrats continue to fight valiantly for the program in the face of repeated vetoes by President Bush.

It was the Democrats who instituted Medicare and Social Security to provide a safety net for the elderly and the disabled. Democrats launched the GI Bill to provide educational and economic opportunities to returning servicemen. Democrats also started Medicaid, interest-free student loans, and low-interest home loans.

Democrats instituted the minimum wage. Under Republican national leadership, the minimum wage stagnated for ten years, even as the cost of living soared. Only when the balance of power tipped back to democracy did the working poor find relief through a Democrat-lead minimum wage increase.

Democrats have always been the ones to stand up to social injustice, demand political accountability, champion education and healthcare, regulate the industry giants who would exploit children for profit, fight for the common people, and balance the checkbook. Democracy made this country great.

We believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We stand with Benjamin Franklin and say “all men are created equal.” Republicans may call us “socialists” or “communists” for such ideals, but we remember that we are in good company. No new label is needed for the sentiment that Benjamin Franklin expressed. It’s called democracy.

The problem with breastfeeding

What if doctors discovered a substance so potent, it could prevent dozens of diseases and even reduce the risk of cancer? What if these benefits extended not only to those who partake of this amazing substance, but also those who serve it? If a pharmaceutical company had developed it, it would be a billion-dollar industry. Breast milk, though, is free. Without a visible profit stream, it also lacks a marketing team.

Numerous studies show that breastfeeding reduces cancer risks for both givers and receivers – yet the American Cancer Society (ACS) has no campaign statement on the importance of breastfeeding. One huge study (147,000 participants) found that American women could cut their breast cancer risk by 33% by increasing the lifetime average of breastfeeding from three months to thirty months, which is the worldwide average. The ACS concluded that significantly increasing breastfeeding duration was “unrealistic” and instead continues to focus on mammograms, cancer prevention drugs and other methods that put money in the pockets of physician groups and pharmaceutical companies.

Although breastfeeding has been shown to reduce sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) risk by as much as 55%, the National Institute for Child Health (NICH) invests virtually nothing in breastfeeding education. Instead, the NICH organized the “Back to Sleep” campaign encouraging parents to put babies to bed on their backs. The first corporate sponsor of the Back to Sleep campaign was Gerber, a formula and baby food manufacturer. Is it any surprise there is no financial backing to promote breastfeeding as a SIDS prevention tool?

Breastfeeding contributes significantly to child health. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding is “as important to preventive pediatric health care as promoting immunizations, car seat use, and proper infant sleep position.” Yet a recent AAP survey found that 45 percent of pediatricians who responded see formula-feeding and breast-feeding as equally acceptable. Once again, we can follow the money to understand this phenomenon. Doctors receive numerous samples, perks, and gifts from formula companies – a practice condemned by the World Health Organization (WHO.)

Formula makers are forced to give lip service to the superiority of breastfeeding. Yet these companies spend millions of dollars per year tripping up new mothers. They have inroads at the obstetrician’s office, the hospitals where babies are born, and the pediatrician’s office. Formula makers ensure that every mother goes home with a couple of cans of formula, so it will be available in the middle of the night when the baby is crying, she is exhausted from lack of sleep and she is vulnerable to the insecurities American society has pressed on her day after day. The result? Even though 70% of mothers start breastfeeding, within a few months the statistics have flipped. Only 11.3% of babies are still exclusively breastfed at six months.

It is difficult to blame American mothers for the failure to breastfeed, when everything is stacked against mothers from the start. Unlike women in most other developed countries, American women receive no paid maternity leave. Only those on welfare receive a stipend to carry them through the first months of mothering. Women who support themselves are forced to return to work, where it is often impossible to bring an infant, and pumping opportunities may be few and far between, with unsanitary conditions.

Rep Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2007. The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding women from workplace discrimination. It also gives employers a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year to provide employees with equipment, dedicated space and consultation for pumping breastmilk. The bill establishes standards for breast pumps, and creates tax breaks for women who purchase breast pumps in order to maintain employment.

Maloney says, “I have heard many horror stories of women who were fired for trying to figure out a way to express milk at work. My bill clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect breastfeeding under federal civil rights law, ensuring that women cannot be fired or discriminated against in the workplace for expressing (pumping) milk, or breastfeeding during breaks or lunch time.”

At least the welfare moms have the chance to stay home and breastfeed – after all, their babies comprise the most high-risk population of infants in terms of health problems, asthma, failure to thrive and learning disabilities. Yet the formula-makers find these mothers, too. Government programs take away one of the incentives for breastfeeding by shelling out $600 million per year to put low-income infants on the bottle. Taxpayers also foot the bill for the increased healthcare cost of these children.

The U.S. government has certainly been slow to recognize the fountain of youth. Reagan and the first Bush both refused to ratify the World Health Organization’s breastfeeding code, designed to protect new mothers from formula makers’ guerilla marketing tactics. The code was not recognized by the U.S. until Clinton signed it in 1994, and it is still not enforced.

Recently, a handful of individual states sought to enforce the code. They especially want to stop hospital formula marketing, because once a baby receives a bottle, the mother and baby are confronted with a whole host of problems including nipple confusion and inadequate milk supply. If successful breastfeeding is not established within the first few days, formula-makers are practically guaranteed a new customer.

In Massachusetts, it was Governor Mitt Romney who struck down a ban on hospital marketing. Less than two weeks later, Romney announced that he had secured the construction of a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, Massachusetts. The plant is owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the largest formula manufacturer in the world.

Outside the U.S., things are no better. Nestle actually targets babies in developing countries, where breastfeeding has the greatest potential for good. Babies are routinely hooked on formula in third world hospitals and sent home without ever establishing breastfeeding. Back in the village, families soon discover that the cost of buying formula is higher than their entire wage.

As a result of Nestle’s tactics, sub-Saharan African has a breastfeeding rate of only 32%; Asia, 35%; Indonesia, 39%, Vietnam, 19%, and Thailand, 5%. According to WHO and UNICEF, approximately 1.5 million babies die each year because they were started on formula instead of breast milk.

American women who breastfeed should expect resistance from a society that depicts over-sized breasts on magazine covers and billboards, yet rejects the breast’s highest function. Numerous polls show that the majority of Americans are comfortable seeing women breastfeed in public; yet, a few shrill voices continue to insist that it is improper.

American women have been harassed or thrown out of libraries, restaurants and public parks for the simple act of breastfeeding. One woman was even expelled from a Vermont Delta Freedom flight for breastfeeding her child, resulting in nurse-ins at Delta counters across the nation.

Most recently, comedian Bill Maher praised Appleby’s for discriminating against a nursing mother, asserting that women who breastfeed in public are lazy and narcissistic. Maher’s other comments, which are too crude to be printed in the county paper, illustrate that what bothers some people about breastfeeding isn’t that it is perceived as sexual, but rather that it is not. Hooters, wet T-shirt contests and Playboy magazines are just fine with people like Maher, who believe that breasts are not for babies, but for men.

Although doctors agree that “breast is best,” their own licensing board does not follow their recommendations. Breastfeeding mother and aspiring doctor Sophie Currier had to sue the National Board of Medical Examiners for the right to take pumping breaks during her nine-hour licensing exam. In typical anti-feminist fashion, the judge told Sophie she would just have to take the exam when her child was older and finished breastfeeding. She would have lost her residency in clinical pathology at Massachusetts General Hospital and derailed her career. Sophie appealed the decision, and won.

The “problem” with breastfeeding is that it lacks a corporate profit stream. It profits mothers and babies tremendously. It profits families, the government and tax payers. The USDA estimates that $3.6 million in healthcare costs could be saved if more U.S. babies were breastfed. Unfortunately, nothing much happens in America unless it lines the pocket of a corporation. WHO cares about breastfeeding, but corporate America never will.

We live in a culture that despises human bodily fluids – even as we feed our children cow’s milk and use pregnant mare urine (Premarin) to balance menopausal hormones. Canadian researchers are even developing medicines based on genetically-engineered pig semen. The market for animal fluids continues to grow, because there is a profit stream associated with it. If formula companies maintain control of doctors and legislators, a day may come when humans are no longer classified as mammals. Mammals, after all, are defined as animals that have hair and suckle their young.

A Christian and a Democrat

“I can’t vote for a Democrat,” a man once told me. “I’m a Christian.” He spoke these two labels as if they were a set of antonyms. He could not grasp my attempts to explain that one label referred to a religion while the other referred to a political party. Some preacher had told him that all Christians are Republicans, and he had accepted this factoid without thinking.

I tried another approach. “Do you know how the Democratic Party meetings are opened?” I asked.

He raised one eyebrow warily, as if he expected to hear that we sacrificed infants or pledged our souls to the devil.

“We open with prayer,” I told him. “Then we say the Pledge of Allegiance.”

He stood there for a moment, dazed. “Including the ‘under God’ part?”

“That part, too,” I answered, and watched as he walked away, wheels turning in his head.

The Republican Party claims to be God’s party, even while they oppress the fatherless, the foreigner and the poor – the very people God warned us not to oppress. (Zech 7:10.)

Rev. Jim Nelson, who will be speaking at the Catoosa County Democratic Rally & Barbecue at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School Saturday night, puts it like this, “I am not a Democrat in spite of being a Christian. I am a Democrat because I am a Christian.”

As for the current crop of Republicans, there is hardly a moral conservative among them. It seems another GOP member comes out of the closet (or the airport restroom stall) every week. These days we’re just happy if we can keep them off the under-age congressional pages.

A bizarre conversion is sweeping the Republican Party, though. Mitt Romney, who pandered to the gay and lesbian community in 1994, has become their biggest opponent. Rudy Giuliani, who worked to increase gun control as mayor of New York City, has suddenly become a believer in the 2nd Amendment and a fan of the NRA. Meanwhile, Episcopalian candidate John McCain has suddenly realized that he is a Baptist – and has been for many years even as his campaign materials called him an Episcopalian. What’s next? Will Mitt Romney reveal that he is actually a black woman? No, that might conflict with his Latter Day Saints Bible, which calls black skin a curse.

If Baptist is what the voters want, then McCain will retroactively become a Baptist. It’s hard to say whether that will help him, as there have been more Episcopalians than Baptists in the White House. In fact, Baptist presidents have typically been judged harshly by those affiliated with the Baptist church.

The first Baptist president was Warren G. Harding. Harding, a Republican, is often listed among a handful of “worst presidents” in terms of lackluster leadership and widespread corruption. The other three Baptist presidents were all Democrats: Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Let’s talk about Jimmy Carter. As President, Carter orchestrated peace between Egypt and Israel, and talked the Soviet Union through the SALT II treaty to reduce nuclear arms. He advanced equal opportunity for women and minorities. He created the Department of Education and the Department of Energy to make sure that every American had access to quality education and reliable electricity – things we now take for granted. Carter introduced the concept of environmental protection legislation. After leaving office, Carter participated in numerous projects and foundations to help people all around the world. Habitat for Humanity is probably the most widely known. In 2002, Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his continued diplomatic work around the world. Yet most Baptists hate him.

Carter always showed himself to be a statesman, a faithful husband, and a strong Christian. He was never caught using lewd words when he did not realize the microphone was on, like Bush. Carter has published numerous devotional books which you can borrow from our county library. Since age 18, he has taught Sunday school at a Baptist church. Even while in Washington, he taught a Sunday school class there. Do you think our current president even attends church on Sunday? Hint: No.

It’s not that Bush’s pew is empty. He doesn’t have one. The man who claims God speaks to him directly, has no church at all. And don’t tell me the free leader of the world can’t find time to go to church. If he can find time to spend a third of his presidency on vacation, he can find time to go to the House of God.

Reagan did not bother with church either, even though he was often called the nation’s “pastor.” Reagan’s excuse for being unchurched was that the security detail required to protect him would be a burden, causing parishioners to leave. The Clintons, who were active members of Foundry United Methodist Church during Bill Clinton’s term in the White House, had no problem attending.

According to his biographers, Carter may be the most personally devout president America ever had. Yet Baptist leaders inexplicably loathe Carter. Many preachers have called him godless, denying that he was ever a Christian.

Meanwhile, these same people support President Bush as God’s man of the hour, even though he has rarely darkens the door of a church, supports killing and torture rather than working for peace, has demonstrated no knowledge of Scripture, and would have trouble coming up with a bedtime prayer without help from Karl Rove.

The fact is, Baptist leaders don’t support Baptists. Baptist leaders support Republicans. You will even see them support a Mormon, if Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney has already spoken at Pat Robertson’s Regent University’s commencement– even though Robertson’s website lists Mormons as a cult for denying salvation through faith in Christ. Maybe faith in Christ is less important to Robertson than imagining himself a kingmaker.

Republicans often charge that Democrats are immoral. They forget that the moral values held by most Americans include compassion, honesty, integrity, and respect for all people. Let’s consider how our current president stacks up on these values.

Compassion: Bush cut Head Start and school lunch programs, and has now promised to cut health care to millions of children all over the country.

Honesty: Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq and repeatedly insinuated that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Integrity: Bush sought to prevent both the independent investigation and the congressional investigation of the 9/11 attacks.

Respect for all people: Would that include the thousands of American soldiers and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children slaughtered in a war founded on lies?

My Christian faith does not allow me to vote for more lies, war, sickness and poverty.

Why the Name-Calling

Bedwetters, communists, feminazis, girly-men . . . You can tell the Republicans are scared when they resort to name-calling — which, of course, means they are scared most of the time.

They rule from a position of fear, and they seek to project that fear onto the rest of us. Remember when GWB promised that electing Gore would result in another terrorist attack? It almost sounded like a threat. It was not true, of course. American voters did in fact elect Gore and nothing happene...Nothing at all. (Though, of course, some would liken the judicial fiat employed to put GWB in office, and GWB’s subsequent bombing of small countries, as a form of terrorism.)

When the village Republican calls you a terrorist for opposing the escalation in Iraq, this is just more of the same. Calling Hillary Clinton a communist — now that’s a real case of the pot calling the kettle black. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. If anything, she may lose the primary for being too moderate.

Do not believe the lying liars who tell you Hillary Clinton wants to confiscate your property and distribute it among the poor. Do not even fall for the more common pronouncement that Democrats always raise taxes. Truth is, Democrats are often the only voice of reason crying against a tax increase.

Just last week, Republican Governor Sonny Perdue raised your taxes without even bothering to tell you. Every time you fill up your car, you will pay even more for your gasoline, thanks to an automatic gas tax increase that Perdue allowed. The only state officials who took a stand against the gas tax are Democratic legislators like Rep. DuBose Porter.

The evil of communism is not that communism teaches sharing what we have, or feeding those who cannot work. The Bible teaches the same thing. The evil of communism is that freedoms are stripped from individuals — among them: the right to speak freely and privately; the right to elect a government of by and for the people; and the right not to have our homes occupied or our family members arrested without cause.

When it comes to freedoms like these, our Republican president is the biggest Big Brother since the days of McCarthyism.

Bush scrapped the Geneva Convention and reinstituted torture as a sanctioned military procedure. Previous military wisdom taught that fair treatment of prisoners encourages your enemy to surrender. Enemy combatants will never put themselves at your mercy if they expect to be tortured, abused and mistreated. Result: The abuses at Abu Ghraib have produced an enemy that will never surrender.

Bush eliminated the right of habeas corpus. Once upon a time, people could not be detained unless they were alleged to have committed a particular crime. Result: People may just disappear, like they did in Stalin’s Russia.

Bush launched a “pre-emptive” war based on lies, non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and fabricated ties to 9/11. Result: Vietnam-like quagmire in Iraq.

Bush claimed that the only way to protect American freedom is by getting rid of it. Result: The PATRIOT Act.

Bush used PATRIOT to destroy many of our civil liberties, including the right to check out a library book without Big Brother reading over our shoulder, or the right to know our home is about to be searched. Result: Death of “knock and announce,” end of library privacy — heck, even your church records can now be accessed by the government, and church officials are not allowed to tell you if it happens.

Bush also used PATRIOT to erode the privacy of Internet and telephone communications without making his spies wade through the pesky delays caused by all that unnecessary red tape formerly known as “due process.” Result: Domestic spying.

Bush’s administration uses some of the same coercive tactics seen in fascist countries to surround himself only with those who agree with him, get rid of those who don’t, and force even his friends to abandon any principles that get in the way. Alberto Gonzales fires attorney generals who don’t tow the party line. Karl Rove uses the DOJ to settle partisan conflicts. Scooter Libby leaks the name of a CIA agent to retaliate against her husband, who challenged the WMD-in-Iraq claim.

Stalin would be proud.

But have the growth of Big Brother and the occupation of Iraq really made the world a safer place? The State Department recently reported that terrorist attacks worldwide shot up 25 percent over the last year, while terrorist fatalities increased 40 percent.

The numbers in Iraq are particularly dismal. In 2006, 65 percent of worldwide terrorist-related deaths occurred in Iraq. In fact, this represents a 91 percent increase in the number of terrorist incidents in Iraq.

Republican commentators will tell you that the plan is working —after all, there has not been a second attack on American soil! Anyone who buys this argument is conceding that America was safer under Bill Clinton; after all, it was on GWB’s watch that the 9/11 was allowed to happen.

Although Osama bin Laden took credit for the attack, GWB hardly went after him at all. He bombed and devastated Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, causing thousands to starve and sending the infant mortality rate sky-rocketing.

But he let Osama bin Laden slip away. GWB even said — some time after 9/11 and Osama’s admission that he was the mastermind behind it — that he rarely thinks of Osama anymore.

He attacked Iraq instead. The fact is that GWB has had a score to settle with Saddam, and stated as much during his 2000 campaign. 9/11 gave him an opening to dupe the American people into accepting a quagmire in Iraq. It has been over four years since GWB stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier beneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner, and the mission is still not accomplished. In fact, the war is bloodier than ever.

We support our troops, and we want them home. Bush has steadfastly refused to open his eyes and ears to the American people. As a result, his popularity has plummeted so steeply that Republican presidential candidates are abandoning the current administration like rats from a sinking ship. At the recent debates, Republicans condemned Bush more soundly than the Democrats did.

Just remember, as you see these men desperately disavowing their leader, that they participated in and support the same curtailing of your freedoms.

Republicans who tell you that Democrats want to “take away your freedoms” are either liars or just plain stupid. Over the last seven years, our freedoms have been quietly pulled out from under us while our eyes were trained on hypnotic red, orange and yellow terror warnings.

The government is now bigger, more bloated and more heavy-handed than it has ever been. The trade deficit is out of control (particularly with China) and as a result the U.S. has lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs since Bush took office in 2001.

So when you hear the conservatives trashing their opponents with third-grade epithets, remember what Mama always said: People call names because they have nothing intelligent to say.

Jeannie Babb Taylor is a local business leader and author. She also teaches Sunday school, educates her children at home, and engages in Georgia politics. To contact Jeannie, E-mail jeannie@babb.com.

The Family Values Candidate

In recent years, Democratic candidates have focused on “issues” while Republican candidates focused on “values.” Through forces like Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and The Christian Coalition, Republicans have used religion and guilt to coerce Christians into ignoring the issues (education, health care, the economy) and voting a straight Republican ticket. For 2008, they will have to try a new tactic.

The field of philandering, thrice-divorced candidates put forth by the Republican Party lead lives so far from anything that can be construed as “family values,” no honest preacher could tell church-goers to vote for them.

Who then is the family values candidate this go-round? Surprise, it’s Hillary Clinton. Clinton has honored her marriage vows through some pretty rough times, when most of us wouldn’t have faulted her for leaving. She demonstrates true commitment to her own family, and to the families of America, too.

Rudy Giuliani entered the American limelight as the heroic mayor amid the ashes of New York City. Never mind that Giuliani broke up with his second wife and the mother of his children at a news conference. Never mind that he moved out of Gracie Mansion to live with a couple of gay men during the divorce. Never mind that he married the woman he was already having an affair with while still married to Hanover. His children are so upset they have refused to help him campaign. Then there are the well-circulated YouTube videos of Giuliani in lipstick, heels and a dress, raising money for pro-homosexual organizations. He even sent money to Planned Parenthood. And this is the #1 choice of the Republican Party – the so-called “family values” party? While Giuliani has been running around in high heels smooching with Donald Trump, it is Hillary Clinton who has shown the world that a woman can be both strong and feminine at the same time.

John McCain, 2nd choice Republican candidate, has led an equally appalling personal life. McCain ditched his first wife, who raised their three children while he was in Vietnam, after she was crippled in a car accident. One month later he married 25-year-old Anheuser-Busch heiress Cindy Hensley. He used the family money to launch his political career. During the last election, James Dobson (often considered the evangelical “Pope”) issued a statement of non-support for McCain, citing his marital infidelities. McCain was deeply involved in the Savings & Loans scandals of the 1980’s, as one of the five Senators known as “the Keating Five” who received large political contributions from a firm accused of civil racketeering and fraud. McCain later admitted, “The appearance of it was wrong.” Contrast McCain to Hillary Clinton, who has never been disciplined for wrongdoing, and was named by Arkansas as the 1984 Mother of the Year.

"Let Our Family Represent Your Family." This was Newt Gingrich’s 1978 campaign slogan. He was reportedly cheating on his wife Jackie at the time. He divorced the woman who had put him through graduate school while she was still undergoing cancer treatments. According to his campaign treasurer, Gingrich divorced Jackie, who was 7 years his senior, because, “She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer." Gingrich did not pay child support, so the local church had to take up a collection to support the children.

Gingrich’s next wife, Marianne, stood by him through 84 ethics violations, including violation of federal tax laws. He was sanctioned for $300,000 for violating House Rules, breaking federal laws and lying to the ethics panel. In 1999, while spearheading impeachment efforts against Bill Clinton for lying about sex with a staffer, Gingrich was lying about an affair with one of his own staffers. At the time, he resigned and slunk into the shadows. He soon divorced Marianne and married Callista, the object of his affair. Reverend Jerry Falwell assures Conservative voters that Gingrich has “genuinely sought forgiveness.” Contrast Gingrich’s sleazy personal life with that of Hillary Clinton, who has never embarrassed her family or her nation.

Oddly, the press does not yet seem interested in the enormous moral failures of the Republican hopefuls. Instead, publications like the New York Times spend thousands of words evaluating whether the Clintons are emotionally close or mostly leading “separate lives.” Faced with Hillary Clinton’s professional and respectable lifestyle, detractors try to smear her with her husband’s failings, as if to impart guilt by association. The fact is, in spite of her husband’s failings, Hillary Clinton has always behaved as a true stateswoman.

Another tactic launched at women politicians is the subtle suggestion that any woman so smart and so strong must be a lesbian or a man in disguise. In 1998 John McCain made the following joke at a Republican fundraiser: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.” McCain apologized to Bill Clinton for making a tasteless joke at the expense of Clinton’s awkward teenage daughter. I do wonder whether he ever apologized to Chelsea, Hillary, or Janet Reno? I also wonder, will women vote for a man who expresses such contempt for smart, successful women?

Hillary Clinton inspires women everywhere with her example of integrating family life with big dreams. She held her own family together in spite of her husband’s embarrassing infidelities. She raised a daughter who is beautiful, smart and successful just like she is. For years she has fought to help other families by championing affordable health care, reasonable family leave policies and other pro-family legislation. It is Hillary Clinton who is the family values choice for 2010.

Come to think of it, Democratic favorites John Edwards and Barak Obama are also faithful to their original spouse and children. Awkwardly, the only top Republican candidate still with his first wife is Mitt Romney, the Mormon from Massachusetts. Until recently, Romney was as pro-choice as any Planned Parenthood donor and also favored domestic partnerships. McCain has also flip-flopped on those issues. Just a few years ago McCain was rated as one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress, and now he is rated as the 3rd most conservative. Giuliani has always been a strong supporter of state-funded abortion, and he marched in the Gay Day Parade just a few feet away from the NAMBLA banner exalting “man-boy love.” It looks like Republicans will have to stop appealing to Bible-belt voters with hypocritical “family values” rhetoric. We Christians are surely smarter than that.