Showing posts with label Guest Column. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guest Column. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Time for the post-mortems to start. First up - The local daily

I've been feeling a little burned out after last week's elections and haven't been writing much (and before certain folks accuse me of being a sore loser, I went through the same thing in 2006 and 2008, which were much more Dem-friendly years). 

So, with the author's permission, I am publishing the following piece written by friend and inspiration Lauren Kuby, chair of the LD17 Democratic Party and super-volunteer and organizer.

Besides being those things and more, she's also one of the best at channelling outrage into the written word.

The formative roots of the piece, as explained in it, are based in the period immediately following the Rep's endorsement of David Schweikert.  The Rep asked Lauren to write a response to their endorsement, then refused to publish it.

The piece, and an email she wrote after it became clear that they had backed off from publishing the original piece or even a shortened one -
To The Arizona Republic Editorial Board:
After a lengthy discussion with Phil Boas over your Board’s endorsement of Schweikert over Mitchell some weeks ago, Phil asked me to pen a 500-word reaction piece. Although in the midst of organizing Tempe Democrats, I jumped at the opportunity and submitted a My Turn piece the very next day, October 16th.

Days went by without acknowledgement. I decided to bowdlerize the piece, removing the Gannett references, which I assumed (rightly or wrongly) might have given Phil second thoughts about his offer. I called Phil when I still didn’t hear back, and he demurred that he ever asked me to write about the Schweikert endorsement, but was suggesting I lend my voice to political/environmental issues in the future (although why he would ask me to write up 500 words over the weekend is anyone's guess). Phil also said that publishing my reaction piece would open the floodgates for responses from Schweikert said and that there wasn’t room in the Op-Ed page. His suggestion was to condense it to 200 words for a Letter to the Editor. Needless to say, the condensed version never made it into the paper either.

The experience left me feeling that my time was wasted and that The Republic didn't want to air a sharp counterpoints to its endorsements (although the McCain/Kyl attack on Gabby Giffords saw much ink that week!)

I want you all to read the unpublished piece Phil asked me to write but declined to publish. Perhaps you will better understand the sense of betrayal that many of your former subscribers (22 years for me) felt upon reading the paper that morning. I know there was great disagreement among Board members on the Schweikert endorsement, but it strikes me that you often take your orders from the Big Boys (Gannett, McCain, Kyl) and aim to predict the winners (Quayle, Brewer, Burns & Pierce) rather than base your endorsements on your editorial-board priorities.

I don't expect your Board to use my ballot as its guide to endorsements, as Phil argued on the phone, but I was greatly disappointed to discover that you do not walk your own talk.

Sincerely,

Lauren Kuby

----

October 16, 2010

To the Arizona Republic Editorial Board:

I am sure I was not alone in my shock and disappointment to see that a newspaper that supports education, high-tech innovation, and renewable energy would turn its back on Congressman Harry Mitchell, who has championed those issues in Congress. Contrast this with David Schweikert’s radical proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, removing a billion dollars from K-12 education, Pell Grants, and student loans in Arizona. To top it off, Schweikerts’s energy plan is to drill in ANWR—not a comprehensive solution to our energy challenges.

Congressman Mitchell is a teacher who co-authored the new GI Bill for our veterans. As a result, over 1000 students at ASU (300,000 nationally) are bettering their lives and improving our economy. David Schweikert envisions an education system where the only way you can get to home plate is if you’re born on third base. A district that is home to an entrepreneurial university—not to mention an outsized portion of Arizona’s high-tech manufacturing base—deserves far better.

And you cannot logically argue that Harry Mitchell is not an advocate for the business community. The US Chamber of Commerce endorsed him for his pro-business record, and he wants to extend the Bush tax cuts! As a progressive, I may disagree, but I trust his decision making and the integrity he brings to his role as my representative.

Harry has a centrist voting record and is a moderate. He truly reflects his district, one more or less equally divided among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. He is a genuine Arizona statesman along the lines of Mo Udall and Barry Goldwater.

The editorial board’s betrayal of Mitchell, who they endorsed previously, was also odd in light of your tortured rationales in support of extremely partisan incumbent lawmakers. You argued, for example, that Jeff Flake and Trent Franks fit the character of their overwhelmingly Republican districts, even though they completely reject the paper’s editorial priorities. Yet Harry doesn’t complement his moderate-leaning district? Ridiculous.

David Schweikert caters to a narrow, radical segment of his party. If he ever dared reach across the aisle to work towards a bipartisan solution—as Harry does with every issue he’s tackled—his far-right base would show him the door.

I thought the Republic understood these dynamics when they endorsed moderate Susan Bitter Smith in the GOP primary. But now this surprising about-face, and all because Mitchell supported decades-in-the-waiting reform of our broken healthcare system?

I have a few questions for the editorial board.

Where is your empathy for people who have been cast adrift by insurance companies and bankrupted simply because they got sick?

When you were judging Harry Mitchell, did you think about your Republic colleagues that were downsized by Gannett, thrown into unemployment and uncertainty? Which of you will be next?

Will you be able to keep health insurance for yourself or your family? Will you be able to get another policy if you’ve been sick and have a pre-existing condition?

Not if David Schweikert has anything to with it.

Lauren Kuby
Chair, District 17 Democrats (Tempe/South Scottsdale)
The Arizona Republic, like most newspapers, has experienced a sharp decline in readership and ad revenue over the last few years, and it doesn't seem as if the bottom is in sight. 

Much of their support for Republicans this year (and in years past), even really *bad* Republicans (Quayle, Ducey, Schweikert, etc.), can be attributed to the Rs' promises of a return to "Business As Usual."

Could one of the members of the Rep's editorial board please explain to me, in uncomplicated concepts and short words (appropriate for a simple blogger)?

How does assisting the Rs in their quest to turn Arizona into a political, economic and social wasteland, with the resultant exodus of residents to other states with a healthier societal infrastructure, does ANYTHING to increase the circulation of their publication?

Comments are open, and my email address is on the sidebar.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Sad day in Scottsdale

From guest writer John Washington, on his friend Tony Nelssen -

On a bright, clear morning in Scottsdale that was so dry the desert sky couldn’t conjure up a cloud—let alone a tear—a giant has fallen. Councilman Tony Nelssen passed away at his home this morning, after a brief and valiant battle with cancer. Even after Tony told us about his diagnosis, I could not bring myself to believe it was possible he might not survive. It is difficult to imagine Scottsdale without Tony.

If anyone deserved the description “larger than life,” it was Tony. Had he lived a thousand years ago, he would have been a Viking warrior. Tony was a big man, but because of his quiet presence you would never know that if you had not stood next to him or shaken his hand. That stoic Scandinavian nature did not incline him to talk of how he suffered with arthritis in the last few years, nor the pain of his disease for the last few weeks.

Always a voice for the residents and the natural beauty of our community, Tony fought for us for twenty-five years. With almost a century-and-a-half of family history in the Valley, Tony’s legacy knowledge of this area was unmatched and irreplaceable. Tony never sought fame or personal gain from his position. He sacrificed thousands of hours of his time to try to keep Scottsdale special.

Tony also worked tirelessly to help others see what he valued. As a photographer, Tony tried to capture the essence and beauty of our community to share with those who could not experience it directly, and for those who might have otherwise missed it. As a photography instructor, he tried to help each student interpret that beauty in their own way.

Tony’s family was with him this morning, along with two childhood friends who’d come to help during Tony’s convalescence. Tony’s wife Marg, son Ian, and daughter Hannah are grateful for all your support over the years, and during this trying time.

I miss my friend. Adios, Tony.

Arrangements are pending.

John Washington


Good night...

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Guest writer - Letter to the editor

Jerry Gettinger, a PC in LD8 and a friend, submitted this letter to the editor to the AZ Republic and has graciously allowed me to publish it here.

His letter, concerning the shortsighted approach to the state's budget crisis taken by the legislature -
It might be different if our educational system was highly prized as an example of what educating our young should be, but sadly, the money spent per student and the result is such that the drastic cuts in funding that our esteemed lawmakers have foisted upon us just pours salt in the open wound that has come to be known as funding.

Shame on you.

You are not representative of our citizens, but only of a few who are self-serving. After over 20 years of Republican majority in the statehouse we have a school system that is last in the U.S., an infrastructure that is woefully lacking and a social safety net that ignores the needs of our young and less fortunate.

Shame.

When the young graduates of our underfunded colleges find that they are at a disadvantage in the job market because of their lack of quality education, it will be too late to fix.

Parents take notice! Your children had money taken from their education while sheriff Joe got his back!

That says it all when talking about priorities.

Jerry Gettinger
Scottsdale

He's a lot more succinct than I am...politer, too. :)

More later...

Friday, August 29, 2008

Dateline: Ohio - Dispatches from the war on the middle class

While I've been busy traipsing around Denver getting sunburned and meeting all sorts of interesting people, Jerry Gettinger, President of NJDC Arizona, has been observing, thinking, and writing. Here's his latest piece...

Notes: It is unedited, except for paragraph structure, and the headline is mine.


I have just returned from a trip to Cleveland, Ohio.

It concerned personal business, so I had some time to drive around the city and its suburbs. My family and I had lived in Shaker Heights in the late 70's through the early 80's so I was in a position to compare the look of the city from then to now. It was sad.

The Cleveland area has the distinction of being number one in the nation in the number of foreclosures. That's no accident. The city was especially suited to be where it is. What I saw was houses boarded-up and neighborhoods that were well-kept, having been transformed into slums. This was city of neighborhoods where the lawns were mowed and the houses were a source of pride. All that is gone.

During the apex of our country being the major manufacturing nation in the world, many eastern Europeans came to work in the steel mills and factories and make Cleveland their home.

These were hard-working people. The unions came and saw to it that they were provided a living wage, good benefits and a secure retirement. In turn, the workers bought houses, secured mortgages and worked the 25 to 30 years to pay off the loan. It was a comfortable retirement. There was the pension from the mills, medical benefits and social security. And while no became rich, neither did anyone become poor. The important aspect was that the house became debt-free and thus the retirement was secure. Pensions. medical, and a fully-paid house. Then came the loan sharks.

They promised that the homeowner could receive money for a vacation, a new car or perhaps a college education for their child. These were simple people and uneducated in the way of finance. Yes, they could have the money and in the few years the house would become more valuable and they didn't have to worry. It didn't work out that way.

The house didn't become more valuable and when it came time to begin making payments there wasn't enough money. So people who once had a secure and comfortable retirement began losing their homes. Not just a few, but many.

For the last 7 years I have heard that the best regulation is the least regulation. Well, don't tell that to the person who just lost his home. There was no one around to see to it that the sharks stayed away and the little guy was protected. I don't want to hear about less regulation. From Wall Street to the homeowner in Cleveland, there was no one around to watch the store. The business channel talks about the number of foreclosures, but not about the families that have been displaced.

Just as we went to war with too few troops, the Government ran the economy with too few watchdogs. The result in both cases was the same. Many casualties and no one to take responsibility.

I don't want to hear about the problem of too much regulation. Our financial system is in shambles. Those who had the responsibility of overseeing the economy just were not there. They had been sent home and told they were not needed. Now it's too late.

Not just to lock the barn after horse has been taken, there is no barn. It will take at least a generation to recover and, if were do avoid financial Armageddon, then let's hope that a lesson has been learned. Simply put, there has to be a referee to see to it that the game is played fairly. Or else? Well just look at "or else" as it is now.

One additional fact: the decline in home values and the number of foreclosures have just about wiped out the middle class. That part of our society has to be rebuilt.

Jerry Gettinger

Monday, February 11, 2008

Guest Column - right-wing smears of Democratic presidential candidates

In something of a coincidence, on the same day when I spent some time speaking to a coworker, trying to dispel some of the smears that are going around about Senator Barack Obama, I received this email, forwarded by Jerry Gettinger, president of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC).

It is reprinted with permission. I've made a few formatting corrections to improve readability (for some reason, most apostrophes and hyphens came through as some weird symbol - ý.)
____________________________________________________________________

Dear Jerry:

They are at it again. You may have already received a few bogus emails making false claims about Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. The Right Wing Smear Machine is back, and they are starting early, hoping to use the Big Lie to undermine the eventual Democratic nominee.

In 2004, as you will recall, right wingers spread lies about Democratic nominee John Kerry. They lied about his outstanding service in Vietnam and started a word-of-mouth campaign in the Jewish community with a lie about his wife supporting Hamas. Likewise, the amount of misinformation the Right Wing spread about President Clinton and Vice President Gore is almost too numerous to recount.

This year, NJDC is determined to give our activists the tools to fight back ý and to fight back early. In this email, I have enclosed information that counters some specific charges that have been levied against Senators Obama, Edwards and Clinton. Please help us make it "viral" by forwarding it to friends, family, neighbors and colleagues.

In the coming days, NJDC will send around a printable fact-sheet [Note: that fact sheet is here.] on where the major Democratic candidates stand on Middle East issues.

***

Senator Obama

We have received several reports about dishonest emails circulating about Senator Obama, aimed at Jewish voters. The fact of the matter is, Senator Obama is a good friend of the Jewish Community. He is very popular in the Chicago Jewish Community (one of the most vibrant centers of Jewish life in the nation) and has made courting Jewish votes a priority in his presidential campaign. A recent profile about Senator Obama in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency explained: "What you might not hear is that the Illinois senator, who made history Thursday by winning the Democratic caucus in Iowa, has made Jewish leaders an early stop at every stage in his political career." (Click here for the full article.)

Some of the viral emails sent out about Obama claim that the Senator is anti-Israel. Such charges are off-base. Like the other Democratic candidates, Barack Obama is a strong supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship. He has never cast a vote against the position of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Shmuel Rosner, the U.S. correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz writes that Senator Obama "is pro-Israel. Period." (Click here to read his entire blog post about Obama.)

Senator Obama told the audience at NJDC's 2007 Washington Conference, "When I am President, the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in search of this peace, and in defense against those who seek its destruction." (Click here for a transcript and here for video.) Likewise, in March 2007, Senator Obama told an AIPAC audience in Chicago that he believes the U.S. must have "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point" in approaching Middle East policy. Continued Obama: "And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security."

Senator Obama has been endorsed by several prominent supporters of Israel, including Jewish Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, who wrote: "What has always struck me about Senator Obama - and this is one of the reasons I have endorsed his candidacy for the United States Presidency - is that a love for Israel and a desire to keep the Jewish people secure is evident not just in his work, but also in his heart." Another prominent supporter of Israel, distinguished financier Lester Crown, wrote: "As president, [Obama] will be the friend to Israel that we all want to see in the White House - stalwart in his defense of Israel's security, and committed to helping Israel achieve peace with its neighbors." (More coverage of Crown's endorsement and support for Obama in the Jewish community is available on the Haaretz blog, here.)

The New York Sun - hardly a bastion of support for Democrats - editorialized: "We're no shills for Mr. Obama, but these Republicans [who questioned the Senatorýs support for Israel] haven't checked their facts. At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America."

It is also worth noting that Senator Obama is an outspoken critic of Iran, who wrote legislation to make it easier for states to divest from Iranian holdings. (The legislation is being blocked by a Republican Senator.)

Another Republican smear campaign falsely claims Senator Obama was educated in a radical Muslim madrassa - a blatant lie. While Senator Obama's religion - he is Christian - should not matter in the Presidential election, setting the facts straight is important. We've seen terrible fear mongering by the right wing in the form of baseless attacks against Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, a good public servant and a friend of Israel and the Jewish Community. Similar attacks seem to be sprouting up against Senator Obama although he is Christian.

If a friend or neighbor asks you about an email or internet rumor regarding Senator Obamaýs religious upbringing, here are some important things to tell him/her:

(1) CNN reports "Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a ýmadrassaý are not accurate, according to CNN reporting." The complete report is available online here in a report entitled "CNN debunks false report about Obama."

(2) The false "madrassa" rumors were published in a right wing smear magazine owned by the same company that owns the ultra-conservative Washington Times. These are the same people who have printed numerous falsehoods about the Clintons through the years.

(3) The Obama campaign has a fact sheet on its website which serves as an excellent resource about his background and sets the record straight about his religion. While Obama's religion should not be a political issue, lying about a candidate's religion is noteworthy. The fact sheet explains that, despite lies saying otherwise, Obama "is not and has never been a Muslim." The fact sheet is available here.

Scurrilous emails have also been circulating which attempt to smear Senator Obama because a magazine associated with his church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. In the response to inquiries about Farrakhan, Obama repudiated and decried Farrakhan and his anti-Semitism. He was praised by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for so-doing.

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman released a statement saying: "We welcome Barack Obama's condemnation of the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Minister Louis Farrakhan, and his making clear that he did not agree with his church's decision to honor Farrakhan. Issues of racism and anti-Semitism must be beyond the bounds of politics. When someone close to a political figure shows sympathy and support for an individual who makes his name espousing bigotry, that political figure needs to distance himself from that decision. Senator Obama has done just that."

Newsweek debunked other falsehoods about Senator Obamaýs church, in an article posted at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91424/output/print

The rhetoric in some of these viral emails about Obama is so over the top, that yesterday several leaders of national Jewish organizations signed on to a letter condemning the smear campaign being run against him. The signatories represent non-partisan organizations which do not endorse political candidates. In the letter, they wrote: "Of particular concern, over the past several weeks, many in our community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo to mischaracterize Senator Barack Obama's religious beliefs and who he is as a person" and "These tactics attempt to drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion. We reject these efforts to manipulate members of our community into supporting or opposing candidates."

The signatories include William Daroff of United Jewish Communities, Nathan J. Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Abraham Foxman of Anti-Defamation League, Richard S. Gordon of the American Jewish Congress, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Phyllis Snyder of the National Council of Jewish Women and Hadar Susskind of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

The letter can be viewed here.


Senator Clinton

Senator Hillary Clinton has long been a target for distortion, despite her outstanding record on issues ranging from education, to health care, to support for Israel. Despite her strong commitment to Israel and close kinship with the Jewish Community (a key reason she is tremendously popular with her New York constituents), right wing smears against her leadership continue.

Giuliani advisor Martin Kramer, for instance, wrote a disingenuous piece in the Jerusalem Post claiming that Senator Clinton's rhetoric on Israel contains code words hinting that she is not really a true friend of Israel. Of course there was no logic to anything he wrote, not a surprise given that Senator Clinton has worked overtime in support of Israel in the Senate.

I wrote an op-ed responding to Mr. Kramer, which is available on our blog, here. I would recommend sending these paragraphs to anyone who is tempted to believe a right wing smear of the Senator and her support for the Jewish state:

Before delving into the specific charges offered by Kramer, it is important to note that Senator Clinton has been a great supporter of Israel throughout her career, and is one of Israel's strongest friends in the US Senate. She led the charge for Red Cross recognition of Magen David Adom and has an impeccable voting record.

If Hillary were but a fair weather friend of Israel, as Kramer suggests, she surely would not enjoy the immense popularity she has seen in New York. One simply does not get re-elected in the Empire State with 67% of the vote if there is even a smidgeon of legitimate doubt about one's support for Israel.

Here is what the Orthodox newspaper, The Jewish Press, which opposed Clinton in 2000, wrote in support of her candidacy for re-election to the Senate in 2006: "As regards Israel, she has become an important supporter of the Jewish state both in public and, perhaps more importantly, behind the scenes. She is held in the highest regard by those who regularly plead Israel's cause in the halls of government. For those who initially were wary of her positions on Middle East issues - and we include ourselves in that category - Ms. Clinton has proved to be a pleasant and welcome surprise."

At NJDC's Washington Conference, Senator Clinton strongly affirmed that that the U.S. stands "with Israel because it is a beacon of democracy in a neighborhood that is shadowed by radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism," and that Israel's very existence is "a defiant rebuke to anti-Semitism." Her remarks were particularly well received by our members. (Click here for a transcript and here for video.)

The Senator's Israel position paper states, "from her first trip to Israel on New Year's Day in 1982 through her years as a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton has a long history of strong and steadfast leadership for the US-Israel relationship. Her connection to the State of Israel, which began when as the First Lady of Arkansas, she brought an innovative Israeli preschool education program to her state, has grown." It goes on to say that "Hillary recognizes that Israel is a most important strategic ally against the scourge of terrorism and radicalism. 'Israel,' she said, ýis not only a friend and ally for us; it is a beacon of what democracy can and should be."

Time and again, Senator Clinton comes forward to stand with Israel. In September, for instance, Senator Clinton voiced strong and eloquent support of Israel's decision to take out a Syrian weapons facility in September, asserting that "the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out," adding, "I strongly support that."

In a further example, Senator Clinton's office teamed with Palestinian Media Watch in February 2007 to release a study of anti-Israel language in Palestinian textbooks. Bold actions in support of Israel are the rule from Senator Clinton's office, not the exception.

And, as was previously alluded to, Senator Clinton was a leader in the successful efforts to push for recognition of Magen David Adom (Israel's Red Cross) into the International Red Cross movement, leading American Red Cross Chairwoman Bonnie McElveen-Hunter to comment: "In partnership with the American Red Cross, Senator Clinton has been a strong and engaged leader in support of Magen David Adom's acceptance into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement."

Of course, it is important to remind anyone tempted to believe the right wing's rhetoric about Senator Clinton that her husband's administration was strongly supportive of Israel. To this day, former President Clinton continues to speak out on behalf of the U.S.-Israel relationship, notably taking former President Jimmy Carter to task for falsehoods in his book about the Middle East.


Senator Edwards

Right wingers have long sought to distort Senator Edwards' record. Last year, the right wing smear machine tried to spread a myth - strongly denied by the Edwards campaign - that claimed the Senator considered Israel the greatest threat to world peace. The Edwards campaign struck back hard, issuing a statement which NJDC blogged about in February. (Click here to view.) The statement said:

"Senator Edwards did not say nor does he believe that the greatest short-term threat to world peace is the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Senator Edwards said, as he has in the past, that Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace."

Edwards spoke eloquently about the Iranian threat to the Herzliya conference in Israel. During the conference he remarked that "for years, the U.S. hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran" and that "to ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

Addressing Herzliya, Edwards said that the U.S.-Israel relationship is a "bond that can never be broken." He also spoke about his dedication to Israel at NJDCýs Washington Conference. (Click here for video and here for a transcript.) One need just read this portion of his remarks to understand that this man loves Israel, understands her challenges and stands firmly with her people:

I know how important our relationship with Israel is.

I have been on extraordinarily emotional trips to Israel myself which have been very important to me. Tonight as many of you know in Israel a flag will be raised on Mt. Herzl to commemorate what happened in 1948 when members of Israel's provisional government signed a declaration of independence in Tel Aviv and celebrating Israel's independence is a wonderful historic moment for Israel. The nation is flourishing, the economy is doing very well. Israel continues to face, as many of you know very well, extraordinary threats to her people and security every single day.

I think there is a renewed need for vigilance. I was in Israel last summer --- in fact a few of the people who I was in Israel with are here tonight. We met with the Prime Minister, other Israeli leaders, and the Cabinet. We travelled to the northern border with Lebanon. This was about a month before the fighting broke out. This was one of my visits to Israel, all of which have had independent meaning for me.

On my first trip, we left the King David Hotel and left for Tel Aviv, and a few hours later the Sbarro Pizza bombing took place, which many of you will remember. Many died, including children.

On the campaign trail, Senator Edwards has sharply criticized the Bush Administration for proposing a $20 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states and has pledged to take a tougher stance toward the Saudis than President Bush in the White House. He was a sharp critic of the Saudi government on the 2004 campaign trail as well, remarking, "Whether it's Iraq or terrorism, the Saudis have fallen way short of what they need to be doing." (More info is available in a USA Today article, which is available here.)

Senator Edwards was very clear about his commitment to Israel during his 2004 debate with Vice President Cheney, declaring, "the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves." He also reiterated his support for a tougher policy on Saudi Arabia and tough efforts to hold Iran accountable: "And I might add, it is very important for America to crack down on the Saudis who have not had a public prosecution for financing terrorism since 9/11. And it's important for America to confront the situation in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people."

***
Attacks against our Democratic candidates must be countered with the facts. The earlier we start, the more powerful our pushback. I urge you to forward this message along to voters of all parties and political persuasions so we can stop the saliency of right wing attacks before it is too late. And, please send us any smear emails aimed at Jewish voters you receive so we can help debunk them.

Sincerely,

Ira N. Forman
Executive Director
National Jewish Democratic Council

PS. Please consider making a financial contribution to NJDC. Click here to contribute. And, click here to visit our blog!

____________________________________________________________________

Friday, November 02, 2007

Guest column - Congressional Timidity

The following was written by Jerry Gettinger, Vice-Chair of the LD8 Democrats and President of the Arizona Chapter of the NJDC. It was originally written for the LD8 newsletter.

While I might have phrased a few things differently, I whole-heartedly agree with the point of his piece, and am grateful that he has allowed me to post it here.


I know I said I would be writing about local politics. But what is there to say about the Thomas mess. The situation speaks for itself. A Hollywood screen writer couldn't have come up with a better story than what has happened. With that in mind, I want to write about something that has obviously been troubling a great many people: that is the Democratic majority in congress. The only ones with lower approval ratings than George is our august body of legislators. That says a lot when you think of it.

I was at a function awhile back where a member of congress spoke. He talked about healthcare, and immigration and civil rights and all the other subjects that are a problem these days. When it came time for questions from the audience, he was asked what he planned on doing about them. His answer is what gave me a subject to ponder for the next few days. He answered that there wasn't much that can be done since we (the Democrats) don't have the votes necessary to override the President's veto. He said he had been at a luncheon with Nancy Pelosi. And she was almost in tears over the situation. That's when I started thinking..I don't know about others, but I am not on the verge of tears. I am mad as hell over the loss of civil rights, the war, the spending, the ignoring of contrary opinion and if I were to think about it there probably are a dozen other reasons. I don't understand why the Democrats in congress are acting as if they are afraid of making someone angry. I don't want Pelosi to be on the verge of tears, I want her to be angry. I want to see the congress make the rest of Bush's term a nightmare. If he vetoes a bill, then send him another two days later and let him veto that. And if he does, then send him another. I want to see Bush having to think about the Democrats when he wakes up in the morning, through the day and the last thing he thinks about when he goes to sleep. I want to see the Democrats in Congress raise hell for the rest of Bush's term. Let him know we know him for what he is and we are not going to let him get away with it. No tears, just plain out and out anger at what that man has done to this country. I want to see the Democrats in congress be the biggest thorn in Bush's foot.

Sadly, that hasn't happened yet. But it's not too late. We must let our congressman (or woman) know how we feel (that is, if you feel the same as I do). We can't allow our representatives to roll over and be George's lap dog. Instead, we must insist the they show Chutzpa and demand that Bush answer for every move he makes.. He won't, but that alone will speak volumes about the character of the man. Even though he will probably veto most of the bills that congress sends him, put the onus on him rather that allow ourselves to be passive. There's a line from the movie Network where the anchorman has flipped out and he stands up and says "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."

Well.. I feel the same way, don't you?

Jerry Gettinger


Have a great weekend!