Kevin Spidel posted a thoughtful diary today at Daily Kos posing that question, using Peter Roskam’s 2010 challenger, Ben Lowe, as a case in point.

My answer is an unequivocal “yes”.

Excluding anyone on the basis of their religious belief is wrong and efforts to do so should be deplored by all Democrats. I admit to having a reflexive tendency to react negatively to avowed Christians, particularly Evangelicals, running for political office. That tendency is based on years of experience with the likes of Jerry Falwell and Tony Perkins. But assuming that all Evangelicals share their world view is not correct and, to the degree that I do so, I am guilty of the same kind of intolerance peddled by them.

We are only beginning to be acquainted with Ben Lowe. Let’s ignore the stereotypes and let him speak for himself about who he is and what he wants to achieve through his candidacy. While it is too early to promise Ben my vote, he has my attention, and I am encouraged by what I have heard so far.  I support his candidacy as a Democrat.

I am firmly committed to preserving a woman’s right to choose. I am equally committed to LGBT rights.  A candidate’s positions on these matters are important and they affect the way I vote. But, for me, anyway, there is no litmus test. Our country and our planet face some many critical problems right now – global climate change, poverty & hunger, a looming water crisis, a health care crisis  – and we have to be willing to work with everyone to attempt to resolve them. I would remind everyone that we presently have a Representative, voting on our behalf, who seems to think everythings hunk dory as long as we keep giving tax breaks to rich folks. It is hard to imagine that a person like Ben representing us would not amount to an improvement.

At any rate, I hope that Democrats will give Ben a chance to speak for himself on issues like abortion and LBGT rights rather than rush to judgement. If anyone is truly attempting to undermine his candidacy, I hope they will cease and desist. We should be thanking Ben for having been willing to step up to the plate when no one else would.

Update: Kevin’s post referred to above has been deleted from Daily Kos  but is available on MyDD. Not sure what happened on Daily Kos to prompt the deletion. I thought it was a great post. There was a pretty vigorous discussion going on when I last saw it but seems like that’s a good thing, that Democrats wrestle with this issue.  Also, check out Ben Lowe’s thoughts regarding Faith and Politics.

Obama Notre Dame

It happened on May 20, 2001. President George Bush delivered a commencement address at Notre Dame, focused mainly on compassion, and on his plan for establishment of religion through the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives.  The President was awarded an honorary doctor of laws degree.

Now in fairness, President Bush had not yet distinguished himself as Torturer-in-Chief and did not yet have the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians on his hands. But he had just come off a run as Governor of Texas, where he had proven to be an enthusiastic practitioner of capital punishment, sending 152 people to their deaths by lethal injection over his 6 years as Governor, a record pace in modern times. In order to maintain that pace, Bush had to deny clemency to virtually everyone who petitioned (serial killer Henry Lee Lucas being the lone exception) and execute all comers, including the mentally retarded. In this herculean task he was ably assisted by his toady, and future Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales.  Much later, as President, Bush would attempt to institute a “fast track” for the death penalty to get things moving at a more satisfying pace.

And yet this monster Bush, is pretty much deified by the so-called “pro-life” movement in this country. Makes it pretty hard to take their protests at Notre Dame today seriously.

Abortion isn’t pretty. It would be difficult to defend it as a positive good. But the State compelling women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term is equally ugly. My judgment is in agreement with President Obama: abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Women should be allowed to reach their own ethical evaluations of the option of terminating a pregnancy with the counsel of their families, physicians, and spirtual advisors. The State should not be allowed to intrude into this process.

I applaud President Obama for his stance in favor of allowing women to control their own bodies and I applaud the University of Notre Dame for standing up to the anti-abortion protesters in defense of the ideals of a university.

Tagged with:
 

I haven’t found much time for blogging lately. I’m transitioning to a new role at work and when I haven’t been working I’ve been transfixed by the Presidential contest and our rapid descent into recession or worse. But when I saw this little ad on the Huffington Post today it shocked me into activity. Yes, Peter Roskam, desperate for your vote in what appears will be a Democratic landslide year, is attempting to ride Obama’s coat tails into a second term. And yes, this is the same Peter Roskam who is serves on John McCain’s Illinois leadership team. I nearly aspirated my Diet Pepsi when I saw this.

Apparently Roskam is not sure his nasty campaign of of character assaults against Jill Morgenthaler is going to fail in much the same way that John McCain’s nasty campaign against Obama is failing. Roskam would like you to believe that voting for both Barack Obama and himself would be a reasonable thing to do. It would not. Here’s my “voter guide” to explain why.

  1. Roskam is helping to lead John McCain’s campaign in Illinois. He wants John McCain to become President. He wants this because he and John want to do very different things than Barack Obama. They would like to see less rather than more regulation of the financial institutions that got us into such trouble during the “anything goes” Bush years. They want to privatize Social Security, turning what’s left of your retirement funds over to Wall Street, not because it’s good for you, but because its good for Wall Street. They want to abolish the minimum wage and regulations providing equal pay for equal work. They don’t like government regulation generally and would work against rules protecting workers from hazards in the workplace or protecting our environment for our children and our  children’s children. They want to continue the trend of redistribution of wealth that has taken place during the Bush years – taking more and more from the middle class and transferring it to the very wealthy. They will do this through regressive taxation – relieving large corporations and wealthy individuals of the obligation to pay their fair share, transferring that burden to the rest of us. They continue to embrace the failed “trickle down” theory of Ronald Reagan in spite of it’s obvious failure. They want to appoint extremist judges to the Supreme Court and take away every woman’s right to chose, banning abortion even when the life of the mother is at stake (you heard McCain say it in the last debate). They want to continue to undermine the religious freedom that we enjoy in this country by further eroding the wall of separation that has existed between Church and State since the foundation of our nation. They want to continue to allow big oil companies to grow richer at our expense by continuing our dependence on fossil fuels rather than implement strategies to conserve and develop alternative sources. And they would continue the Bush pattern of military aggression aimed at controlling the world’s scarce resources rather than engaging in cooperative action with other nations to solve the serious problems the world faces.
  2. Peter Roskam has not raised a single objection to all the many abuses of the Bush administration: the lies that were told to justify the ridiculous war against Iraq, the torture and illegal detention of prisoners, the illegal domestic spying, the outing of Valerie Plame, the politicization of the Justice Department, the Abramoff scandal, the looting by government contractors in Iraq, and on and on. By his silence, Roskam bears moral responsibility for all of them. Roskam is without a moral compass.
  3. Peter Roskam has done nothing in Congress except obstruct the efforts of the majority to tackle our problems. He has consistently used his vote to set up roadblocks to Democratic eforts to tackle problems such as the health insurance crisis, high energy prices, global warming, the shrinking middle class, and the plight of the poor. In order to succeed in office, President Obama will need legislator who will work cooperatively with him. Hyper-partisan Peter Roskam is not such a person.
  4. Roskam is insensitive to the needs of the poor and the middle class. He has consistently used his vote to aid the wealthiest americans and large corporations at the expense of the rest of us. On the basis of his voting record, Roskam was awarded the grade of F by themiddlelass.org and the grade of D by the Sargeant Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.
  5. Rather than use his vote to address the needs of his constituents, Roskam consitently votes for the benefit of large corporations. He has vote the U.S. Chamber of Commerce position 100% of the time. In return the the Chamber is running false adds, like the one below, claiming that Roskam is fighting for better health care. In fact, Roskam has voted multiple time against the expansion of the Children’s Healthcare Insurance Program and against parity in mental health benefits. Peter Roskam is an enemy of efforts to provide better healthcare to all Americans. He has demonstrated by his votes that he is only interested in protecting the pocketbooks of his corporate sponsors.

I urge Obama voters who might seriously consider voting to re-elect Roskam to take a close look at his voting record. There’s lots of links here that can help you do that.Even the solidly Republican Chicago Tribune has endorsed Roskam’s opponent. Roskam has used his office to serve special interests rather than to serve the majority of his constituents. He does not deserve to be returned to Washington.

This is the first interview with Jill Morgenthaler that I’ve seen. I like her. She seemed a bit uncomfortable but quite intelligent and articulate.

Jill clearly states a number of positions: clear goals with time-line for withdrawal in Iraq; dialogue with Iran; supports the standards of “No Child Left Behind” but opposes unfunded mandates and vouchers; pro-choice, abortion a matter for a woman and her doctor to decide; favors civil unions but opposed to same-sex marriage; says she is a gun owner and supportive of individual right to bear arms but believes in sensible controls such as on armour-piercing bullets and assault weapons; favors tighter border security, especially on the northern border.

She seems to present a clearly positive alternative to Peter Roskam.

Jill committed to coming back on the program for a face to face discussion with Roskam if he will agree. How about it Peter?

Here’s a link to Jeff Berkowitz’s post about the interview.

And here’s one to Progress Illinois’ post about the interview.

A news flash today from the web site of Peter Roskam: ROSKAM INTRODUCES HISTORIC LEGISLATION HONORING THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. HYDE.

Please. This is liable to put me off my feed.

Henry Hyde was born. He became a politician of some talent. He occasionally used that talent to benefit humanity. And then he died.

Along the way, Henry used all of his powers to cover-up the real corruption of a President of his own party, Saint Ronald Ray-gun, aiding and abetting his waging of a campaign of terrorism against the people of Nicaragua, financed by illegal arms sales to Iran (Iran!!!) and CIA-assisted drug trafficking in the U.S. And did I mention, they sold arms to friggin’ Iran!

He later used all his powers to persecute another President of the opposing party based upon some phony charges invented out of thin air by Richard Mellon-Scaithe and his cronies, all the while moralizing about that President’s extramarital adventures, despite Hyde’s own history as a serial adulterer.

He became an extremist in the cause of restricting the right of women to control their own reproductive systems, even to the point, as Bridget in the 6th has helpfully pointed out, of legislating against freedom of spech and of the press.

And he found time to become embroiled in a major Savings and Loan Scandal.

During his twilight years he worked unceasingly in Congress to enable the many wonderful blessings that the George W. Bush administration has brought to us. Boy, have we been blessed.

And now we’re being asked to beatify Henry. Well I’m sorry, but I find very little to celebrate in Henry’s legacy.