NJDC's Blog

Standing Against Children

On Sunday, Senator John McCain was asked to speak in regards to the issue of gay adoption in an interview. McCain, who himself is a father of an adopted daughter; spoke against a same-sex couple raising a child. Asked if that would hold if the child’s only alternative to a same sex couple, he stated “that he wanted to encourage adoption and make the process easier, but that adoptive parents should be mixed-sex, traditional couples.” When asked to later clarify, his campaign stated that “Senator McCain’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible,” further stating “he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. John McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative.”

His response here is not a surprise. Though he has voiced opposition to a federal constitutional amendment, he has supported gay marriage bans at a statewide level, specifically campaigning for it in Arizona in 2006.

The issue here is not whether Senator McCain supports banning adoption for same-sex couples at a state or federal level. Frankly, such a stance is trying to have things both ways. On one hand, he pleases social conservatives by taking a stance against gay rights. On the other hand, he shows a supposed flexibility to ensure that swing voters are not turned off by said opposition. Those of us in the political business call this triangulating, or trying to say one thing with the intent to do something else. We should expect that someone who wishes to be our nation’s leader would do everything to ensure the next generation receives every possible opportunity. By standing against gay adoption, McCain is standing in the way of orphaned children going home to a loving family. Where are the family values there?

John McCain: Not exactly Teddy Roosevelt

When America first discovered its conservationist soul, it was a Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, who delivered eloquent words and tough action to make  conservation efforts a priority and reality. Thanks to him, both parties have kept the issue on their respective party platforms ever since.

Senator John McCain is sometimes erroneously compared to Teddy Roosevelt. Some of his supporters claim to see him as the genuine conservative with a maverick progressive streak in the T.R. mold. 

These are the the king of statements Roosevelt made. However, unlike McCain they were followed up with meaningful actions.

"The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."
- Teddy Roosevelt, Address to the Deep Waterway Convention, Memphis, TN, October 4, 1907

McCain's newest ad falsely and ineffectively tries to mirror this simple eloquence.

Check out the ad here.

The ad ends with a simple message:  “Reform. Prosperity. Peace.”

 If only McCain’s words matched his deeds like Teddy.

When McCain talks about “Reform. Prosperity. Peace.”  he has trouble with his environmental record:

“Reform”

McCain Receives "0" on League of Conservation Voters 2007 Scorecard

McCain has a lifetime LCV score of 24 percent

Of course, if you count all the votes he’s missed lately, that number surges to 26%.

McCain Accepted $291,658 from Big Oil in 2007

“On average, Senators voting for big oil tax breaks and against incentives for renewable energy and efficiency in 2007 received $195,973 in campaign donations from the oil industry during this decade. In 2007 alone, Sen. McCain received $291,658 from the oil and gas industry.”

Worst of all

“In 2007, McCain was the only senator who failed to vote on a motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Energy Independence and Security Act. This vote was about whether to close $13 billion in tax breaks for major oil and gas companies to invest in new clean energy technologies such as wind and solar, and efficiency. Sixty votes were required for passage. The motion was rejected 59-40.” (CQ.com; HR 6, Vote #425, 12/13/07)

“Prosperity”

McCain Boasts of Global Warming Record, But Solutions Are Absent From His Website
Go visit johnmccain.com’s section on climate change (here’s the link). Notice anything? Probably not, because he has the same old Republican response (which means not much). Go to Sen. Obama’s page (check it out). Notice that it actually has a detailed set of plans? That’s because he wants to do something to solve the problem, not just talk about it.

“Peace”

Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%)
Amendment to improve the energy security of the United States and reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40% by 2025. The amendment seeks to reduce usage by 7.6 million barrels of oil a day, out of a total usage of 20 million barrels of oil a day. The bill without amendment seeks to reduce usage by 1 million barrels of oil a day.
(Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2005; Bill S.Amdt. 784 to H.R. 6 ; vote number 2005-140  on Jun 16, 2005)

Teddy had a saying, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." Well, McCain talks the talk, but he’s got no stick, and he’s going nowhere but back home to Arizona.

You can check out his full voting record here.

John McCain: The Environment's Most Erratic Champion

As Emily Schwartz pointed out in a blog entry here recently, John McCain is no Teddy Roosevelt when it comes to environmentally friendly Republicans. While John McCain is the rare Republican who supports the active fight against global warming, he shows, as he does on many an issue, that there is a careful balance between doing the right thing and ensuring his party doesn’t tear off his hide.

Environmental issues are no different. An article published in the Washington Post today continues to put truth to power regarding McCain's stance on environmental issues. So, while he opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), he capitulated to one of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) many attempts to drill it. When Stevens attempted to attach the permission to drill ANWR to a must-pass defense funding bill, McCain gave in. Even though the bill would probably pass without the amendment, McCain would not vote against a defense spending bill at a time of war. Fortunately, others had better foresight. Even where he’s right, he’s wrong. For instance, McCain supports cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by mid century, an admirable goal. However, Obama and Clinton support cutting it by 80% in the same period! And McCain’s score from major environmental groups compared to the Democratic candidates is quite telling, as quoted from the Post article:

McCain's lifetime League of Conservation Voters score is 24 percent, compared with 86 for Obama and 86 for Clinton; Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund's conservation report card gave him 38 percent in the 108th Congress and 40 in the 109th.

We should be promoting environmental policies that are not only progressive, but also aggressive in keeping our Earth healthy for generations to come. Does John McCain agree? Sure doesn’t look that way.

Oil Independence

Israel is taking steps toward becoming the world leader in the age of the electric car. Multimillionaire Shai Agassi, with great enthusiasm from private donors and the Israeli Government, is working to make Israel cleaner and oil independent. His company, Project Better Place, is planning to mass-distribute the new electric cars next year, and to establish a network of battery-recharging areas by 2011. The Israeli Government has pledged significant tax incentives for buyers. According to Dafna Agassi, marketing director of Project Better Place, the electric car market has the potential to transform technology the way the mobile phone did:

Think about what happened with Finland and Nokia -- it sprung an entire industry. We are starting the field here. Imagine bringing this to other countries and the potential impact is huge.

Today, the price of crude oil has hit a record high at $122 a barrel. President Bush remains adamant that the solution lies in replenishing our oil reserves and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. President Bush also wants Congress to allow construction of more nuclear and coal plants. Instead of continuing to build dirty fuel sources and destroying an area rich with wildlife, the United States should be following Israel’s example of pursuing an environmentally friendly way to rid our dependence on oil.

The three presidential candidates have all spoken about global warming as a top priority in the coming years. However, The American Prospect addresses Senator McCain’s environmental failures in “The Myth of Green McCain.” The Senator claims to be “a leader on the issue of global warming,” but has yet to produce any sort of comprehensive environmental plan of action. Senator McCain has the worst environmental record of the three presidential candidates. The League of Conservation Voters published their congressional scorecard for 2007, and McCain received a zero based on his environmental voting record. In order to keep up with the changing global climate and economy, we need a president who will lead us in fight against oil dependency. John McCain is not that person.

Happy Earth Day!

Since first established in 1970, Earth Day has been a national reminder that we must take responsibility to protect the planet on which we live.

Judaism commands us to take initiative in maintaining the environment. From the very beginning, “The Lord God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden, to till it and tend it" (Genesis 2:15). It is our duty to take care of the earth. Tikkun Olam, a pillar of Judaism, literally tells us to repair the world. We must act now to correct injustices done to our environment.

It is time for new leadership that can bring about necessary changes to transform America into the frontrunner in environmental sustainability. Today, President Bush set the record for the highest disapproval rating of any President in the 70-year history of the Gallup poll. The Democratic candidates are prepared with new energy policies. Senator Clinton’s Earth Day statement and Senator Obama’s Earth Day statement address making smart choices in government and in private that reflect our status as stewards of the earth.

The Talmud explains: While the sage, Choni, was walking along a road, he saw a man planting a carob tree. Choni asked him: “How long will it take for this tree to bear fruit?” “Seventy years," replied the man. Choni then asked: “Are you so healthy a man that you expect to live that length of time and eat its fruit?" The man answered: “I found a fruitful world because my ancestors planted it for me. Likewise, I am planting for my children.” Though we have barely begun to see the effects of global warming, it is a problem that future generations will inherit. By taking steps in our own lives to reduce carbon emissions, we can ensure a better world for our children.

For more on Judaism and protecting the environment, see the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life.

Stem Cell Vindication? Absolutely Not.

Last week, Charles Krauthammer wrote a shameful column for the Washington Post in which he tried to defend President Bush's refusal to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Krauthammer - along with the rest of Bush's conservative base - took last month's announcement of a scientific discovery that human skin cells can possibly be used in similar ways as embryonic stem cells, completely distorted it, and falsely declared the embryonic stem cell debate "over". He wrote, "The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president - so vilified for a moral stance - been so thoroughly vindicated."

Krauthammer's arguments simply don't add up. He's twisting information to try to make President Bush appear like the good guy -- not the bad guy who has vetoed legislation to expand the funding of life-saving scientific research TWICE in the past fifteen months.

Krauthammer's assertions are wrong. Krauthammer - and the rest of the anti-embryonic- stem-cell-research, "moral values"-based right wing - wants to substitute embryonic stem cell research with this new human skin cell discovery, and the two just don't equate. No evidence yet exists that this new research is effective. Shinya Yamanaka, the leader of the Kyoto University research team even said this: "It was a breakthrough. It allowed us to see a goal. But the goal is far off in the distance."

This conservative ploy to take attention away from - and even halt - embryonic stem cell research is appalling. The irony is that the President's belief that embryonic stem cell research is immoral is preventing funding for research that can SAVE LIVES! We know this to be true because stem cells have been studied for over forty years. So while - as Alan I. Leshner and James A. Thomson explained in their Washington Post op/ed Monday - the new method of stem cell therapy may produce "potential landmarks, these studies are only a first step on the long road toward eventual therapies."

SCHIP Revisited

A week after failing to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP legislation, House Members will vote on a revised version of the legislation today, hoping to secure the extra votes needed for an override this time around.  As expressed on TalkingPointsMemo:

As before, the bill would add would $35 billion over five years to the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The program, which now covers 6 million children, would enroll 4 million more. The increase would be paid for with a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, which Bush opposes.  Under the revisions, the program would exclude families earning more than three times the federal poverty rate. Low-income childless adults, which some states cover, would be phased out in one year. And states would have to be more rigorous in checking the validity of applicants' Social Security numbers, an effort to exclude illegal immigrants.

It is truly baffling that the expansion of SCHIP legislation has become such a long and drawn out process.  Isn't it about time that the political games cease and Congress compromises on a plan that works for the millions of children who need health care? Although it seems like a pretty generic argument, it is hard to believe that this administration could cost a projected $2.4 trillion to tax payers on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a compromise can not be reached on such vital legislation at home.

SCHIP Veto Override

Tomorrow, October 18th, 2007, is a very important day for 10 million children, who would be uninsured if not for the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) as Congress will vote on whether or not to override President Bush's previous veto of the legislation.  On JTA.org, Phyllis Snyder answers those in the Bush administration and some members of Congress who oppose the fully funded, bipartisan bill because they claim the compromise SCHIP bill expands coverage to higher income families. She expresses that,

This bill represents a bipartisan compromise to reach out to the growing number of low-income, uninsured children in this country. More than 75 percent of the children expected to gain coverage under the compromise bill have family incomes below twice the poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.

An instance of strong support for the reauthorization of SCHIP legislation was presented over the weekend as congregations from California to Vermont participated in an event where thousands of phone calls were made to members of Congress about the SCHIP issue.   Also, more than 2000 religious leaders, including 62 rabbis, sent a letter to President Bush imploring him to sign the bi-partisan SCHIP legislation.

With all the money that is being put into our efforts in Iraq, one must truly wonder how a fully funded bill, that will provide healthcare for 800,000 children at the same cost of a week in Iraq, could be vetoed. 

   

SCHIP Veto: Why Now?

The Forward features a fantastic editorial this week that questions why President Bush, aka Mr. Compassionate Conservative, would choose "this moment, after seven years of profligate spending and fiscal chaos, to show some budgetary backbone by denying medical care to 4 million children who need it."

As the article says, Bush ran on a platform of

"compassionate conservatism": a "humble" foreign policy that restores American greatness, attention to the weakest among us here at home, and efficient, businesslike management in Washington.

How does a veto that blocks a government-sponsored health insurance program from sick children who otherwise couldn't afford doctors visits equal "attention to the weakest among us here at home"?

More on SCHIP here.

CHIP Passes in the House

The bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) expires on Sunday, and Bush is threatening to use his veto power for the fourth time as he refuses to sign into law this legislation that would secure health coverage for 10 million low-income children.

The president's priorities are completely out of whack. He needs billions of dollars to continue funding an extremely unpopular war overseas, yet he won't allocate the money needed over the next five years to provide health insurance for children at home.

The House passed the $35 billion expansion to CHIP last night, and supporters of this bill hope for Senate passage by the end of this week.

To see how the Senate Democrats are hoping to change President Bush's attitude toward this bill, click here.