Shawn Otto here.  Two weeks ago today, America woke up to a new era.  Before the election, I said we’d report to you on the successes and failures of this initiative that we have built together.  This has, for me, become a very personal mission, one that I have volunteered a good portion of my life to over the course of the last year.   Thank you for joining me and the SD08 team in that journey.

In the beginning…

Eleven months ago, six of us called for a presidential debate on science.  We put up a website, reached out to our contacts, wrote some opeds, and launched it in the blogosphere – and with your help, Science Debate 2008 arguably became the largest political initiative in the history of American science.  More than 39,000 individual scientists, engineers and concerned citizens joined together, along with nearly every major American science organization, the presidents of over 100 leading universities, 30 Nobel laureates, leaders of American industry, the editors of most American science publications,  leading congresspersons and many of the most brilliant minds working in science today.  All told, our initiative came to represent some 125 million Americans.

No news is not good news

By any measure, this many prominent individuals and organizations publicly calling for a presidential debate on science was news, and yet despite our pitching this story to hundreds of political reporters around the nation, not one political page in America reported on it in the early days.

We researched why this might be and discovered a structural problem in American news.  Editors don’t allow political reporters to cover science, and science reporters have no access to the political pages.  At a time when the majority of challenges facing the nation revolve around science, from innovation and the economy, to climate change and energy, to healthcare, the environment, and science education, there is virtually no one covering science policy in America.  This is being compounded by major news outlets closing their science sections.

You gotta have faith

This lack of news coverage has a feedback loop with the candidates, causing them to class science as a niche topic.   This became apparent when, armed with our supporters, we secured broadcast partners in PBS’s NOW and NOVA, and a venue partner in the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, but the candidates declined to attend.  Instead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton attended the “Compassion Forum” at Messiah College, where, among other things, they answered questions about science.  John McCain ignored both events.

While I was disappointed, I was not surprised.  The faith community has worked for decades to develop a political voice in the national dialogue.  Campaign advisors suggested to us that a science policy debate would require extensive preparation and be high risk for low return, as only a small segment of the population was interested.

We decided to test that assumption, so we partnered with Research!America to do a national poll, and found that in fact 85% of US adults said the presidential candidates should participate in a debate to discuss key policy problems facing the United States, such as health care, climate change, and energy, and how science can help tackle them.  These results held across party lines.   Contrary to the assumptions of the media and the candidates, the public is highly interested in science when it becomes science policy – how science will affect their lives.

The Top 14 Science Questions

So we decided to demystify the event.  Our supporters had submitted some 3,400 questions online.  I laid them out in a spreadsheet and categorized them by subject frequency, and we culled them into what we thought were the key questions you were interested in.  We then worked with our cosponsors, as well as SEforA and several other organizations, to turn them into The 14 Top Science Questions Facing America.

I then went back to the campaigns and essentially said “look, these poll results show Americans are very interested in seeing you debate, and here are the questions.  Virtually all of American science and academia is behind this.  You’ve at least got to answer these questions in writing, and we still think you should attend a nationally televised forum.  We live in a science-dominated world and these are many of the key questions facing the nation.  The American people deserve to know your positions on them.”

A new milestone in presidential politics

To their credit, both Barack Obama and John McCain responded.  While they still declined a televised forum, instead attending yet another forum on faith, they did answer us in writing, representing the first time the endorsed candidates for President have laid out such detailed science policies as a part of the campaign – a milestone that is critical as we move further into the science-dominated 21st Century.

How they differed

There were several marked differences in their answers, which have been widely covered, but the largest was a philosophical difference, which was reflected in the answers to several of the questions.  Obama favored doubling federal investment in the kinds of research that eventually produce new economies that business can exploit, while McCain favored deregulation and tax credits to stimulate corporations to make increased R & D investments themselves.  Both positions had their detractors.  Some argued that government cannot afford to spend more in tough times, while others said quarterly-driven corporations can’t afford to carry decade-long high-risk basic research projects on the books.

800 million media impressions and a top web site

Science Debate 2008-related stories subsequently appeared in almost every major paper in the nation, and in blogs, print media, radio, and television around the world.  All told, thanks to you, the Science Debate 2008 initiative eventually made over 800 million media impressions, and the web site rose into the top 1/4 of 1% of most visited sites on the internet.  Together with you, we are now widely credited with having elevated science in the national dialogue, which was our stated goal at the outset.

Science Debate 2008 in play in the campaigns

The answers played out in the race in other ways as well.  I’ll give you just a few brief examples.  Senator McCain’s answer to the embryonic stem cell question came into play a number of times – first when his wording appeared to pull back from his earlier support for embryonic stem cell research, a characterization both campaigns battled over in radio ads, and later when his running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, flatly contradicted his answer in an interview with James Dobson and was subsequently described as “going rogue.”   Senator Obama’s answer has been the basis of numerous stories since the election as stem cell advocates look forward to his lifting President Bush’s restrictions as one of his first official acts as president.  In another answer and follow up interview, Senator McCain claimed to have been responsible for the development of wi-fi and Blackberry-like devices, which caused a minor tempest.  Senator Obama assembled a first class science advisory team to answer the questions, and they went on to further refine them into the Obama campaign’s science policy.  They made news when 61 Nobel laureates (and eventually 15 more), led by Obama science advisory team leader Harold Varmus, signed a letter in support of his campaign; and the answers of both candidates to the questions of Science Debate 2008 served as the basis for a letter signed by 178 universities and organizations, urging the next president to appoint a science advisor by January 20 and elevate the post to cabinet-level.

No matter which candidate you supported, this debate of science issues is healthy for America.  Science Debate 2008 without question achieved its objective of reframing and elevating science in the American national dialogue, and I am proud to have been a part of it, along with you.

The road ahead

Looking forward, president-elect Obama has laid out ambitious science policy objectives that, if enacted, will go a long way toward reinvigorating America’s science, research, engineering, energy, innovation, health, education and environmental standing, along with creating a renewed economic foundation for growth.  But to enact anything the President needs the support of Congress, and Congress in turn needs the support of the American people.  This is an historic opportunity to renew America’s commitment to science at the federal level, but in a tight economy, science remains vulnerable as long as it is low in public and media awareness.  Now, more than ever, efforts that increase the visibility of the role of science policy are very important, and the voice of scientists is critical in that process.

Because of this, the Science Debate initiative is seeking funding to continue.  I have done this as a full time volunteer for the last year, but to sustain it we need paid staff and infrastructure, so now I am asking you to stand up with me for science.  This is your initiative, and together we need to continue our work with the American media to bring science policy more into the mainstream, we need to continue with cutting-edge conferences like Innovation 2008 that educate policymakers and the public, we need to continue to cross-promote as a netroots team, and we need to continue to advocate for public debates of science issues in political races.

Strategies for change

There is much work to be done to overcome decades of infrastructure that has been created to disseminate antiscience misinformation.  Where we see ourselves fitting in is at this same nexus of policy, science, the media and the public.  So in the off year, one of our areas of focus will be to work to make the media more aware of the critical, positive role science policy and their coverage of it plays in the future of the United States, and to develop strategies for them to be more successful at it.  If science is engaged with policy, the public is highly interested.  Another is to work with state-level debate organizations, build bridges, and educate them, so when the time comes in 2010 for congressional races, we have laid some groundwork for science debates, or at least for science to be a much larger part of the debates.  Finally, we need to continue to use leveraged strategies to make the general public more aware of these issues as policies are debated and bills pass through congress.

The key to the future is in your hand

But let’s be clear.  None of this happens without your support.  It is all in your hands.  Science Debate has proven to be an enormously successful approach.  You own a piece of this initiative and its success because you helped build it, promote it and fund it.  But you have to want it to continue.  If you’re like me, you have a stake in a science-literate America, because you know how important it is to the ongoing success of the United States, to the health of the planet, and to your future and your children’s future.  I’m largely in this for my son and the millions of kids like him, and because I think it’s the right thing to do.  How about you?  Will you make an ongoing monthly contribution to help us continue?

Together, we can bring a new dawn for science in America.

Thank you, as always, for your support.

-Shawn Otto
and the rest of the team
at ScienceDebate2008.com

The six founders of Science Debate 2008: Matthew Chapman, Austin Dacey, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Lawrence Krauss, Chris Mooney, and Shawn Lawrence Otto.  They were later joined by team members Darlene Cavalier and Erik Beeler.  Science Debate 2008′s database and email communication infrastructure is made possible with pro-bono support from The DataBank, which we gratefully acknowledge.

FactCheck.org

Closing Arguments: McCain

McCain and Palin close their campaign with a new set of dubious character attacks.

Summary
In the final week, the McCain-Palin campaign unleashed some all-new misleading character attacks on Obama:

• McCain strained to tie Obama to a Palestinian professor whose views on Israel are quite different from Obama’s.
• McCain and Palin both distorted a seven-and-a-half-year-old radio interview with Obama concerning the court system and civil rights.
• McCain and the GOP ran ads claiming Obama’s military budget would mean huge job cuts in Virginia, despite Obama’s proposal to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps – and McCain’s own calls for ending wasteful weapons programs.

Closing Arguments: Obama

With the finish line in sight, Obama serves up familiar, pie-in-the-sky promises.

Summary
In the last few days, Obama has wrapped up his pitch to the electorate with some misleading claims we’ve heard before:

• He continued to ask voters to believe he can pay for every dime of an ambitious health care plan and other spending proposals while cutting taxes for all but the most affluent. Budget experts say that’s unlikely.
• He also kept up the drumbeat on a promise to end “tax breaks for sending jobs overseas,” as though that could do much to keep jobs at home. Experts say it can’t.

They give you some historical context by noting with a (R) for Bush or (D) for Kerry who the newspaper endorsed in the 2004 Presidential election.

Currently on the list are 41 newspapers that endorsed George W. Bush in 2004 that now are endorsing Obama and 4 newspapers that endorsed John Kerry and are now endorsing John McCain.

Spin and hype were apparent, once again, at the third and final debate between McCain and Obama:

* McCain claimed the liberal group ACORN “is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history … maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” In fact, a Republican prosecutor said of the first and biggest ACORN fraud case: “[T]his scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting.” He said $8-an-hour workers turned in made-up voter registration forms rather than doing what ACORN paid them to do.

* McCain said “Joe the plumber” faced “much higher taxes” under Obama’s tax plan and would pay a fine under Obama’s health care plan if he failed to provide coverage for his workers. But Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher would pay higher taxes only if the business he says he wants to buy puts his income over $200,000 a year, and his small business would be exempt from Obama’s requirement to provide coverage for workers.

* Obama repeated a dubious claim that his health care plan will cut the average family’s premiums by $2,500 a year. Experts have found that figure to be overly optimistic.

And much much more.

McCain and Obama contradicted each other repeatedly during their first debate, and each volunteered some factual misstatements as well. Here’s how we sort them out:

• Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.

• Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.

• McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.

• McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.

• Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.

• McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

• Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.

• Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.
• McCain misrepresented Obama’s plan by claiming he’d be “handing the health care system over to the federal government.” Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.

• McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.

For full details, as well as other dubious claims and statements, please read the full Analysis at FactCheck.org.

I know the norm is to refer to a candidates rise in popularity after their convention as a ‘postconvention bump’ but I prefer to give credit where credit is due and it was clearly Sarah Palin being lifted from relative national obscurity to the VP spot that is responsible for McCain’s improvement in the polls.  Sadly, for McCain, it does not appear to be a sustainable phenomenon so the campaign is working hard to lock in votes via absentee ballots while Republican energy levels are still high.

After the initial scramble and general freak out following Governor Palin’s selection, the Obama campaign and their supporters seem to have found their bearings and are now bringing focus back to the issues and the lies coming from the McCain campaign.  When Karl Rove thinks your ads fail on a truth test, you have to worry.  I suspect that worry is why McCain has put this much effort into wrapping up absentee voters despite the problems Florida experienced in 2000.

Does anyone know how hard it is for someone to revoke a mailed absentee ballot and vote on election day if something changes a voters mind between the time the mailed their absentee ballot and election day?

Friends,

The polls are tightening across the nation, and one thing is clear: this year’s presidential election will be one of the closest in history. We know that John McCain and Sarah Palin will change Washington, but before they reform our nation’s capital, you have to send them there first.

Now more than ever, your vote is critical. And there’s no better way to vote than by voting early, or with an absentee ballot. Voting early, or with an absentee ballot, is the best way to avoid the long line on Election Day and get your vote counted. Many states allow you to vote early by requesting an absentee ballot through the mail. Please visit www.JohnMcCain.com/AB for more details on early voting and absentee ballot requests in your state.

Your support is extremely important to electing John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin in November, and your vote will matter. I’m encouraging you to visit our website and either register to vote or sign up for early voting or an absentee ballot. Your vote will make all the difference in November.

Thanks for your support and for your vote!

Rick Davis
Campaign Manager

The McCain campaign has finally responded to the Sciencedebate2008 questionnaire. His responses, alongside Obama’s responses from two weeks ago, are now online at The Questions and Answers, a Side by Side Comparison.

Washington (September 15, 2008) – Entering the debate on several contentious science issues, John McCain today answered the “14 top science questions facing America,” according to ScienceDebate2008.com, the group leading an effort to make science issues a larger part of the election. His answers join those of Barack Obama, who answered the same questions two weeks ago.

“Most of America’s major unsolved challenges revolve around these 14 questions. To move America forward, the next president needs a substantive plan for tackling them going in, and voters deserve to know what that plan is,” said Shawn Otto, CEO of the initiative. “We’re pleased that Senator McCain has provided voters with that plan.”

The top 14 questions address energy policy, national security, economics in a science-driven global economy, climate change, education, health care, ocean health, biosecurity, clean water, space, stem cells, scientific integrity, genetics, and research.

The 14 questions were developed from over 3,400 questions submitted by more than 38,500 signers of the ScienceDebate2008 initiative. The questionnaire is a joint effort led by ScienceDebate2008, with Scientists and Engineers for America, AAAS, the National Academies, the Council on Competitiveness, and several other organizations, together representing over 125 million Americans.

“I have a broad and cohesive vision for the future of American innovation,” said Senator McCain. “My policies will provide broad pools of capital, low taxes and incentives for research in America, a commitment to a skilled and educated workforce, and a dedication to opening markets around the globe.”

“Ensuring that the U.S. continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central priority for my administration,” said Senator Obama. “Our talent for innovation is still the envy of the world, but we face unprecedented challenges that demand new approaches.”

Recent national polls have shown that 85% of voters would like the see the candidates debate these challenges, and the majority of voters are much more likely to vote for a candidate that has a plan for tackling these issues.

“We are grateful for both Senators’ detailed responses,” said Matthew Chapman, president of the initiative. “Now we hope the candidates will want to discuss their differences. Science Debate 2008 and its partners once again extend an invitation to both candidates to attend a televised forum where these vital issues can be discussed in front of a broader audience.”

ScienceDebate2008.com is a citizens initiative started by six individuals whose signers now include nearly every major American science organization, the presidents of nearly every major American university, and dozens of Nobel laureates and top American CEOs. For more information, to see a list of the signers, or to see detailed results of the national polls, please visit http://www.sciencedebate2008.com.

Thats no surprise that he is surprised. He is so entrenched in a party that would do ANYTHING to keep the presidency even if it was a bad idea in the long term the way an Obama/Clinton ticket would be.

Having watched the Republican primary debates, I know that Romney, McCain, and Guilliani would all do anything and say anything that they believe would help them win in November. The idea that a politician like Obama would not take the easy path and pick a running mate just because her selection would placate a block of voters is simply foreign to them.

This whole thing – well known Republicans camping out in Denver at the DNC to grab media attention – seems really creepy to me.  I knew it was coming.  The PR Newswire for Journalists releases over the last week or two have included many press releases about RNC events in Denver and press events revolving around Republican celebrities.

I’ve been watching closely, and I haven’t seen a similar barrage of press releases from Democratic groups that plan to make appearances in Minneapolis at the Republican National Convention.

Romney exploits Democratic tensions

By Andrew Ward in Denver
Published: August 26 2008 23:14 | Last updated: August 26 2008 23:14

Mitt Romney on Tuesday sought to exploit lingering tensions between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as he entered enemy territory to launch a fierce attack on the Democrats.

The former Massachusetts governor, who is among the favourites for the Republican vice-presidential nomination, said he was surprised Mr Obama had not picked Mrs Clinton as running mate.

Speaking to reporters on the fringe of the Democratic convention in Denver, Mr Romney said an Obama-Clinton ticket would have posed the biggest threat to the Republicans and predicted her absence would alienate Clinton supporters.

Recent polls have shown up to 30 per cent of Clinton supporters plan to vote for John McCain, the Republican candidate, or stay at home.

Mr Romney said Mr Obama’s attempt to add foreign policy heft by picking Joe Biden as running mate would backfire when voters learned more about the Delaware senator’s views.

“His record of being wrong on foreign policy is as long as his number of years in foreign policy,” he said, citing Mr Biden’s opposition to the cold war arms build-up against the Soviet Union, the first Gulf war and the surge strategy in Iraq.

Mr Romney said the presence of two senators on the Democratic ticket undermined Mr Obama’s promise to change Washington, drawing a contrast with Mr McCain’s years of military service before entering politics.

He declined to comment on his own vice-presidential prospects but highlighted his experience outside Washington both as governor and in business.

He said Mr Obama miscalculated last week by attacking Mr McCain for owning several homes and dismissed suggestions that the issue could hurt his own vice-presidential chances.

Mr Romney, a wealthy former private equity executive, said he owned three homes – “one less than John Kerry” – but predicted voters would reject Democratic efforts to stoke the “politics of envy”.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

The initial launch of the site features basic information on the seven individuals McCain is rumored to be choosing from, with profiles of Eric Cantor, Charlie Crist, Carly Fiorina, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Fred Smith and John Thune. The site will also give voters an opportunity to sign up to volunteer to be a part of the rapid response efforts in their communities.

“After lamenting the missed opportunity to make Dick Cheney his own Vice President in 2001, McCain will have a chance to choose his very own Cheney,” said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse. “We think it’s important that the American people have all the facts at their fingertips when it comes to John McCain and his vice presidential pick. This site gives reporters, voters and activists a chance to review the record and see for themselves that, no matter who he picks, a McCain ticket means more of the same for families already struggling to pay out of control energy costs, keep their jobs and stay in their homes.”

The new www.TheNextCheney.com site is an extension of the DNC’s efforts to outline the real records of all the Republican candidates, going back to the first days of the primary season. In the coming days, the site will be updated with additional content and functionality, including new videos and information about additional potential vice presidential candidates.

McCain campaign takes the low road

Published: August 3 2008 18:42 | Last updated: August 3 2008 18:42

The US presidential election has taken a nasty turn and the fault is all on one side.

John McCain, the Republican candidate, has recently launched a series of campaign advertisements that attack Barack Obama’s character and misrepresent the Democrat’s positions to an extreme degree, even by the standards of presidential elections. For intelligent independents who had believed that Mr McCain was a cut above all that, it is a sadly disillusioning thing to see. Even sadder would be if Mr McCain’s decision to play dirty works – as perhaps it might.

Negative advertisements are not in themselves a bad thing. It is legitimate and indeed desirable that political opponents should attack each other’s policy positions and fitness to lead – and that second test makes the question of character fair game too. In fact, a critic of Mr Obama’s campaign so far might reasonably argue that he has spent too little time confronting his rival. He has been inclined to dismiss the Republican (“four more years of George W. Bush”) and even to ignore him. Whereas Mr Obama’s campaign is mostly about Mr Obama, Mr McCain’s is very much about his opponent.

In itself, that is fine. There is nothing wrong in Mr McCain hammering away at Mr Obama’s policies or lack of experience. What is so disappointing in Mr McCain’s new strategy is the derisive and debased tone of the attacks.

One advert portrays Mr Obama not as a politician with weak qualifications but as a vapid celebrity akin to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, whose images are intercut with his. Another says that Mr Obama sees himself as a messiah: cue images of Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments. Mr McCain has accused Mr Obama of preferring to lose the war in Iraq to losing the election, and (falsely, it appears) of refusing to visit wounded soldiers because he was denied a photo opportunity. (Had the visit gone ahead, he would no doubt have accused Mr Obama of using the soldiers for campaign purposes.) He says that Mr Obama will tax electricity (both propose a scheme to limit greenhouse gases that would have this effect). Another advert absurdly tells voters to blame Mr Obama for high petrol prices.

Mr McCain promised a respectful campaign. Early on he suggested that the two embark on a national tour of unmoderated debates, allowing them to talk through the issues in a way that US campaign orthodoxy forbids. Mr Obama rejected the idea — as any frontrunner would have been inclined to — but Mr McCain, renowned for his willingness to work with political opponents, impressed voters with his view that candidates can disagree courteously and even learn from each other. How far he has moved from that stance. The prevailing tone of his new campaign adverts is contempt: they sneer, they mock and they outrageously misrepresent.

Now Mr McCain has accused Mr Obama of “playing the race card”. Mr Obama has often remarked that his opponents want voters to notice his “funny name” and the fact that if he became president he would look different from his predecessors. Recently, for the first time, and perhaps unfairly, he linked that observation directly to the McCain campaign. Affecting outrage, the campaign said that this amounted to a charge of racism. Given the angry tone that Mr McCain and his team have injected into the campaign, it was a case of protesting too much.

Some speculate that this new turn in strategy could succeed and may indeed already be working. Mr Obama’s still narrow lead in the polls appeared to wobble last week under the onslaught. That makes it no easier to watch Mr McCain, of all people, descend to gutter politics. The Republican spent years gaining the respect of allies and opponents alike for his integrity and plain speaking. Now, it seems, he would rather lose a reputation than lose an election.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

I signed up for an account when it first was announced in an RNC press release. I was really curious to see what kinds of suggestions would come from the everyday Republicans who have some distance from the financial corruption that seems to have become a hallmark for so many Republicans holding federal office. I’d long been convinced that once you go down a few layers in either the Democratic Party of the Republican Party you will find people who hold remarkably similar values and positions. (Warning: If you sign up for an account you WILL receive several fund raising emails from the McCain campaign.)

When I popped in today I was very happy to see some Republicans speaking out on issues in a way that calls back to the days of small government and personal liberty that were such an important part of the GOP in the pre-Reagan years.

Here are a sampling of some of the best:

Douglas – Plainfield, NJ on August 1, 2008

Values : Same-sex Marriage
The idea that prohibiting same-sex marriage could be construed as “protecting American values” disgusts me as an American committed to the values of freedom and equality. The state has no place telling gay couples that they are lesser citizens than their heterosexual friends and neighbors. Opposition to same-sex marriage on the part of the GOP is a prime example of the manipulation of bigotry in the hearts of certain voters for electoral gain, and is recognized by many observers as such. If the GOP wants to be seen as a party of serious ideas, it ought to drop opposition to same-sex marriage.

Values : Religious Liberty
Republicans should refrain from calling the USA a Christian country. It is not. I doubt some submitters’ claims that the founders would be rolling in their graves to hear me say this. Very early on, in a treaty with Morocco, both a Muslim state and an early ally of ours (a friendship forged at a time when support for our country was sparse), we indicated that we were not a Christian country, but a country open to all religions. Were we guided by values provided by our founders’ faiths? Most certainly, but are we bound by their faith? Absolutely not. Talk of the United States as a Christian country create animosity abroad and offends patriotic citizens of other faiths at home, and is thus inappropriate and unwarranted.

Jose H. – Pinecrest, FL on August 1, 2008

Values, Other
Here are a few common sense ideas that we can have on our platform and compete with the Democrats because most Americans want them and value them: 1. support Scientific research, including stem cell research 2. support clean air and water; reduce CO2 emmisions 3. support education and teachers at all levels 4. support workers rights to form unions 5. support diversifying oil alternatives (e.g.nuclear power plants) 6. support NAFTA 7. support U.S. citizen privacy issues 8. support universal health care 9. improve our relationships with our allies 10.curb the spread of nuclear power 11. take out Al Quada wherever it hides Let us not get beat on simple issues which are true to American values.

Robert – Raleigh, NC on August 1, 2008

Energy: Other
Gas taxes are used to fund the nation’s infrastructure. The current state of our nation’s roadway system is proof that infrastructure maintenance and construction is woefully underfunded. Repealing the gas tax would be a mistake.

Energy : Global warming
Subsidize clean energies, and reduce or cut out subsidies to fuels that contribute greenhouse gases to the environment.

Energy : Wind/Solar
The government should attempt to make these cleaner fuels more competitive with conventional fossil fuels. Fast-tracking clean power plants would be an important part of bringing these clean fuels to the market faster, and would reduce the initial investments required to bring these online.

Values : Same-sex Marriage
I do not feel that a constitutional amendment is necessary. If a state chooses to allow same-sex marriage that is the right of the state. If a state chooses not to observe same-sex marriage, that should be the right of the state. The federal government should not be in the business of restricting an individual’s rights when it does not interfere with the public’s welfare.

Values : Right to Bear Arms
I agree with the position of the current Supreme Court of an individual’s right to bear arms. However, it worries me that every individual has his or her own agenda when they purchase a gun. The individual’s right must be weighed against the public’s right to feel safe.

Douglas – Fort Lewis, WA on August 1, 2008

Values: Flag Protection
is my brand of patriotism that thinks that a Flag Burning Amendment is not only a bad idea, but is a potentially dangerous movement as well. When we boil down to it, flag desecration is a form of political expression, a founding principle of America. I know the folks that actually do it are stupid, but we’ve got to acknowledge that stupid people have rights too. The government should not try and be a rapist and make those unbathed hippies love the flag and what it stands for. We must ask ourselves: what’s the point of freedom of speech if we only protect political speech we agree with?

Rex – Weston, MA on August 1,2008

Values: Abortion
This is the greatest single weakness in this election. I believe that McCain was chosen because he was not captive to the current party ideology on such issues and abortion and birth control. Being against both is both intrusive and anit-Republican in the sense of impinging on personal freedom. It turns off more voters than it turns on. What would resonate with the electorate would be to go back to controlling the Federal government’s tendency to intrude ever more into our lives, through taxes AND programs. Please, if you want to have any hope of success soft pedal the “family values” code words for Federal intrusion to mold everyone to a minority view of correctness!!!

Anonymous on August 1, 2008

Health Care: Health care reform
Health care reform is desperately needed. And privatization, where there is a profit motive, will not work. My wife recently had a baby, and we had a few medical complications involved with the pregnancy. All throughout the process, our concern ended up not of being “what is the best medical care we can receive” but instead “will the insurance company cover this procedure”. And our doctor wasted significant amounts of time fighting with the insurance company to obtain coverage for medically necessary verifications. For the most part, the rest of the civilized world has some form of federal medical insurance. Even the US does in the form of Medicare, which until the prescription drug benefit was added, generally was a successful program. Instead of reinventing the wheel (or as some would say breaking the wheel) and using tax incentives and other gimmicks to give tax breaks to the upper classes, lets do the right thing. There are certain problems too large for the private sector to solve. Medical insurance has been proven to be one of those issues.

I don’t want to put words in the mouths of these individuals but from where I sit, it appears that there are people out there looking for major reforms to the GOP. I wish them luck. I think many old-school Republicans are waking up and taking a look at what has become of their party. With any luck, some will take a look at the issues at stake in November and vote for Obama, but I bet there will be even more who vote the party ticket even if they have to hold their nose to do it.

The GOP is at it again

This is nothing new for the GOP. FactCheck.org debunked a similar claim the GOP made against Senator Kerry back in 2004. Back the claims ran all over TV but the lies and misleading parts of that claim were never properly exposed at the time.

The President misled voters and reporters in a March 20 speech when he claimed that Kerry “voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career. Bush spoke of “yes” votes for “tax increases.”

But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.”

They are using the same technique this time to try to make it look like Senator Obama has voted to increase taxes every time he has had the chance. Just like in 2004, the math used is not remotely accurate and takes huge stretches of one’s imagination to come up with the inflated “94 votes” they claim.

From FactCheck.org

The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times “for higher taxes.” We find that their count is padded.

After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:

• Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.
• Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.
• Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans’ health care.
• The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.
• The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.

It’s true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he’s voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That’s consistent with what he’s said he’d do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.

The $28,500 a ticket luncheon is being organized by some of the most controversial names in business, including buyout baron Henry Kravis.

John McCain has said he does not support closing tax loopholes for hedge fund managers and buyout industry executives such as Kravis, who have pocketed billions of dollars by paying a lesser percentage of their income to taxes than many regular working Americans.

Besides helping to organize Tuesday’s event, Kravis has been a major fund-raiser for John McCain throughout his campaign for president. This is the same Kravis who donated $28,500 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee last October to help with the primaries.

McCain’s tax plan also includes two huge tax cut giveaways for American corporations–lowering rates from 35% to 25% and adding other new deductions.

You can’t really blame Kravis for supporting McCain in hopes of winning those two economic boons. His company, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and their holdings stand to make millions of dollars off the new cuts. According to the Center for American Progress, “The centerpiece of Sen. John McCain’s tax plan is two huge tax cuts for American corporations, including utility and energy companies.”

A CAP analysis finds that McCain’s tax policy–which lowers corporate tax rates from 35 to 25 % and makes equipment and technology investments immediately deductible–would give a single KKR portfolio company, Energy Future Holdings (formerly TXU), a $49 million tax cut.

By the way, ObamaForMcCain.com is also registered but it was done via a Domain Proxy service so the actual owners are hidden.  Since there is just a GoDaddy.com placeholder page there now it may have just been a whim purchase for someone.

But after RezkoJudgement.com and MeetBarackObama.com and DemocratsvsObama.com – all RNC owned sites – this new domain is just par for the course.

When exactly did it become a acceptable for a national party to ignore issues and focus instead on the kind of work normally left to special interest groups like 2004′s Swiftboat Veterans for Truth?

Well, maybe the Republican poorer half’s opposition to outsourcing jobs has really hit home.

This Act is designed to address the problems faced by workers of both sexes when pay discrimination is ongoing and incremental. Lilly Ledbetter’s lawsuit against Goodyear Tire & Rubber was ruled in favor of Goodyear by the US Supreme Court (by a 5 to 4 decision) because Ms. Ledbetter did not file suit within 180 days of when the discriminatory pay rate was initiated. The fact that Ledbetter did not know that she was being paid less for the same work was irrelevant to the court’s majority.

The minority statement from the court contends that unlike a firing when timing is easy to establish, pay discrimination re-occurs each time the company in question cuts a new paycheck and therefore pay discrimination lawsuits must be filed within 180 days of the most recent paycheck and not 180 days from when the discrimination first began.

The bill is summarized as:

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

In opposing this legislation, Senator John McCain said that if women want better-paying jobs, they just need more “education and training.” Then, he didn’t even show up for the vote.

Explaining his position, McCain said:

“They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else, and it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them.”

Last time I looked, women in management and supervisory roles tend to have at least as good of an education and training as their male counterparts. Perhaps his statement would have made sense even 15 or 20 years ago. The graph on the right, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, shows that since 1991, the proportion of young women enrolled in college has exceeded the enrollment rate for young men, and the gap has widened over time.

“Since 1991, the proportion of young women enrolled in college has exceeded the enrollment rate for young men, and the gap has widened over time. In 2005, about 43 percent of women ages 18 to 24 were enrolled in college, compared with 35 percent of young men. This represents a major shift in the gender balance at U.S. colleges and universities. Between 1970 and 2005, the gender composition has shifted to the extent that women now make up the majority – 54 percent – of the 10.8 million young adults enrolled in college.” – The Crossover in Female-Male College Enrollment Rates by Mark Mather and Dia Adams.

Lilly Ledbetter’s Case’s Background. “In 1979 Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff, began work at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama location. During her years at the factory, raises were given and denied based on evaluations and recommendations regarding worker performance. In March 1998, Ledbetter inquired into the possible sexual discrimination of the Goodyear Tire Company. In July she filed formal charges with the EEOC. In November 1998, after early retirement, Ledbetter sued claiming pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.”

I know the campaign season is a busy time for the remaining candidates, but both Obama and Clinton managed to get their votes in to allow this Act to proceed to a vote by the full Senate. Sen. McCain and fellow Republican Senator Hagel of Nebraska were the only two Senators to not vote Yay or Nay on this Act.

If you would like to let Senator McCain know how you feel on this issue, you can take action here.