Mourning the First Lady of Civil Rights

On April 4, 1968, The United States lost one of the greatest public servants to ever walk within our borders. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot and killed outside of a Memphis hotel while attempting to organize a march in support of the city's sanitation union. When he died later that night at St. Joseph's hospital, the nation mourned the man who spearheaded the movement for racial equality in America. From his Montgomery Bus Boycott (with the recently departed Rosa Parks) to the famous March on Washington, Dr. King exposed and fought the injustices that ran deep in our country's history. And his words continue to mark that struggle today.

But important as his speeches and actions were, are, and will be, for the past 38 years, we have been fortunate enough to have a face to assign to his legacy. Coretta Scott King, the so-called first lady of the civil rights movement, has been at every memorial, every service, and has spoken from the very spot where her husband delivered the words of his immortal dream too long deferred.

It was not just her face that was important, however. Mrs. King was more than a living embodiment of her husband's legacy. She was a leader in her own right. When Dr. King died, she led 50,000 marchers through the streets of Memphis, and only two months later, she headed the Poor People's March to Washington, in support the underclass of all races. It was Coretta who ran the successful campaign for a national holiday in honor of her husband, and it was she who opened and ran the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change--an organization which continues to fight for the racial justice that Dr. King so ardently sought.

Coretta Scott King died yesterday, on January 30, 2006. But the struggle that she and her husband initiated is far from complete. Too many blacks still suffer from the racism that exists in our neighborhoods and our Congress. Too many are still forced to attend under-funded and mostly segregated public schools. Too many still do not have adequate access to affordable healthcare. Today, when we look back on the legacy of both of the Kings, we must ask ourselves whether they "have not died in vain," whether we will continue to fight for the cause that they embodied.

Only then, only once we have completed the work that Dr. King began and that Mrs. King continued will we be able to realize the dream that Dr. King conceived of. Only then can we truly say of all Americans: "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Coretta Scott King will be sorely missed.

--Rebecca

Ethics Are Complicated

At the beginning of January, GOP "Superlobbyist" Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to three federal felonies: fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to bribe public officials. Throughout Washington, the sound of feet running scared can be heard, as President Bush, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and the already beleagured Rep. Tom DeLay, among others, rush to return contributions from Abramoff.

Especially for the Bush Administration, Abramoff's contributions are going to serve as another political millstone around the neck of an already weary president. Bush has denied that Abramoff had extensive access to the White House, though he has declined to publically release records on the subject, despite pressure from GOP lawmakers to do so.

(In fact, Abramoff raised over $100,000 for the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, earning himself the coveted title of "Bush Pioneer" for his skill. "Bundling", the campaign finance trick devised by White House insider Karl Rove to circumvent the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform, is the subject for a whole other post.)

All I can say is that when two Republican congressmen appear on FOX News Sunday and call for the President to fully release the records of his dealings with Abramoff, ethics don't seem so complicated, after all. To use the words of Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, on the subject:

“Get it out. Get it out. Come on.”


-Emma

Chafee says NO!

Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a Republican moderate and an early opponent of the Iraq war, has decided to oppose Samuel Alito’s confirmation.

"I am a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican, and I will be voting against this nomination," said the senator.

However, Chafee opposes a Democratic filibuster and the confirmation is all but secure.

In a typical move, John Kerry (D-MA, loser) had called for a filibuster – from the comfort of a ski resort in the Swiss Alps.

And so it appears that Justices Scalia and Thomas will have a new confrere on the court. For this observer, the highlight of the confirmation process was clearly the teary flight of Martha-Ann. As Tina Fey faithfully reported:

"During Sen. Graham's apology, Martha-Ann Bomgardner, Alito's wife, was so overcome with emotion she broke down in tears and left the hearing. To get an abortion."

-Adrian

Senate Race: Which way PA Democrats want to go

Although the Democratic Party has thrown its support behind Bob Casey, Jr., a man with a political history not to be laughed at, the Primary is still a few months away and his Democratic challengers for the nomination are not to be ignored either.

A new Zogby poll reveals that versus Sen. Santorum, the "family-values" Republican who has declared homosexuals to be in the same category as practicers of beastiality, Casey seems to do poorer than his challengers, Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals.
Admittedly, Casey didn't respond to questions about his issues profile and it had to be constructed from public statements. But Casey does better among Republicans and worse among some of the key demographics Democrats need when the responders were given issues profiles of the field:

Rick Santorum (Republican)
On abortion – pro-life
On stem cell research – opposed
Accepts PAC money – yes
War in Iraq – it was the right thing to do
Troops in Iraq – stay the course
National Health Care – opposed
Raising the minimum wage – supports an increase of $1.10
NAFTA/CAFTA – supports CAFTA; opposed NAFTA
Alito confirmation to Supreme Court – supports confirmation

Bob Casey, Jr. (Democrat)
On abortion – pro-lfe
On stem cell research – opposed
Accepts PAC money – yes
War in Iraq – supported
Troops in Iraq – stay the course
National Health Care – opposed
Raising the minimum wage – supports
NAFTA/CAFTA – opposed both
Alito confirmation to Supreme Court – supports confirmation

Chuck Pennacchio (Democrat)
On abortion – pro-choice
On stem cell research – supports
Accepts PAC money – no
War in Iraq – opposed
Troops in Iraq – out as soon as safely possible
National Health Care – supports
Raising the minimum wage – supports living wage with different levels depending on where the worker lives
NAFTA/CAFTA – opposed both
Alito confirmation to Supreme Court – supports a filibuster

Alan Sandals (Democrat)
On abortion – pro-choice
On stem cell research – supports
Accepts PAC money – yes
War in Iraq – opposed
Troops in Iraq – out as soon as safely possible
National Health Care – supports
Raising the minimum wage – supports
NAFTA/CAFTA – opposed both
Alito confirmation to Supreme Court – supports a filibuster

John Featherman (Republican)
On abortion – pro-choice
On stem cell research – supports
Accepts PAC money – no
War in Iraq – did support, but not since no WMD found
Troops in Iraq – out as soon as safely possible
National Health Care – opposed
Raising the minimum wage – opposed
NAFTA/CAFTA – support both
Alito confirmation to Supreme Court – supports confirmation

The question seems to be where the party goes next. Towards the right, with an anti-choice candidate who has more in common with the Republican opponent than with the majority of the party, or towards the left, with pro-choice, progressive candidates who actually seem to be in line with the party platform.
Fighting Santorum will be hard, especially in an off-year election. Yet part of mid-terms elections is getting the party fired up over something, or more importantly, someone. Fortunately or not, this is a time when politics becomes about the struggle and not the solution. Casey is a smart man who will work hard on Capitol Hill. And Republican votes for Democrats are a nice cushion. But how much support liberals will be willing to give him remains a problem for him, especially in this part of the cycle.
Primaries are a chance for the party to show its true colours, to work for what it thinks it needs. They're also an opportunity for the members to show what they want. Pennsylvania Democrats are being given an incredible opportunity to choose between the liberal and moderate wings of their party and to send a message of what future it should have.

-LK

Qualifications and Ideology

As the debate surrounding Judge Samuel Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court began to unfold on the Senate floor today, our esteemed President met with 54 of the Judge's former clerks to discuss his anticipated approval. And as he has since the process began, the President touted Alito's background. "There's no doubt about Judge Alito's qualifications, his intellect, or his complete dedication to our Constitution and laws," the President said. Then, he went on, "[Sam Alito] is exactly the kind of person Americans want on the Supreme Court." Nevertheless, in spite of the strong rhetoric that the president chose to employ, there exists a signifcant discontect between the first and second portions of his statement. Exclusively because Alito is intellectually qualified to sit on the Supreme Court does not mean that Americans necessarily want him there. Simply put, ideology matters--no matter how ardently the President may argue to the contrary.

In 1795, the first nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge John Rutledge, was blocked by a 14-10 vote in the Senate because he opposed the Jay Treaty--a Federalist-supported agreement with Great Britain. Nobody could question Rutledge's qualifications (he was, after all, chief justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court). He was opposed because of ideology, alone. Years later, the famed Robert Bork, in spite of his glowing qualifications as both a scholar and a judge, was opposed by 58 senators--one of whom was the current, Republican chair of the Senate judiciary committee, our local Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). Finally, despite all of the clout surrounding Democratic filibusters, Republicans, during the Clinton Administration, used what is called the "blue slip procedure" to slow down and, effectively, block a host of "liberal" nominees. In 1997, as a result of these back-door Republican tactics, Clinton was forced to declare a "vacancy crisis" when one in ten seats of the federal judiciary were left vacant. When Clinton left office in 2001, 42 of his nominees remained unconfirmed--38 of whom never received a hearing. All of these nominees were blocked solely because of Republicans' opposition to their liberal ideology. They have some nerve, then, to criticize Democratic oppostion to Mr. Alito.

President Bush is right; Sam Alito is, without question, a qualified nominee. But his opposition to Roe v. Wade, his history on minority rights, and his theories on Executive authority should give us pause. And as history shows, those ideological reservations are grounds enough to oppose him.

--Rebecca

Creeping Theocracy

"The only way to restore this republic our founders envisioned is to elevate honorable jurists like Samuel Alito," said Rick Santorum at Justice Sunday III, an event organized by the Family Research Council.

Santorum warned that liberals were "destroying traditional morality, creating a new moral code and prohibiting any dissent."

The Justice Sunday events have been rebuked by progressive religious leaders of all faiths. Read their statement here.

Anyone interested in destroying traditional morality or waging a war on Christmas should come to tonight's Democrats meeting (Campus Center 205, 10:00 PM).

Scalito Rising

It seems that Arlen Specter's much-lauded commitment to women’s rights wasn’t worth all that.

Here are the C-SPAN numbers (based on declared intentions of senators):

Democrats voting "No":
Baucus (MT)Biden (DE)Boxer (CA)Clinton (NY) Dodd (CT)Durbin (IL)Feingold (WI)Feinstein (CA)Harkin (IA)Kennedy (MA)Kerry (MA)Kohl (WI)Leahy (VT)Mikulski (MD) Murray (WA) Nelson, Bill (FL) Obama (IL)Reed (RI) Reid, H. (NV)Salazar (CO)Schumer (NY)Stabenow (MI)Wyden (OR)

Democrats voting "Yes":
Nelson, Ben (NE)

Republicans voting "No": None so far.


http://www.c-span.org/congress/alito_senate.asp

Rogues, rascals and reprobates tremble!

The Haverford College Democrats have a weblog!

Like Pharos, the lighthouse of Alexandrian antiquity, this blog shall serve as a beacon, guiding the ships of liberty and justice through the storms of reaction and obscurantism.

Some links of interest:
http://www.collegedems.com/
http://www.bobcaseyforpa.com/
http://www.campusprogress.org/