Gun Regulation: Where do your legislators stand?

It is clear to me that gains in sensible gun regulation will not come easily.  If you want to see changes, I encourage you to make your position known.  The people against implementing effective means of reducing gun violence are not rethinking their positions, as Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, made abundantly clear.

Along with this letter to the editor, I have written each of my state and federal legislators to find out where they stand, pressure them to change their positions, or support them for pushing for effective gun regulation.

Here's the letter:

It is encouraging to think that the horrific massacre of children and teachers in Newtown, CT will lead to sensible gun regulation that puts the rights of ordinary citizens ahead of those of gun owners.  But it would be naïve to believe that it will happen without equal measures of sustained pressure on elected officials who dodge the issue, and strong public support for legislators who show the courage to stand up to the gun lobby.

Here in Greenwich, we have politicians of both types.  Our federal delegation of Representative Himes, Senator Blumenthal and Senator-elect Murphy have all come out with strong statements endorsing common-sense regulation to reduce the gun violence that is taking one American life every 20 minutes.

Where our state delegation stands is less clear. Reviewing the websites of Senator Frantz and Representatives Camillo and Floren, it’s difficult to determine what their position is on gun regulation, because they haven’t published anything on the issue other than expressions of shock, grief and support for the Newtown community.  While that is compassionate, it does nothing to prevent these tragedies from reoccurring. We do know from a Project Vote Smart questionnaire that in 2008 Mr. Camillo believed that in some respects Connecticut’s regulations were too stringent, because they prohibited or delayed some people from purchasing guns.

We need politicians who have a fraction of the courage that the teachers at Sandy Hook showed in protecting their kids.  So, Mr. Frantz, Mr. Camillo, Ms. Floren, and Mr. Walko, where do you stand?  Are you going to push for effective background checks, limits on numbers of guns purchased, bans on military-style guns and high-capacity gun clips, and mandatory waiting periods?  Or are you going put the desires of the gun lobby and Connecticut’s gun manufacturers ahead of children and teachers, movie-goers, shoppers and employees?  Please let us know, so we can decide if you need to be pressured or supported.

I beg to differ

I was surprised by this New York Times letter writer's lack of awareness of Republican moves to suppress voting so I sent in the following response...

Ms. Goldberg (Letters, Nov. 7) laments long lines to vote and posits that all sides will agree that it should not take hours to cast a vote.  But Republican-controlled state legislatures and Republican election officials demonstrated just the opposite.  Two of the more extreme examples were in the battleground states of Florida and Ohio. In Florida, Governor Rick Scott refused to reinstate early voting on Sunday in the face of intolerably long lines.  In Ohio, Republican secretary of state John Husted tried, unsuccessfully, to ban early voting during the final days before the election. Across the country, Republicans worked to erect barriers to voting. Ms. Goldberg’s assertion does not stand up to the facts. 

The letter I responded to:

To the Editor:

I write this letter with icy cold hands after spending more than an hour on line outside my polling place. How can our nation invest so much time and money on federal elections, only to have the voting process be managed so ineptly?

I suspect that this is one point on which all sides will agree: It should not take hours to cast a vote in a country where we have more than 200 years of experience at the polls.

SUZANNE B. GOLDBERG
New York, Nov. 6, 2012

Is Obama Good for Israel? (Yes!)

While I've always believed Obama is supportive of Israel, and committed to its security, there has been so much animosity towards him from parts of the Jewish community, I decided to look into the matter to make sure I was being objective.  I believe I am.  Here's why:

·       First, is he anti-Semitic?

o   On whether he doesn't like Jews, it would be hard to see how that's true given with whom he has surrounded himself.  Two of his three Chiefs of Staff have been Jewish: Rahm Emanuel, and Jack Lew (who is Orthodox), both strong supporters of Israel. David Axelrod, his chief political advisor, and the person to whom he has most entrusted his re-election, is Jewish

·       Security cooperation

o   "I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing in regard to our security more than anything that I can remember in the past." Ehud Barak, Israeli Minister of Defense, CNN Interview, 7/30/12

o   In 2010 Obama and Netanyahu worked closely together on secret negotiations to strike a deal with Syria.  “The fertile and close cooperation between the Obama administration and Netanyahu's government defined a peace process that was leading the Syrians to a strategic divorce from Iran and Hezbollah.”  In Praise of Netanyahu, Haartez, 10/15/12.

o   There has been an unprecedented, sustained and highly risky cooperation between U.S. and Israel on use of cyberweapons to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities.  See Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran, New York Times, 6/1/12

·       Opposition to unilateral Palestinian statehood

o   Obama blocked attempt by Palestinians to achieve member status in the United Nations

·       Negotiating from 1967 borders

o   Obama explicitly recognized need for land swaps to accommodate settlements, a point not acknowledged in Netanyahu’s criticism.

o   This is not so much a change in policy as a public statement of what the policy has been under both Clinton and George W Bush. Some analysts believe it was a tactical move to lure Palestinians back into negotiations, and pre-empt their move for statehood recognition. In 2008 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel made a similar proposal to Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority.

o   Obama’s policy statement was delivered in a much broader context which was critical of Arab governments, critical of Palestinian’s move for statehood recognition in UN and critical of the unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas.

o   See 5/19/11 and 5/22/11 New York Times articles for further analysis

·       Is the Obama administration “pro-Israel” or “anti-Israel”?

o   Long-standing supporters of Israel believe Obama’s actions and statements attest to his support of Israel, without requiring him to agree with every Israeli policy or action.  “I already knew that President Obama would never forsake the Jewish state, its security and its people. His record of performance is crystal clear and the charlatans cannot change that.” Edgar Bronfman, former president World Jewish Congress. Op-Ed: Obama has helped make Israel safer, JTA, 7/22/12.

o   “If Obama were “anti-Israel” he would not have approved the largest military aid going to Israel, he would not have authorized his U.N. representative to block Palestinian statehood and fight delegitimization, and he would not have worked with Israel and Europe to impose sanctions on Iran that are now crippling the Iranian economy.”  Daily Beast Op-Ed, 10/17/12

o   It’s easy to find facts to support one view or the other; even administrations that were considered “pro-Israel” have done things contrary to what Israel or its strongest defenders believed were right.

§  In 1981, the “pro-Israel” Reagan administration disregarded Israel’s strident objections and sold cutting-edge AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia.

§  The “anti-Israel” Carter administration was the first to give Israel billions of dollars in US foreign aid.

§  Clinton, among the most “pro-Israel” presidents ever, pressed Israel far more than his predecessors to make concessions on the Golan Heights and territories within the West Bank.

§  George W. Bush administration imposed harsh defense-related sanctions on Israel in an attempt to coerce the latter into firing then-director general of the Ministry of Defense Amos Yaron.

·       Iran, and its nuclear ambitions

o   Obama has made this a U.S. national security issue, not just an issue of protecting Israel, thus fundamentally changing the context.  “Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States,” Obama told the Atlantic.

o   Netanyahu himself said that sanctions appeared to be having an effect and, with threat of US military action, could succeed.  Israel Says Sanctions Hurt, New York Times, 1/13/12

o   Obama has been much more successful than Bush in getting international sanctions put in place, with the European Union enacting a complete embargo of Iranian oil imports.  “The round of penalties that come into full effect on Sunday, some historians say, represent one of the boldest uses of oil sanctions as a tool of coercion since the United States cut off oil exports to Japan in 1940.”  U.S. Bets New Oil Sanctions Will Change Iran’s Tune, New York Times, 6/30/12

·       Assistance to Egypt

o   “American and Israeli officials, including Michael B. Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, have sought to assure members of Congress that assistance [to Egypt] should proceed, despite reservations about the Muslim Brotherhood’s political rise. They have argued that persistently high unemployment, especially among women and young people, could undermine Mr. Morsi’s government, causing further instability in Egypt and beyond.”  To Back Democracy, U.S. Prepares to Cut $1 Billion From Egypt’s Debt, New York Times, 9/3/12

·       Hasn’t visited Israel since becoming President

o   George W. Bush didn’t visit Israel until seventh year in office

o   Ronald Regan never visited Israel

·       Obama dissed Netanyahu to French President Sarkozy

o   Not defensible, but Obama is not alone; Clinton made little secret of his disdain for the way Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu frequently backtracked on his promises.

·       Romney’s position on Israel policy

o   It’s easy to make pronouncements to curry favor, especially when merely as a candidate, repercussions are limited. Romney has no foreign policy record to stand on, so what he will or will not do with respect to Israel is unknown.

o   “Rabinovich [Israel ambassador to U.S. in 1990’s] said that Romney as president would have to take into account a broader set of factors and interests and would likely strike positions on settlements and on Iran that are very close to Obama’s.” Daily Beast, 7/27/12

Social Justice is "Un-American." Really?

Here in Greenwich, State Senator L. Scott Frantz seems to be competing with Governor Romney for who can make the most astonishing statements about their fundamental views.

“The Democrats: how fundamentally un-American of them to push for concepts such as social justice.”  These are the words used by our State Senator, L. Scott Frantz, to his supporters at the opening of the Greenwich Republican headquarters. 

Perhaps Mr. Franz has a different definition for social justice.  But in the words of a great American, Franklin D. Roosevelt, “we Americans everywhere must and shall choose the path of social justice, ...the path of faith, the path of hope and the path of love toward our fellow man.”

The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States ends with the words, “and justice for all.”  A quick read of its history makes it clear that the author was speaking about justice expansively, to include the equal treatment of citizens, and removing barriers to opportunity.  In other words, “social justice.”

Republicans’ contempt for the welfare of everyday Americans is astounding. From the top of their ticket, with Mitt Romney who believes 47% of Americans take no responsibility for their own well being, all the way down to Senator Frantz who represents Greenwich and Stamford in the CT state legislature.

I am a Democrat and proud to say I stand for social justice, a principle upon which this country was founded.  And I am proud to vote for Democratic candidates who believe it is profoundly American to care about social justice.  That includes Dan Dauplaise, the Democratic candidate for State Senate in the 36^th district running against Senator Frantz.

Hime's Opponent is Playing Both Sides of Fence

Another example of a Republican trying to hide his real colors...

If ever there was an election in which Democratic and Republican candidates represent dramatically different values, this is it.  The electorate is keenly aware of the differences.  Recent polls show that a majority of voters believes that President Obama’s policies will help the middle class.  Unlike Governor Romney’s policies, which a majority believes favor just the wealthy. Romney has been forthright with where he stands, not backing down from his statement that nearly half the nation doesn’t take responsibility for its own well-being.

But here in Connecticut’s 4^th Congressional District, Republican challenger Steve Obsitnik refuses to state where he stands on important issues.  He is trying to appeal to moderate voters without repudiating radical Republican policies.  On his website he says he will “fight to ensure that seniors receive the healthcare they need.”  But he refuses to go on the record about whether or not he supports the Ryan budget plan.   Ryan’s plan turns Medicare into a voucher system that would likely not allow seniors to buy the coverage they receive today. 

Obsitnik says he supports “women’s reproductive choice”, but has repeatedly refused to answer whether he supports the constitutional protection of Roe v. Wade, which Romney and Ryan vow to overturn.  Obsitnik wants lower taxes and a reduced federal debt, but offers no plan for how these incompatible goals can be achieved without decimating investments in education, infrastructure, jobs and energy independence. 

In contrast, Jim Himes has a voting record that makes his positions clear.  He stands behind his vote for the Affordable Care Act, which will extend healthcare coverage to millions of Americans.  He is working to find fair, balanced solutions to our fiscal problems, being called a “hero” by USA Today for voting for a compromise budget modeled on Obama’s bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission.  Congressman Himes is the thoughtful, bipartisan legislator we need to move the country forward.  He deserves to be re-elected.

Republican's Quest to Suppress the Vote

The Republican's assault on the core foundation of democracy, free and fair elections, is truly under assault.  If you agree, feel free to edit and distribute this, especially in swing states.

Republicans have few concerns about letting wealthy, influential people have their voice heard in elections.  Sheldon Adelson, one of the fifteen richest people in the world, has pledged “limitless” donations to do “whatever it takes” to defeat President Obama.

Even though Adelson’s company is being investigated for corruption and money-laundering, Mitt Romney has embraced Adelson’s corrupting influence on democracy, traveling with him, and sending Paul Ryan for a private meeting with him.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has consistently praised the outcome of the Citizen’s United case which has encouraged this unlimited spending, going so far as to submit a brief to the Supreme Court arguing against overturning the decision.

What’s worse is that Republicans want to keep these donations secret, so that we don’t know who is trying to influence elections.  The three Republican commissioners on the Federal Election Commission have repeatedly blocked attempts to require disclosure, specifically by tax-exempt so-called “social welfare” organizations set up by Karl Rove and others that enable donors to remain anonymous. 

Republicans in the Senate have repeatedly filibustered Democratic attempts to enact disclosure bills.  Republican opposition to disclosure laws is not isolated to an extreme few.  In July, not one Senate Republican came out in support of the DISCLOSE Act.  Not even John McCain, who was once a leading proponent of campaign finance reform. 

But while Republicans are strong protectors of letting rich and influential voices be heard, they are going to great lengths to suppress the voice of the less advantaged.  These are the very Americans who mainly get to be heard at the ballot box, because they lack the means and influence to advocate for themselves through lobbying.

In state after state, Republican-controlled legislatures are introducing rules to make it harder for lower-income, minority citizens to exercise their right to vote.  Their intent is obvious: to disenfranchise voters who tend to vote Democratic.  As the Republican house majority leader in Pennsylvania said, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.” Even in Connecticut, Republican Representative Livvy Floren introduced legislation last year requiring photo IDs to vote.

Republicans contend that these rules are necessary to protect the integrity of elections by eliminating voter fraud.  Yet there is no evidence to support their claim that voter fraud is a real issue.  In Pennsylvania, the state admitted that there have been no prosecutions, or even investigations, of voter impersonation that the ID law would prevent.  Between 2002 and 2005, the Justice Department prosecuted only 26 substantiated cases of voter fraud, despite a concerted effort by the Bush administration to vigorously prosecute voter fraud.  As Fox News recently reported, “election administrators and academics who monitor the issue said in-person fraud is rare.”

But the evidence that these restrictive rules will suppress the vote on a substantial scale is indisputable.  The Pennsylvania Department of State estimated that more than 759,000 registered voters might not have the identification required by the new law.  In Florida, where a stringent registration law went into effect, the number of newly registered Democrats dropped from over 200,000 per year prior to 2008 to just 11,365 in the past year.  In Ohio, Republicans limited early voting in districts likely to vote Democratic, but not in those likely to support Romney. 

To protect us from isolated cases of registration and voting irregularity, Republicans are content to potentially disenfranchise millions of voters. The presumed impact of these Republican-sponsored laws is not a left-wing fantasy. Federal and state courts are taking notice, overturning discriminatory rules in Texas, Florida and Wisconsin.

The best way to turn around this assault on democracy is to support Democratic candidates this November. Here in Greenwich, John Blankley, running for Representative in the Connecticut General Assembly, has traveled to Pennsylvania to help voters contend with the new restrictions.  Chris Murphy, running for U.S. Senate, sponsored legislation in 2008 to overturn the Department of Veteran Affairs ban on voter registration drives enacted during the Bush administration. Congressman Jim Himes is co-sponsoring legislation to reverse the effects of Citizens United.  Across the board, our Democratic candidates demonstrate that they are for transparent campaign funding, and making it easier, not harder, to cast your vote.