Active Resource

I have been listening carefully to all of the candidates who are running for office.

When it comes to human decency, basic civility, compassion, integrity, and
progressive reform… there are three “progressive” candidates who have a chance
at winning the presidency.  Hillary and Barack are both preferable to any alternatives

offered by the confused and divided Republican party, but their commitments have

been too “flexible,” and their policy statments have meandered all over the landscape. 
The best and most viable candidate is John Edwards. 
He talks the talk, walks the walk, addresses the issues, has a proven
track record, refuses to back down, and is eminently electable.

There are (at least) six pivotal issues in the race which begins January 3rd.
 Iraq, Health Care, Education,  Immigration,  Rule of Civil and Constitutional Law,
 
 and   Electability.     Hillary, like her Republican counterparts (those whose “values” she
claims to share) is willing to surrender to the ongoing occupation of Iraq. 
She calls for a nebulous “Phased Redeployment” but will not commit to ending the occupation.
Her health plan is to turn it over to the insurance firms and let them
dictate terms.  Her plan to “offer and renew coverage to anyone who applies and
pays their premium” does not address the concerns of working Americans and does
not address the issue of why the richest nation on earth cannot provide universal
coverage for our people.
Her plan for education is to do nothing and hope the system fixes itself.  Her
website does not even acknowledge the crisis in our schools. In discussing immigration,
she does not even address the issue of NAFTA.   As for the restoration of the rule
of law and constitutional integrity…  Hillary seems content to surrender habeas
corpus and allow our rights and constitutional protections to remain suspended.
Her website and policy statments completely ignore these fundamental issues.  

A further concern is that Hillary is not electable. Matched against ANY republican…
she loses.   And with her baggage, lack of charisma, and shifting stands on the issues, her nomination
might well cement a Republican victory. There is too much at stake for such a gamble.

Barack Obama wants to end the war, “Obama would immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat
operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new
constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq’s leaders reach a
new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the
region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian
disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of potential war crimes.
He wants the US to move towards universal health care: but his policy statments defer to the
insurance industry:  While he wants to be “Providing affordable, comprehensive and portable
health coverage for every American,” his plan still leaves the insurance companies in charge. His
Mandatory Coverage of Children is a good start, but he stops short of a plan for universal
coverage for all Americans.  On Education, Obama understands the crisis and provides
useful guidelines for reform.  He stops short of calling for universal higher education, but he
recognizes the problems in our schools and provides useful solutions.  His plan is less comprehensive
than dwards, but immensely more useful than Hillary’s avoidance of this issue. On Immigration,
Barack Obama straddles the issues:  He “believes that our broken immigration system can only
be fixed by putting politics aside and offering a complete solution that secures our border, enforces
our laws and reaffirms our heritage as a nation of immigrants.” But this political talk ignores NAFTA
and does not address the crux of the issue or offer substantive reform.  He neither mentions nor
addresses the problems created by NAFTA.  Barack does not even address ongoing concerns about 
restoration of the rule of law, nor does he even discuss constitutional concerns.  While
Barack is clearly a useful alternative to the current corrupt corporate regime… and once spoke about
real reform, his conservative policy statments and timid tiptoeing around the forces which must be
confronted do not bode well for this nation.  He has retreated, compromised, and become less palatable
as a candidate.  And while racism is now mostly undercover in America, it is live and well. 

Matched against the Republican opposition, Obama does better than Clinton,
but he loses in many polls. We cannot afford this gamble, nor should we be satisfied
with the compromises he has made.

John Edwards has an entirely different approach.  He would end the war and end the
occupation.Edwards supports the immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq
and the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months.  He would
work for universal healthcare…   “We have to stop using words like ‘access to health care’
when we know with certainty those words mean something less than universal care. Who are you
willing to leave behind without the care he needs? Which family? Which child? We need a truly
universal solution, and we need it now.”  – John Edwards  and universal education. 

John Edwards has the most comprehensive educational reform program of any candidate.  
Strengthening Our Schools:  The Edwards Plan  Read the full Edwards plan for strengthening our schools
Expanding Opportunity Through College for Everyone  He understands the relationship between
immigration and NAFTA.  “Trade has become a bad word for working Americans for a simple reason:
our trade policy has been bad for working Americans. We need new trade policies that put workers, wages and
families first.” – John Edwards “NAFTA has actually cost us more than 1 million American jobs. NAFTA has
failed Mexico and Canada too. In all three countries, it has hurt workers and families while helping corporate
insiders.”… “Our trade policies must lift up workers around the world. Making sure that all workers share in
the gains from trade is the right thing to do economically, and it will make America safer and more secure.” 
And he would demand that we restore the rule of law and the supremacy of our constitutional
foundations.  “We are not the country of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. We are not the country of secret
surveillance and government behind closed doors. We are Americans, and we’re better than that.”
– John Edwards
Edward will “Say No to Torture,   Restore Habeas Corpus and Shut Down Guantanamo,  Protect Americans’
Privacy and Freedom, and Defend the Constitution.”  He stands up for working people, tells the truth, 
speaks from the heart, and his record shows that he walks the walk.  I predict he will win first or second
place in Iowa… and working Americans should support his campaign.  (he won second place)

Matched against ANY of the Republican candidates… John Edwards wins.. 

It is my hope that unions, non-profits, institutions, and grassroots organizations reconsider their
options in this upcoming election.  If we “settle” for corporate apologists who refuse to discuss the
most pressing issues of the day, such intransigence might prove fatal.  We cannot afford eight more
years of corruption, abuse, betrayal, and compromise.  If we ever hope to restore our reputation,
credibility, and honor… we must be careful in the choices we make.  Clearly Hillary Clinton stands
with corporate governance.  She does not address the economic divide which cripples our nation. 
Both Barack and John Edwards speak to concerns with poverty and a weakened middle class, but
Barack is too “politic” to advocate for the reforms are necessary to confront these issues.
John Edwards speaks for working people.  And he seems the best choice to speak truth to power.

regards, Tim

Schools, roads, utilities, security, clean water, a safe food supply, and healthy and educated citizens are critical infrastructure for our democratic republic.  These resources do not magically appear… unbidden.  
They cost money.  

Portland and Oregon’s resources for fighting crime and protecting our citizens have been compromised, because federal taxes continue to be wasted in an ill-advised war of choice.  More than 200 thousand private corporate “contractors” are now being used to to occupy and exploit Iraq.  It is inappropriate for the President of the United State to usurp the authority of our Governor, the commander of our Oregon Guard, by sending Oregon  resources and men to fight this illegal war.  Much of our expensive equipment will remain in Iraq, and too many of our personnel will be injured or killed.   There is no compelling reason for this misuse and abuse of our troops. We should demand that our represenatives end this surrender.
 
The missteps and crimes of this administration have put this nation at risk.  Now that we have created a dangerous situation in Iraq, we are  obligated to repair the damage.  But endless war and perpetual occupation are untenable.  There are better options.  We can redeploy, rebuild, and demand reparations from those who have chosen to commit war crimes. If corporate armies want to continue this occupation, they should foot the bill. The Oregon National Guard and Oregon taxpayers’ funds should not be used to buttress the corporate bottom line in Iraq.

The U.S. Constitution is clear and unambiguous: “Congress shall have power to provide; for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15.)

The Oregon Constitution is no less specific: “The Governor shall be commander in chief of the military, and naval forces of this State, and may call out such forces to execute the laws, to suppress insurrection, or to repel invasion.” (Article 5, Section 9)

The National Guard’s charter also gives Governors’ control of the guard. (see  Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution)

In spite of what we are being told, there is NO circumstance in these charters and proscriptions whereby the President is given ANY authority to call up the National Guard on his own - The constitutional provisions have been abrogated by congressional fiat.

“Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October 2006 tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to empower the hand of the president in future stateside emergencies. In a letter to Congress, the governors called the change “a dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National Guard and interfere with states’ ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders.”
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453

Now, the Oregon National Guard’s 41st Brigade Combat Team has officially been alerted for service in Iraq that is set for 2009. Oregon’s 41st is among five National Guard brigades scheduled for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan in the summer of 2009. The deployment will be Oregon’s biggest contribution of National Guard combatants since World War II. 

We have critical problems at here at home in Oregon. A waste of precious resources in Iraq is perhaps the most serious military, economic, and diplomatic blunder since the lackadaisical response to the fascism which led to the Second World War. 

The patently unconstitutional congressional tinkerings which have put our Oregon National Guard at risk in Iraq do not serve us well.

We can do better.  

Contact Elected Officials  or write a letter to the editor, get active! 

Tim Flanagan

It is a long way to November…  And regardless of who the VP may be…
Hillary in the White House means more surrender to the insurance
industry, unending war in Iraq, and a continuing expansion of the unfair
trading practices which lower wages and export jobs. 
Evidently the Republicans like what they see…

Get Ready for Hillary
Tough choices for the Right.

By Bruce Bartlett

“To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative. John Edwards is the most liberal, and Barack Obama is somewhere in between.

At this point… cities, towns, and states across the nation see diminishing returns from incapacitated federal agencies
while representative democracy and efficient adminstration are “drown in the bathtub.” Our water, air, ecosphere, and
food suppy are at risk. We see increasing casualties. This waste of our resources in the occupation of Iraq is undermining social services, short-changing community development, and crippling education.  

The occupation of Iraq is not some removed ”international issue…” Nor should it be relegated to second-tier status as  a ”national issue” which is somehow beyond our purview. This unforgivable waste of resources in corporate adventurism
is a local issue because it has local consequences for Oregon, Portland, and our families. 

Our Guard units have been undermined and critical equipment commandeered and sent to Iraq. None of that equipment will be coming back and too many of our state Guard will perish in that fiasco. While our state becomes less and less capable of responding to emergencies, our schools are forced to cut programs for art, creative writing, journalism, music, and physical education.  The fiasco in Iraq is a Portland concerns with local consequences. 
This ill-fated blunder is a local issue in every city in America.