This morning, Washington Monthly reports that 48 House Democrats are still on the fence about HR 2981, a new version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Unlike previous versions of this bill, if enacted, HR 2981 would prohibit discrimination against transgendered Americans as well as against gay and lesbian Americans. The text of the legislation makes the case for its enactment as powerfully and as eloquently as it can be made:

The purposes of this Act are–

(1) to address the history and widespread pattern of irrational discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by private sector employers and local, State, and Federal government employers;

(2) to provide a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;

(3) to provide meaningful and effective remedies for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity; and

(4) to invoke congressional powers, including the powers to enforce the 14th amendment to the Constitution, and to regulate interstate commerce and provide for the general welfare pursuant to section 8 of article I of the Constitution, in order to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

(Who need convincing and what you can do after the jump!)

This desperately needed bill should not fail becuase Democrats failed to stand up for Democratic values.  This morning, I wrote to my congressman, Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY) to urge him to vote for HR 2981. The other Democrats who seem to be hesitating are:

Bobby Bright (AL), Parker Griffith (AL), Vic Snyder (AR), Dennis Cardoza (CA), Allen Boyd, (FL), Sanford Bishop (GA), David Scott (GA), Walt Minnick (ID), Bobby Rush (IL), Daniel Lipinksi (IL), Deborah Halvorsen (IL), Jerry Costello (IL), Peter Visclosky (IN), Joe Donnelly (IN), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Ben Chandler (KY), Frank Kratovil (MD), Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), Bart Stupak (MI), Mark Schauer (MI), Travis Childers (MS), Bennie Thompson (MS), Dina Titus (NV), Michael McMahon (NY), Scott Murphy (NY), Paul Tonko (NY), Daniel Maffei (NY), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Dan Boren (OK), Kathleen Dahlkemper (PA), Jason Altmire (PA), Christopher Carney (PA), Paul Kanjorski (PA), John Murtha (PA), John Spratt (SC), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Al Green (TX), Solomon Ortiz (TX), Henry Cuellar (TX), Gene Green (TX), Glenn Nye (VA), Bobby Scott (VA), Thomas Perriello (VA), Rick Boucher (VA), Gerald Connolly (VA), Alan Mollohan (WV), Ron Kind (WI), David Obey (WI).

The contact information for many of these legislators can be found here and for all representatives can be found here.

In my letter to Rep. Chandler, I wrote that as a teacher of civics, I teach my students that America is based on fairness, justice, and compassion for others and that government can be a powerful force for making the world a better place.  I strongly believe and further believe that the times when government is best is when it helps our country to reflect those values and uses its mighty power to protect those who have been oppressed and sidelined. This is one of those times and we can help make it happen.

College Dems went to D.C. in early May to do some lobbying for comprehensive sex ed.  One of the offices that we met with was that of Senator Arlen Specter, Republican turned Democrat of Pennsylvania (at the time of our meeting he had just made the switch).  Of all of the people we met with, he seemed the most reluctant to support our position.  That, however, may be changing.  A special shout out to the author of that article, Swarthmore’s own Dina Kopansky.

The governor of South Carolina went missing for 5 days recently.  He returned yesterday to explain his disappearance:

In a rambling news conference, Mark Sanford apologized for having an affair, ending a mystery over his recent activities.

Just read Bob Herbert’s column in today’s New York Times. He points out the role of the NRA in fueling the flames of right-wing extremism. He cites an article written by an NRA lawyer claiming that the second amendment is not abount hunting, but rather is”directed at maintaining an armed citizenry. … to protect against the tyranny of our own government.”

I understand this is a politically sensitive issue and I know Obama and congressional democrats aren’t about to start a fight over gun control. Still, I’m always a little surprised that the progressives who can don’t more often advocate for the repeal of the second amendment.

The text of the amendment makes the founders’ intention clear. It reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The logic – placing the right to bear arms after “a well regulated militia” was intentional. The second amendment was designed to ensure that Americans would be able to protect themselves from foreign invaders. It had nothing to do with hunting or sport or even self-defense. The second amendment is archaic and obsolete. It has no relevance in today’s United States, the greatest world power with no threat of invasion.

According to the Brady campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 30,000 people die every year from gun violence. 85 people die every day, 56 of them teens and children, 35 of them murdered. Every day, 191 people are shot and survive. Herbert wrote eloquently about the numbers in April.

This is the American way. Since Sept. 11, 2001, when the country’s attention understandably turned to terrorism, nearly 120,000 Americans have been killed in nonterror homicides, most of them committed with guns. Think about it — 120,000 dead. That’s nearly 25 times the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the most part, we pay no attention to this relentless carnage. The idea of doing something meaningful about the insane number of guns in circulation is a nonstarter. So what if eight kids are shot to death every day in America. So what if someone is killed by a gun every 17 minutes.

The second amendment does not protect a basic right, it places a privilege on a pedestal. How can we argue that the right to own a gun deserves constitutional protection while the rights to quality health care or education do not? The right to bear arms deserves its own amendment about as much as the right to posses marijuana. (Both can be great tools for recreation, but have the potential to do harm) Repealing the second amendment would not amount to a ban on gun possession. (Yay the 10th amendment) It would simply level the playing field for debate. Rather than simply invoking the 2nd, pro-gun groups would have to engage in a substantive debate about the impact of guns on our country.

Part of the problem, and the reason this issue never seems to gain much salience with liberals, is that so many people with money and privilege and power live in safe communities and don’t see the devastating impact of guns in America. What gun-control advocates need is something like the anti-tobacco Truth campaign, a grass-roots effort to bring this issue to the forefront of political and social discourse.

Today, to celebrate his birthday, former President George H.W. Bush parachuted out of a plane. As a Navy Lieutenant, Bush has considerable experience, but it was an impressive feat nonetheless.

Did I mention that this was to celebrate his eighty-fifth birthday?

You can watch this bit of ex-presidential awesomeness on video here.
(h/t NYMag)

The battle over healthcare reform is heating up as congressional democrats debate the public option. Last week the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 51 conservative democrats, issued a statement saying they would only support a public option as a fallback measure that would be triggered sometime in the future if private insurers cannot meet certain requirements. Yet, as reported by the Huffington Post, 20 Blue Dogs have pledged to the healt care reform coalition Healthcare for American now! (HCAN) that they would support a public option without a trigger. Representatives Patrick Murphy (D-PA), Loretta Sanchez (D – CA) and Jane Harman (D – CA) and Jim Cooper (D-Tenn), the vice chairman of the Blue Dog Health Care Task Force, have expressed their support for a public option without a trigger.

But fear not progressives! – The 71-member Congressional Progressive caucus has called for a “robust public option” that “must not be conditioned on private industry actions” and “ must be available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation. They are joined by the Congressional Black Caucus, which together with Hispanic and Asian Pacific American Caucuses (Together called the Tri-Caucus) plans to release its own healthcare reform plan in the near future.

With strong progressive support for a public option and the Blue Dogs fractured, I’m cautiously optimistic that we’ll end up with a strong public option on the House side. On the Senate Side, it could be much more difficult. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee did not include a public option in a draft bill released Tuesday, apparently in an effort to appease the Republicans opposition. Nonetheless, President Obama remains steadfast in his support for a strong public option, which he expressed in a letter to Senator’s Ted Kennedy and Max Baucus.

There is the possibility of compromise. Blue Dogs have already demanded that any public plan negotiate rates with providers, rather than mandate them Medicare-style. At this point, I have faith that the final bill will include a public plan. What it looks like will depend largely on the success or failure of grassroots progressives as they take on the insurance companies.

Rep. Sestak is, officially, in the race for the Democratic Senate nomination in 2010. Politico reports that the congressman said to Wolf Blitzer this afternoon:

I don’t think that a D next to your name makes you a Democrat. It’s about whether Arlen will fight for the right issues, Democrat or Republican. He helped derail health care plans without an alternative in the ’90s. Maybe he’s changed, but I’m not sure we can take that chance.

Those are fighting words and, with multi-million warchests for both Sestak and Specter already in place almost a year from the May 18, 2010 primary, we are looking at a fight for the nomination.

In keeping with my earlier post, here’s a quick run-down of the comparative voting records of Sen. Specter and potential challenger Rep. Sestak. The numbers paint a clear picture: an right-leaning moderate ex-Republican versus a progressive Democrat with an exceptional record on issues that matter. I have done my best to present apples-to-apples comparison, though the much shorter length of Rep. Sestak’s tenure in (elected) office and the diference in legislation voted on in the House and Senate makes these comparison less than direct.

On Labor:

• Specter has a 61% lifetime rating from the AFL-CIO, including high-profile opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. Sestak, who in fairness has a much short “lifetime” to compare, has a 96% rating.
• Specter supported AFSCME’s position in 2008 56% of the time (and has a life time score of 54%). Sestak supported AFSCME’s position in 2008 100% of the time (and has a 100% lifetime score).

Watch the difference get bigger after the jump.

On Reproductive Rights:

• Between 2007 and 2009, Specter voted with the National Right to Life Committee 14 times and against it 37 times. Sestak voted against the NRLC on all 7 scored pieces of House legislation in the same period.
• NARAL awarded Specter a 100% rating in 2008 on the basis of his votes on the Hyde Amendment, the Child Custody Protection Act, and Wayne Allard’s “unborn child” efforts. No House votes were scored in 2008, meaning that the representative has no score for the same period.
• Planned Parenthood, for 2008, awarded Specter a “mixed” rating (79% support) on choice issues and Sestak a “pro” rating (100% support).

On Taxes & Fiscal Issues:

• Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform gives Specter a 65% score for his votes in the 110th Congress. Sestak, for the same period in the House, has a 5% rating. (Both rankings are here.)
• The conservative Club for Growth in their 2008 Congressional scorecards, gives Specter a 39% approval rating and ranks him 44/100 Senators. The same group gives Sestak a 4% approval rating and ranks him 296 (in a 17-way tie) of 435 members of the House.

On Civil Liberties & Civil Rights:

• The ACLU awards Specter a 45% lifetime score. Sestak earns a 94% lifetime score.
• The Human Rights Commission, for the second session of the 110th Congress, gives Specter a 70% approval rating and Sestak a 95% approval rating.
• In their midterm report on the 110th Congress, the NAACP awards Specter a 73% approval rating and Sestak a 92% approval rating.

On Environmental Issues:

• The League of Conservation Voters, for the 2nd (2008) session of the 110th Congress awards Specter a 27% approval rating, to Sestak’s 92%.

On Education:

• The National Education Association awarded Specter and Sestak each  a grade of “A” for the first session of the 110th Congress.

On Gun Control:

• The National Rifle Association, in 2004 (his last year of election) awarded Specter a grade of “A” and Sestak, in 2008 (his last year of election) a grade of “F“.
• The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, based on lifetime voting records and a questionnaire, awarded Specter a score of 10/100 and Sestak a score of 100/100.

Liberal/Conservative:

• The American Conservative Union gives Specter a 44.47 lifetime approval rating, to Sestak’s 0%. For comparison, Sen. Feingold has a lifetime rating of 12.04% and Rep. Barney Frank has a lifetime rating of 4.42%.
• Americans for Democratic Action for 2008 gives Specter a “liberal quotient” of 45% and Sestak an LQ of 90%. For comparison, Sen. Feingold has an LQ of  100% and Rep. Barney Frank has an LQ of 100% (both are listed as ADA “heroes”).

More rankings are available from Project VoteSmart on Sen. Specter here and Rep. Sestak here.

TPM is reporting that Rep. Joe Sestak, who represents Swarthmore and has long been a great friend to Swat College Dems, is privately telling supporters he’s running. If he does chose to run, I’m all for it. The congresman has done great work in his  years in the House and has been a leader on issues like the genocide in Darfur (darfurscores.org, a project of the Swat-founded Genocide Intervention Network, gives him an A+ for his record, with extra credit for sponsoring key legislation).

Much more after the jump. He took office in 2007, after defeating 20-year incumbent Curt Weldon in a district that is literally a text book example of gerrymandering and was specifically created to keep Weldon in office (seriously, take a look). Before entering Congress, Rep. Sestak had an exceptionaly distinguished thirty-one year career in the Navy, including serving as Director of Defense Policy for the National Security Council under President Clinton and the first director of Deep Blue (the Navy Operations Group), earning numerous decorations, and eventually becoming a three-star admiral–making the representative the highest-ranking military officer to serve in Congress ever. He is also an exceptionally well-educated man, having earned his BS from the Naval Academy and both a Masters of Public Administration and a PhD in government and economy from the Kennedy School at Harvard.

I believe Sen. Specter to be an honorable and decent man. I believe that there are times when we have to make compromises and pick imperfect candidates in order to win. I believe that this is not one of those times. Sen. Specter may have traded party monikers, but he has long been a moderate Republican. We have the option of picking a strong Democrat. In my mother’s words, “in the Democratic primary, I’m for the Democrat.” Sestak is, without a doubt, the Democrat in this race and if he choses to run, I will be proud to support him.

One of the most surreal experiences I have had at Swarthmore was that of being repeatedly asked, in my function as then-president of College Democrats (aka the organization that brings you Garnet Donkey), how one might contact College Republicans, a group that has gone in and out of existence during my time at Swat.  Despite what might be described as an overwhelmingly liberal campus ethos, when they have pursued such funding and recognition, the various relevant formal student & administration bodies have dutifuly recognized and supported the Republican group.

The experience of our counterparts in the still-new College Democrats chapter at Jerry-Falwell-founded Liberty University has not been quite the same.  As an e-mail sent to Liberty College Dems, reprinted in the Washington Post reports, the group has been terminated because “the Democratic Party Platform is contrary to the mission of LU and to Christian doctrine.” This begs the question: if, by the very nature of the mission of LU, no Democratic group can exist on campus, why should Liberty U get to maintain its tax-exempt status?  Indeed, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed an IRS complaint against LU in 2007 for the chancellor’s e-mail endorsement through official LU channels of a candidate (Huckabee) for the Republican presidential nomination, in violation of IRS regulations on using resources of tax-exempt organizations for partisan purposes. It’s time to ask some serious questions about Liberty’s 501(c)3 status if having a voluntary, student-run Democratic group is fundamentally counter to the school’s mission.