Fixing the Facts around the Policy

In the vice presidential debate last Thursday night at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, there was a heated exchange between Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin over Iraq. Gov Palin had incorrectly stated that troops levels were now down to pre-surge levels. She echoed Sen McCain's views about success in Iraq but but did not define what success meant or what it would take to achieve that goal. Sen. Biden replied that the Senator Obama had a plan to gradually withdraw troops from Iraq according to a timeline; an idea supported by Iraqi government officials as well. Gov Palin, in the following exchange, responded to the idea of a timeline with a smear:

PALIN: Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure. And it's not what our nation needs to be able to count on. You guys opposed the surge. The surge worked. Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works.

We'll know when we're finished in Iraq when the Iraqi government can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people. And our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met. And Maliki and Talabani also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that's within sight.

The purpose of the surge was not to have troops in Iraq indefinitely. The purpose of the surge was to stabilize the violence in Iraq so that political progress could be made. Frederick Kagen, one of the authors of the surge policy, explained this in an appearance on the Jim Lehrer Hour on PBS back in March of 2008:

FREDERICK KAGAN: Well, the main purpose of the surge was to get the sectarian violence in and around Baghdad under control so that it would be possible for the Iraqis to start making political progress.

Gov Palin and Senator McCain continuously misstate both the purpose of the surge and what it has accomplished. Sen. McCain, in particular, restates the history and timeline of events in Iraq in order to support his contention that the surge is responsible for the Sunni Awakening in Al Anbar province. This is not so. Senator Kerry, in a speech this past July at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, laid out the real history and conditions in Iraq that have led to a lessening of the violence in that country:

The Anbar Awakening started well before the surge. This is more than just a political gotcha game or yet another instance of Senator McCain getting his facts wrong. To apply counterinsurgency principles on a global scale, we need to draw the right lessons from the surge.

Let's look at exactly what happened. And this is important: the tensions between al Qaeda in Iraq and Sunni leaders in Anbar were already apparent nearly two years before the surge, culminating in the first reported battle between AQI and Sunni militias in the western town of Husaybah in May of 2005. The reason? Al Qaeda's brutality, disrespect for local customs, insistence on marrying local women over the objections of tribal leaders, and disruption of local businesses.

When Colonel Sean MacFarland and his Ready First brigade arrived in Ramadi in June of 2006, al Qaeda was still fully in control. The Ready First immediately saw the need for a change in tactics and-on their own-they launched an extensive outreach campaign to win over the local population-starting with local tribal leaders, to whom they assigned an Arabic-speaking former special forces officer who grew a moustache to gain the locals' trust. They emphasized getting local Iraqi forces out into neighborhoods by deputizing tribal militias.

These efforts culminated on September 9, 2006 - some four months before the surge was even announced -- when a young local sheik, Sittar albu-Risha, created a new Awakening Council and officially declared the Anbar Awakening underway. That created a snowball effect. And, as MacFarland noted, with the 2006 US election approaching "a growing concern that U.S. forces would leave Iraq" made tribal leaders open to our overtures - a not unimportant transformation as we think about leveraged changes in behavior that might come from redeployment of American forces. By late October, nearly every tribe around Ramadi had either joined the Awakening or was openly considering it.

The coming months saw the Awakening Movement, with American help, repel an AQI attack on a friendly sheik in the Battle of Sufia. As security improved, a major campaign was launched to rebuild Ramadi, culminating in the Ramadi Reconstruction Conference in January 2007.

For those of you keeping score, this is the point in the story where the surge begins. President Bush announced the surge on January 10th 2007. In fact, President Bush and Senator McCain both pointed to our success in flipping tribes in Ramadi against AQI as a reason to support the surge.

Let me be clear: there is no question that our troops performed heroically, and did everything that was asked of them and more. And yes, they undoubtedly played a significant role in securing Baghdad and helping to expand the Awakening beyond Anbar Province.

But, the true history of the Awakening is important in drawing the right lessons from the surge. The Iraqis made a political calculation that they didn't like al Qaeda and wanted to work with us. The actions that led to the Awakening reflected our understanding that U.S. military action alone would not defeat the terrorists: we needed to win over the population by co-opting the tribal sheiks, utilizing indigenous security forces, winning the information war, and helping our Iraqi allies deliver goods, services and improved governance.

Moreover, the reduction in violence resulted from many other factors beyond a simple surge of troops. You have to consider Moqtada al Sadr's ceasefire in August 2007, the sectarian segregation of neighborhoods, and the success of Iraqi security forces, with US military support, in taking the streets back from Shia militias, especially in Basra. We also benefitted from the death of al Qaeda in Iraq's leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in a US airstrike.

Certainly, as Senator Kerry has stated, the surge played a part in stabilizing the country. But so did other factors. Sen. McCain and Gov Palin should recognize that and recognize that the Iraqis want a timeline for a reasoned and safe withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The goal of the surge was to create breathing room for Iraqi politicians to begin to solve their political differences. Stating otherwise is just fixing the facts of what happened in Iraq to fit policies that Iraqis no longer want.

Gwen Ifill, the moderator of last night's Vice Presidential debate, questioned both candidates on the current financial crisis and it's affects on working Americans. Ifill asked Gov Palin directly about the whether or not she would have agreed with Sen. McCain's vote back in 2005 on the Bankruptcy Bill.

IFILL: Next question, Governor Palin, still on the economy. Last year, Congress passed a bill that would make it more difficult for debt-strapped mortgage-holders to declare bankruptcy, to get out from under that debt. This is something that John McCain supported. Would you have?

PALIN: Yes, I would have.

Gov. Palin went to great lengths to portray herself in folksy terms, often winking at the camera and using homey phrases like, "Now doggone it," This was her attempt to appeal to "Joe Six-Pack" voters, as she styled it, in America. Her sympathies for middle-class voters is limited though, as that quick answer to the question about her support for the Bankruptcy Bill shows.

Sen. Biden, in his response to Gwen Ifill, talked about Sen. Obama's concern over the mortgage market and the rising number of foreclosures:

BIDEN: But here's the deal. Barack Obama pointed out two years ago that there was a subprime mortgage crisis and wrote to the secretary of Treasury. And he said, "You'd better get on the stick here. You'd better look at it."

John McCain said as early as last December, quote -- I'm paraphrasing -- "I'm surprised about this subprime mortgage crisis," number one.

Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.

That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under. But John McCain, as I understand it -- I'm not sure of this, but I believe John McCain and the governor don't support that. There are ways to help people now. And there -- ways that we're offering are not being supported by -- by the Bush administration nor do I believe by John McCain and Governor Palin.

IFILL: Governor Palin, is that so?

PALIN: That is not so, but because that's just a quick answer,

Well, it was so. Not only did Sen. McCain support the Bankruptcy Bill in 2005, but he voted against nearly every amendment to that bill that sought to protect the rights of "Joe Six-Pack" in a bankruptcy case. Sen. McCain does not support the 2008 Senate measure entitled, "Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2008," which is what Sen. Biden was referring to in his debate remarks quoted above.(Senator Kerry, along with 13 other Senators including Senator Obama, is a co-sponsor of this amendment that seeks to help  people retain their homes and avoid foreclosure.)

Senator McCain has a consistent record of voting to help out the richest Americans when it comes to protecting assets from being seized in bankruptcy proceedings. He voted not once, but twice in 2005 to uphold "asset protection trusts" in bankruptcy cases and is against helping "Joe Six-Pack" Americans when their homes where threatened with foreclosure. Governor Palin seems to disagree with the Senator on this. Maybe she can push him to start showing middle-class Americans the same kind of concern that he shows the wealthy in bankruptcy cases. It does seem heartless to tell millionaires that their 2nd, 3rd or more houses are safe from seizure while telling other Americans that their one and only home is subject to all the penalties of bankruptcy.

 

Robert Krulwich had an excellent report on the ABC Evening News broadcast last night. He was asked to explain the current credit crisis in terms that most Americans can readily understand.  He came up with a wonderful animated segment that showed a banker lending out $100 to a farmer who then spends it on supplies.  The farm supply business then uses the $100 to order more items and then that business owner uses the money to pay for other goods and services and so on. Money circulates around the system and businesses can thrive and workers can get paid.  (You can see this great animation segment at the ABC News website.)

The report and the animation cut to the heart of the problem we are facing and explained why Congress needs to act quickly. The bank lending system is slowing to a dangerous crawl. This is not just a problem that affects Wall St firms. Small businesses in cities and towns across Massachusetts and the country are being adversely affected.

Senator Kerry held a press conference in Boston today to argue the urgency of the problem. At the press conference, the Senator stated his strong support for a balanced rescue plan that puts the interests of the taxpayers first and demands accountability and oversight in the process. The legislation he supports:

• Requires the Treasury to modify the loans they buy to help American families keep their homes and expands federal assistance to families facing foreclosure;
• Includes strong Congressional oversight, establishes a special Inspector General and allows Judicial review of the program;
• Requires companies that take advantage of this program provide warrants so taxpayers will benefit from any future growth of these companies;
• Includes important limitations on executive compensation for those participating in the program.

These provisions safeguard the investment the American taxpayers are being asked to make in the financial system. There will be no "golden parachutes" of money that reward corporate executives for failure. The money the plan dispenses will be carefully watched and used as necessary to help weather the financial storm, not reward the very people who might have helped worsen the storm.

The credit crunch is a problem for the whole country, not just Wall St.  Addressing these problems honestly and quickly will help small businesses and consumers alike. As Robert Krulwich explains in the ABC News segment, the lending and credit system cannot be allowed to freeze up. Too many jobs and businesses might never recover and the problems would only get worse. Congress needs to put aside partisan politics and concentrate on actions that serve the interests of the American people.  Congress should craft responsible legislation that is not a give-away to special interests, that has oversight built into it and that keeps the interests of the taxpayers first and foremost.  That is what the American people want and expect their leaders in Congress to do. 

 

###

The events of the last week have been bewildering to a lot of Americans. Talking heads on the news are screaming about a financial crisis that needs action and attention right now in order to save the country from terrible consequences. Americans grasp the outline of this, but the details are fuzzy at best. What is going on and what does it mean for people worried about their futures, their ability to keep their homes, provide for their families and put something away for retirement? Who is watching out for the interests of the people in this noisy and chaotic debate going on now?

The last thing this debate needed was an injection of partisan politics. Americans do not want to see their financial futures sacrificed for a game of political chicken that doesn't solve anything. The people want their elected representatives to do their jobs and find solutions that begin to address our problems, not posturing and finger pointing that accomplishes nothing.

Americans want to know that their interests are first and foremost in the minds of government officials. The current turmoil is not just about derivatives and credit swaps and other distant financial terms that only investment bankers and financial gurus seem to understand. This crisis directly affects millions of Americans who are worried about keeping their homes and jobs. It's about small business owners who want to make sure they are not an afterthought in this financial battle over the interests of huge banks and financial institutions.

Small business relies on access to credit. Restaurants and small shops on Main Street need access to loans and lines of credit to get their businesses started and to keep them running. The current financial crisis threatens that flow of credit.

Senator Kerry has filed legislation that would lift some of the restrictions that are preventing small businesses from using loan programs from the Small Business Administration. Credit from private banks has become too difficult to obtain for a lot of small businesses.  The new legislation aims to eliminates some fees in certain SBA programs and increase the loan size in other programs. These actions, and others in the legislation, aim to help small businesses get what they need to weather this crisis and preserve jobs.

It is vital that we look after the interests of small as well as big business in this financial crisis.  As Senator Kerry said in remarks about his new legislation:

"If we can spend $700 billion to fix Wall Street, we should be able to help our everyday entrepreneurs who employ half of America's workforce and pump almost a trillion dollars into the economy each year," Kerry said. "These owners are suffering today because of a credit crisis that is preventing them from gaining access to the capital they need to keep running - let alone to expand their firms to compete globally."

"At the root of this mess is a lack of oversight and severe deregulation of the financial industry, causing turmoil in America the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression," Kerry said. "In addition to reducing fees and regulatory burdens on programs that stimulate economic growth and job creation, and improve liquidity for small banks, my proposals also increase lender oversight." 

"My changes will fill the gap left by the private sector at a time when our nation's owners and employees on Main Street are wondering why the CEOs who created this crisis are receiving a bailout when they're struggling just to keep their doors open," Kerry said. "It's essential that we bring our economy back to life, but we must do so in a way that doesn't continue to punish America's hardworking entrepreneurs for the sins of Wall Street's titans."

 

 

The Community Redevelopment Act ("CRA")  was passed in 1977 to encourage banks to lend credit in their own communities.  This was an answer to the problem of "redlining" in which districts or areas of a community were being effectively shut out of getting home mortgage loans from local banks.  Banks with assets over $250 million dollars were required to show that they were not discriminating in their loan programs against residents because they lived in a predominantly minority or low-income area. The CRA was weakened in 2004-2005 when a bank had to have assets of $1 billion or more before it became subject to the CRA rules.

Investor's Business Daily and other right wing sites have started to blame the three decade old CRA for the current subprime mortgage crisis. They claim that the CRA forced banks to make loans to low-income customers who were unable to pay them back. This interference in the "free market," according to some right wing sources, is the cause of the current mortgage problems and the reason why banks, investment firms and so forth are in trouble.

 This is patently false. According to an independent study done by the firm Traiger & Hinckley LLP in a study release on January 7, 2008:

Our study suggests that without the CRA, the subprime crisis and related spike in foreclosures might have negatively impacted even more borrowers and neighborhoods. Compared to other lenders in their assessment areas, CRA Banks were less likely to make a high cost loan, charged less for the high cost loans that were made, and were substantially more likely to eschew the secondary market and hold high cost and other loans in portfolio. Moreover, branch availability is a key element of CRA compliance, and foreclosure rates were lower in metropolitan areas with proportionately greater numbers of bank branches.

The American Prospect, in an online article by Robert Gordon dated April 7, 2008, called out those who were blaming the CRA for the subprime crisis.  It noted:

The argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

 There is plenty of blame to go around for the current financial crisis affecting Wall Street and the mortgage market.  The CRA, however, should not be sharing in that blame.

 

There's this idea that when you are on the attack, you're winning. Mean works. As contemptuous as you can get, that's as contemptuous as you should be.

I think it's all Zell Miller's fault. He gave a speech that was a spittle-laced, just-short-of-unhinged attack on John Kerry last election as part of an incredibly negative GOP convention, and the convention seemed to work. John Kerry's "negatives" went up, George W. Bush took a lead in the polls, and Kerry could never catch up. It didn't matter that the attacks were mostly lies and smears against a tremendously honorable man. It didn't seem to matter that the people delivering them had no particularly redeeming qualities of warmth or grace. Mean worked.

So, the GOP went back to the well last night. But they missed the real reason why they were able to smear John Kerry so successfully. It wasn't being mean that worked, it was being on message.

Every speaker advanced the same basic lie about John Kerry, a "for it before he was against it" line designed to cover up Bush's weakness by trying to portray Kerry as indecisive and weak. The meanness, the contempt seemed tied to a specific reason for contempt of that single person they were trying to defeat. And while people may have not particularly liked Zell Miller, thought he was too mean, they were left with a lasting negative impression of JK.

Which takes us to last night. During the speeches last night, I, like many others, flashed back to 2004 and thought this may be more effective than I thought. I mean, I found the whole thing to be incredibly hate-filled and alienating, but, if it worked in 2004, then maybe it'd work again.

And then I woke up this morning, and I honestly couldn't remember a single thing they attacked about. Oh, I could recall a few specifics if I really searched my memory, but the overall impression was only, "Boy, they really hate Obama." Which, frankly, just isn't good enough as a political attack. The overriding impression is just one of anger. I remember the attackers rather than the attack. This is not good.

Especially when paired with the second impression: "they are really contemptuous of a lot of Americans." The attacks seemed not tied to a specific candidate or a specific trait in that candidate, but instead it was just a soaring, bellicose anger directed outward and egged on by the delegates in the hall.

Really, the only things that really stuck with me were the bizarre derision of community organizing and a single moment from Rudy Giuliani. Rudy said, when talking about the story of Barack Obama, "Only in America." And he used it contemptuously.

Well, you know what Rudy? Screw you. "Only in America" is one of our proudest traditions. There's a freedom to strive and achieve here that really is different than much of the world. We have had one of the most complicated and at times brutal histories of race relations of any country, and yet we now have an African-American son of a single mom as the leader of our country's majority party. That's pretty damn cool. And, yeah, it's only in America.

In the convention last night, the effect was not so much a contempt of Obama as it was a contempt for an entire vision of America, a vision that's part of the fabric of the American Dream. Community organizing, pluralism, tolerance, compassion, respect, humility, optimism, the rule of law, a self-made man, all of it was subject to a sneering derision. Unless you were white, from a small town, loved country music, and hated everyone else, there was almost nothing for you. Well, unless you are an oil exec who wants more oil leases to sit on and boost your balance sheet. Then they were chanting sweet nothings just for you.

The speech people should be thinking of is not Zell Miller, but Pat Buchanan. Buchanan's 1992 culture war-cry has been widely considered as a major factor in George H.W. Bush's defeat to Bill Clinton. It was exclusionary and angry, and it turned many people off. It was, like last night, not so much an attack on Bill Clinton as an attack on whole swaths of America.

So, forget the pundits, and forget the snap judgments. Many people in 1992 thought Buchanan's speech was a success because it "rallied the base." It was only later that the impression of an angry party intent on pushing its narrow views on the country took hold and became the lasting legacy from that speech.

I suspect that's what we'll be saying about last night in a couple of months.

update: Here's Roland Martin on CNN getting angry about the attack on community organizers:

The first national decision of consequence that a nominee for President makes is the choice of a running mate. How this choice was made, what critieria (were) used to make the pick and what views and experience the vice presidential candidate brings to the ticket are legitimate areas for scrutiny. The selection process itself is a window into how the presidential nominee thinks. The choice reveals something about the judgment of the nominee and how that person will make decisions as President.

Senator McCain, at best, seems to have rushed into the choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. There are legitimate questions about her that have been overlooked in the vetting process itself. What foreign policy experience does Gov. Palin have? What is her thinking on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and American foreign policy in the Middle East and other troubled areas of the world? Senator McCain has made national security a paramount issue in his campaign for the presidency, yet his chosen V. P. candidate has no substantive national security experience. What does it say about the judgment of John McCain when he doesn't require his running mate to have experience in the very area McCain regards as critical to the future course of the United States?

Personal attacks on the Palin family are wrong. Senator Obama has clearly said that the children of a potential nominee should be off limits to partisan political attack. The choice of Gov. Palin for the Republican ticket is questionable on the merits of Palin's record and stated positions on the issues. Her selection raises questions about Senator McCain's judgment and the vetting process employed in selecting this Vice Presidential candidate. These are serious questions and deserve serious answers from the McCain campaign. The News Herald of Panama City, Florida had an editorial online that speaks to these concerns as well:

Media reports have raised concerns that the McCain campaign did not do a thorough job vetting Palin before she was chosen (a charge the campaign has vigorously rebutted). If the decision to tap the Alaskan was hasty, made from the gut without ample information, that makes the differentiation between Palin's experience and judgment even more acute. How deep is McCain's knowledge of the governor's performance? How much does he know about the way she made her decisions, the deals she cut and the compromises she made (or didn't make)? Is McCain confident that the initial burst of Palin stories was just the obligatory opening fanfare of media scrutiny that was to be expected, or has his campaign realized it has rappelled down a well whose bottom can't be seen?

The Los Angeles Times stated on Saturday that it found the choice of Gov. Palin, given her lack of national experience, to be a gamble for Senator McCain:

Let's be honest: The learning curve that confronts Palin is the steepest facing a vice presidential candidate in recent memory. That McCain was willing to take this gamble may not be a sign of desperation, but it gives a new and unsettling meaning to his claim to be a maverick.

The New York Times also weighed in with an editorial on Wednesday that asks what the choice of Gov. Palin says about the judgment of John McCain:

If John McCain wants voters to conclude, as he argues, that he has more independence and experience and better judgment than Barack Obama, he made a bad start by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Mr. McCain's supporters are valiantly trying to argue that the selection was a bold stroke that shows their candidate is a risk-taking maverick who - we can believe - will change Washington. (Mr. Obama's call for change - now "the change we need" - has become all the rage in St. Paul.)

To us, it says the opposite. Mr. McCain's snap choice of Ms. Palin reflects his impulsive streak: a wild play that he made after conservative activists warned him that he would face an all-out revolt in the party if he chose who he really wanted - Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

The McCain campaign wants to pretend that any objections to Gov. Palin as a V.P. choice are somehow improper. Questioning the amount of time that went into this important choice and the depth of the vetting process itself is not improper. It is a way of sounding out the judgment that Senator McCain employed in making this choice. That judgment should be probed and questioned. It is a vital way to take a measure of Candidate McCain and project forward what his judgment and decision making process as President would look like. That is a very legitimate area for questions and something Candidate McCain should address.

Senator Kerry, appearing on the ABC News show This Week, was asked about John McCain's choice of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin to be his Vice Presidential pick and if that means that the McCain/Palin ticket might draw votes from former supporters of Senator Clinton. Senator Kerry strongly disagreed:

"The people who supported Hillary Clinton are not going to be seduced just because John McCain has picked a woman," Kerry said. "They're going to look at what she supports. The fact that she doesn't even support the notion that climate change is manmade -- she's back there with the Flat Earth Caucus. I think it's almost insulting to the Hillary supporters that they believe they would support somebody who is against almost everything that they believe in'.”

One of the things that Senator Clinton strongly believes in and worked for is the idea of equal pay for equal work. Senator Clinton, along with 42 other Senators including Senator Kerry, was a Co-Sponsor of the 2007 "Fair Pay Restoration Act." The bill was introduced to reverse the obvious discrimination that Lilly Ledbetter, a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant manager from Alabama, had received in pay in her years of employment.  Ledbetter had shown that she was paid less after 19 years as a manager at that plant than a male employee with less experience or years of service.  The courts had initially backed Ledbetter, but the Supreme Court of the United States had thrown out her case because of a technicality.

Senator McCain did not show up for the vote in the Senate on the Fair Pay Restoration Act, but he told reporters that:

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

 Apparently, equality is fine, as long as no one is required to pay for it. Senator McCain did magnanimously explain how he thought women should go about getting equal pay for equal work:

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

The solution for women who want equal pay for equal work, according to Senator McCain, is to go back to school and get more training.  Lilly Ledbetter spent 19 years performing her job as a manager at the Goodyear plant in Alabama.  Exactly how much training and experience should she be expected to get before she is paid the same amount of money as the men in her office for doing the same work? Isn't 19 years of on-the-job experience and training enough?

What does Gov. Palin think about this?  In her introductory remarks as a VP nominee, Palin talked about the "18 million cracks" that Senator Clinton and other women had put in the glass ceiling blocking opportunity for women. Does Gov. Palin believe in equal pay for equal work? Will she be the maverick that the Republicans are touting her as and call Senator McCain on his refusal to truly move forward on granting women full rights as workers in this country?

Or will she stand silently by as Republicans once again offer a "bait and switch" stance on equality for women that promises much and delivers nothing. There are indeed cracks in the glass ceiling that hold back equal opportunity for large groups of Americans.  Governor Palin should truly come out as as the force she claims to be and go to work for other" working moms" to erase the kinds of barriers of opportunity and pay that hold so many women back.  That would truly be the move of a "maverick" choice.

DENVER - Senator John Kerry spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Denver on Wednesday evening.

There is a video of Senator Kerry's speech at this link or at the home page of the www.johnkerry.com website.

The following are his remarks as prepared for delivery.

Four years ago, you gave me the honor of fighting our fight.

I was proud to stand with you then, and I am proud to stand with you now, to help elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. In 2004 we came so close to victory. We are even closer now and let me tell you - this time we're going to win.

Today, the call for change is more powerful than ever - and with more seats in Congress, with more seats in Congress, with more people with more passion engaged in our politics, and with a President Obama, we stand on the brink of the greatest opportunity of our generation to move this country forward.

The stakes could not be higher because we do know what a McCain Administration would look like.

Just like the past. Just like George Bush; and this country can't afford a third Bush term.

Just think: John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time - 90% of George Bush is just more than we can take.

Never in modern history has an administration squandered American power so recklessly.

Never has strategy been so replaced by ideology - never has extremism so crowded out common sense and fundamental American values. Never has short-term partisan politics so depleted the strength of America's bipartisan foreign policy.

George Bush, with John McCain at his side, promised to spread freedom, but delivered the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They misread the threat and misled the country. Instead of freedom, it's Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and dictators everywhere that are on the march. North Korea can build more bombs, and Iran is defiantly chasing one.

Our mission is to restore America's influence and position in the world. We must use all the weapons in our arsenal - above all, our values.

President Obama and Vice President Biden will shut down Guantanamo, respect the Constitution and make clear once and for all, the United States of America does not torture, not now, not ever.

We must listen and lead by example because even as a nation as powerful as the United States needs some friends in this world. We need a leader who understands all our security challenges: not just bombs and guns, but global warming, global terror and global AIDS. And Barack Obama understands there is no way for America to be secure until we create clean energy here at home - not with a little more oil in 10, 20 or 30 years, but with an energy revolution starting right now!

I have known and been friends with John McCain for almost 22 years. But every day now I learn something new about candidate McCain.

To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician: I say, let's compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain.

Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once called irresponsible.

Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain's own climate change bill.

Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote.

Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you're against it!

Let me tell you, before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself.

And what's more, Senator McCain, who once railed against the smears of Karl Rove when he was the target, has morphed into candidate McCain who is using the same Rove tactics and the same Rove staff to repeat the same old politics of fear and smear.

Well, not this year. Not this time.

The Rove-McCain tactics are old and outworn, and America will reject them in 2008.

So remember - when we choose a commander-in-chief this November, we are electing judgment and character, not years in the Senate or years on this earth. Time and again, Barack Obama has seen farther, thought harder, and listened better - and time and time again, Barack Obama has been proven right.

John McCain stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier just three months after 9/11 and proclaimed: "Next up, Baghdad!"

Barack Obama had the judgment to see "an occupation of undetermined length, undetermined cost, and undetermined consequences" that would "only fan the flames of the Middle East."

Well, guess what? Mission Accomplished!

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

When Barack Obama promised to honor the best traditions of both parties and talk to our enemies John McCain scoffed. George Bush called it: "The false comfort of appeasement." But today, Bush's diplomats are doing exactly what Obama said: talking with Iran.

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

When democracy rolled out of Russia and the tanks rolled into Georgia, we saw John McCain respond immediately with the outdated thinking of the cold war. Barack Obama responded like a true friend of Georgia and a statesman of the 21st Century.

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

When Democrats called for a timetable to make Iraqis stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home, John McCain called it "Cut and Run." But today, even President Bush has seen the light: He and Prime Minister Maliki agree on - guess what? - a timetable!

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

The McCain Bush republicans have been wrong again, and again, and again. And they know they will lose on the issues.

So, the candidate who once promised a campaign of ideas, not insults, now has nothing left but personal attacks.

How insulting to suggest that those who question the mission, question the troops?

How pathetic to suggest that those who question a failed policy doubt America itself?

How desperate to tell the son of a single mother who chose community service over money and privilege that he doesn't put America first?

No one can question Barack Obama's patriotism. Like all of us, he was taught what it means to be an American by his family. His grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line in World War II. His grandfather who marched in Patton's Army. And his great uncle who enlisted in the Army right out of high school at the height of the war, and on a spring day in 1945, he helped liberate one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Barack Obama's uncle is here with us tonight. Please join me in saluting this American hero, Charlie Payne. Charlie, your nephew, Barack Obama, will end this politics of distortion and division. He will be a president who seek, not to perfect the lies of swiftboating, but to end them once and for all.

This election is a chance for America to tell the merchants of fear and division: You don't decide who love this country.

You don't decide who is a patriot.

You don't decide whose service counts and whose doesn't.

Four years ago I said - and I say it again tonight - that flag doesn't belong to any ideology. It doesn't belong to any political party. It is an enduring symbol of our nation and it belongs to all the American people.

After all, patriotism is not love of power; or some cheap trick to win votes - patriotism is love of country.

Years ago when we protected a war, people would weigh in against us saying: "My country right or wrong." Our answer?

Absolutely, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right. When wrong, make it right.

Sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times, and Barack Obama is telling those truths.

In closing, let me say, I will always remember how we stood together in 2004 - not just in a campaign, but for a cause.

Now again, we stand together in the ranks, ready to fight.

The choice is clear, our cause is just, and now is our time to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States of America.

Thank you.

###

Monday night at the Democratic National Convention in Denver featured a warm and stirring tribute video for Sen. Ted Kennedy.  You can see the Ken Burns directed video on the JohnKerry.com site by going to the multimedia section or clicking on this link.

 Sen. Kerry was interviewed by the Boston Herald about his part in the video tribute and his feelings for his long-time Massachusetts Senate colleague:

In an interview with the Herald yesterday, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) - featured prominently in tke Kennedy tribute video - said of Kennedy’s 46 years in the Senate, “Every major piece of legislation in that time, he’s had an impact on one way or the other.”

Kerry, who got one of his first political jobs working for Kennedy as a volunteer at age 18, said it has been hard to watch the dire health problems of his longtime colleague and friend.

“It’s tough on all his colleagues in the Senate,” Kerry said. “He’s been a great mentor and a great teacher. I’ve learned an enormous amount."