PEOPLE FOR BLOG

New Attacks on Public Schools

When Republicans take over the House next month, we can expect a flurry of bills seeking to impose school vouchers. But around the country, state and local officials are already escalating their assault against public education.

In Florida, voucher supports had already gotten their foot in the door with voucher programs for low-income students and those with disabilities. Last week, they took the predictable next step:

Florida Gov.-elect Rick Scott on Thursday blew the door wide open to the idea of a voucherlike program for all students, saying he's working with lawmakers to allow state education dollars to follow a student to the school his or her parents choose.

He did not use the term vouchers. Others called it an "education savings account."

But whatever it's called, the incoming governor, key lawmakers and a foundation tied to former Gov. Jeb Bush are setting the stage for Florida to consider one of the most radical education ideas that it - or arguably any state - has ever considered.

In Indiana:

Gov. Mitch Daniels said Wednesday he will ask lawmakers to approve an education voucher system that would let low-income students use state money to help pay for private school tuition.

Daniels provided few details about his proposal - including income levels at which families would qualify or the amount they could receive - but said it will be part of his larger education agenda for the 2011 session.

And in Denver:

The Douglas County school board Tuesday night took another step toward a voucher program, with the board president saying he would like a pilot program for the 2011-12 school year. ...

[T]he board agreed to have Superintendent Elizabeth Celania-Fagen analyze whether vouchers would be good for the school district. After that analysis, the board will receive additional public input and make a final decision. ...

Some at the packed school-board meeting room were not in favor of using public money for a private education, especially for religious schools. Thirteen of the 14 private schools in the district are religious.

They carried signs that read "Keep Public Money in Public Schools" and "Do Not Bankrupt Our Schools."

"I think this would help destroy the public school system," said former teacher Sue Carter.

Indeed, the diversion of funds from public to private schools threatens the integrity of our public education system. By providing public funds to religious schools, voucher programs undermine the separation of church and state. To make things worse, studies show that vouchers don't even lead to significant academic improvements. For instance, earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Education's final report on the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP, the name of the voucher program) found that there "is no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement."

The problems that are faced by America's public schools will not be solved by taking kids out of the system.

PFAW

Westboro Baptist Church met by counter-protesters at Edwards funeral

Last week, RightWingWatch.org noted the decision by Westboro Baptist Church to stage a protest at Elizabeth Edwards’s funeral. Many were outraged to hear that the Topeka, KS church, led by pastor Fred Phelps and known for its virulently anti-gay rhetoric, would be taking its cause to Raleigh. They may have succeeded in getting some media coverage, but they did not succeed in making the day about hate. They were met with – and dwarfed many times over by – a “human buffer” of counter-protestors.

I share this today not to pay Westboro additional attention, but to show how important it is to take a stand against hate in all its forms.

PFAW

77% of Business Leaders Want Disclosure Laws

Last week, we wrote about the negative reaction some local chambers of commerce have had to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s $75 million spending spree on campaign ads. It turns out small businesses aren’t the only ones upset by the Chamber’s political spending and wary of getting involved in national politics. Eliza Newlin Carney of the National Journal reports that many business leaders are questioning the wisdom of contributing to political campaigns, and especially of keeping those contributions secret:

In a Zogby International poll of more than 300 business leaders commissioned by the CED, fully 77 percent said that they “strongly” or “somewhat” support disclosure of the political money corporations spend, both directly and indirectly through third-party groups that run campaign ads. Two-thirds supported the statement that “the lack of transparency and oversight in corporate political activity encourages behavior that puts corporations at legal risk and endangers corporate reputations.”

Caught in the crossfire is the U.S. Chamber, whose pro-GOP spending and advertising blitz was underwritten in part by seven-figure corporate contributions. A trio of Massachusetts investors last month filed shareholder resolutions at some half-dozen corporations that sit on the chamber’s board, urging them to take a more active role on what they called the trade group’s “passive and compliant” board.

Shareholders object to the chamber’s aggressive and partisan midterm spending, its recent lobbying push to challenge or stall recently-enacted financial reforms, and to its policy positions on issues such as climate change, said Timothy Smith, senior vice president at Boston-based Walden Asset Management, one of three investor groups that issued the challenge. Shareholders have also approached close to two dozen companies that do not serve on the chamber’s board, Smith said.

And it seems that many business leaders took to heart the lesson that Target learned the hard way this summer when it spent money to help the campaign of far-right Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer and met with a strong backlash:

“I think there are real counter-pressures developing,” said Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, a nonprofit that advocates better corporate governance. Business leaders are increasingly sensitive to the risks that their campaign expenditures pose, said Freed. The uproar over Target Corp.’s indirect backing for a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate opposed to gay rights was a wakeup call, he added: “Companies are recognizing that we really need to protect ourselves.”

When 77% of business leaders join 84% of Americans in agreeing that their political spending should be disclosed to the public, it makes you wonder just who Republicans in Congress are looking out for by refusing to pass disclosure legislation.
 

PFAW

Today's Healthcare Ruling: Ideology and Judicial Activism

Today, a Bush-nominated federal district court judge struck down the insurance mandate of the landmark health care bill. This is the bill that Republicans did everything in their power to derail - including creating the breathtaking lie that Democrats wanted to kill voters' grandmothers.

The modern Republican Party has a deep-rooted antipathy toward the federal government (unless they're running it). They have created all sorts of legal theories to reinterpret the Constitution - especially the Commerce Clause - so as to prevent Americans from using government as the founders intended to tackle our most serious nationwide problems. With a federal government made impotent by this revision of the Constitution, corporations will continue to pollute, cheat their consumers, discriminate against their workers, and put out fatally defective products with impunity.

Today, it is health care legislation on the docket. But that is just the opening salvo against a wide variety of government endeavors.

Talking Points Memo observes:

A year ago, no one took seriously the idea that a federal health care mandate was unconstitutional. And the idea that buying health care coverage does not amount to "economic activity" seems preposterous on its face. But the decision that just came down from the federal judgment in Virginia -- that the federal health care mandate is unconstitutional -- is an example that decades of Republicans packing the federal judiciary with activist judges has finally paid off.

Indeed, contrary to conservatives' long-standing anathema to "activist" judges who "legislate from the bench," that is precisely what Judge Hudson appears to be doing in this case.

For instance, on page 38:

However, the bill embraces far more than health care reform. It is laden with provisions and riders patently extraneous to health care - over 400 in all.

These are not the words of a neutral, apolitical judge, but of someone with a policy ax to grind and his own view of what the legislative process should have comprised. The activist ax comes out again on page 39, when discussing whether striking down the insurance mandate section of the bill requires the judge to strike down the entire law:

The final element of the analysis is difficult to apply in this case given the haste with which the final version of the 2,700 page bill was rushed to the floor for a Christmas Eve vote. It would be virtually impossible within the present record to determine whether Congress would have passed this bill, encompassing a wide variety of topics related and unrelated to health care, with Section 1501.

If you didn't know better, you might think this was a talking points document put out by Congressional opponents of health care reform.

PFAW

PFAW Delivers to Senate 25,000 Petitions Pressing for DISCLOSE Act

Yesterday, People For the American Way delivered to Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer the signatures of over 25,000 activists urging the Senate to take up and pass the DISCLOSE Act before the end of this Congress. The House passed the bill earlier this year, but Republican Senators have twice blocked it from proceeding in the Senate.

The best chance the Senate has to pass the bill is to pass it now. Despite the overwhelming popularity of campaign finance disclosure measures, the GOP has hardly been friendly to DISCLOSE so far (all but two House Republicans voted against the measure, and it didn’t win the support of a single Republican senator). The bill was also a target of corporate lobbyists—many of whom, the Washington Post reports, will now be moving to Capitol Hill to work as highly placed advisors to new Republican members of Congress.

But even if the Senate doesn’t vote on DISCLOSE this month, we’ll keep on pushing to make it law. There’s absolutely no good reason for any member of Congress to oppose a bill that makes government cleaner and elections more transparent. Most Americans agree…and hopefully the GOP will catch on.

For more on the DISCLOSE Act and the Right’s opposition to it, read Michael Keegan on the “Corporate Money Denial Game”.
 

PFAW

Chamber of Commerce Targets Workers' Families

Miriam Regalado and her fiancé Eric Thompson both worked at North American Stainless. In 2003, after Regalado filed a sex discrimination complaint against the company, it fired her fiancé, Thompson, in retaliation. The Supreme Court is now considering whether Title VII gives Thompson the right to sue the company. While the parties disagree on whether Thompson can sue, they agree that Regalado, the one who was being retaliated against, could sue the company for firing her fiancé.

As noted in a previous blog post, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief taking a far more extreme position: There was no unlawful retaliation in the first place, because the company never altered the working conditions of the woman who filed the initial complaint. A company is completely within its rights to intimidate its workers by firing the family members of anyone who dares assert their rights under Title VII.

Unfortunately, it turns out that the Chamber is not alone. SCOTUSBlog reports that during oral arguments, Justice Scalia actually chided the company's attorney for acknowledging that a company can't retaliate against an employee for exercising her Title VII rights by firing her fiancé.

Congress specifically wrote a prohibition against retaliation into Title VII to ensure that workers would not be bullied or threatened into surrendering the rights guaranteed by that law. Congress recognized that without this protection, the rest of the statute would be meaningless. The Supreme Court has previously made clear that the primary purpose of the anti-retaliation provision is "[m]aintaining unfettered access to statutory remedial mechanisms."

Perhaps for as long as there have been families, bullies ranging from neighborhood thugs to totalitarian dictators have used the threat of retaliation against loved ones to keep people cowering in fear, afraid to exercise their basic rights. It is hard to imagine a more effective method of neutering Title VII - and keeping American workers too intimidated to exercise their rights.

It is equally hard to imagine that this is not exactly the sort of retaliation that Congress set out to prevent.

No respectable person should support a company's right to keep its workers too terrified to complain when they are illegally discriminated against. Yet that is the position of the corporate titans who run the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This should give local Chambers another reason to separate themselves from the national organization.

PFAW

Justice Department, Civil Rights Division: It gets better

In recent months I’ve written about various contributions to the It Gets Better Project. Dan and Terry. Ellen DeGeneres. President Obama. Secretary Clinton. Today brought a video from the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice.

As you can see:

The Civil Rights Division, and the entire Justice Department, is committed to ending bullying and harassment in schools, and the video highlights the Department’s authority to enforce federal laws that protect students from discrimination and harassment at school because of their race, national origin, disability, religion, and sex, including harassment based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes. The video also features Division employees who share their individual stories and personal messages that a better future awaits youth who may be experiencing bullying or harassment.

PFAW agrees that every student, LGBT or not, has the right to be educated in the same way. Click here for more information.

PFAW

Congress Moves Closer to Passage of DREAM Act

Yesterday, in a 216-198 vote, the House passed the DREAM Act, a measure that lays out a path to citizenship for young adults who were brought to the United States illegally as children, and who graduate from high school with the commitment to attend college or join the military. Today, the Senate took a procedural vote that temporarily delayed action on the measure in order to build more support for its consideration in the coming week.

Michael B. Keegan, President of People For the American Way, issued the following statement:

Until the DREAM Act becomes law, tens of thousands of young Americans will continue to be treated as criminals in the only homes they know. The Senate must follow the House’s example and work quickly to eliminate what is a fundamental injustice in American law. We support Senator Reid’s efforts to gather enough votes to pass DREAM, and urge fair-minded senators to throw aside divisive anti-immigrant politics and act with common sense and compassion.

Calls are still needed to the Senate: 866-996-5161. Here are some talking points from the National Immigration Forum.

Why should your Senators support the DREAM Act?

•    Because the public supports it—70%, according to a recent poll by First Focus.

•    Because the military wants it.  Secretary of Defense Bill Gates recently wrote a letter to the DREAM Act’s sponsor in the Senate in support of the DREAM Act.  Retired Gen. Colin Powell has also spoken publicly in favor of the DREAM Act.  The DREAM Act will help the military meet recruitment goals, because one of the ways students will qualify is to serve in the military.

•    Because taxpayers deserve a return on their investment.  Allowing immigrant students to continue their education and achieve their potential will translate into better jobs and higher tax revenue when these promising young people enter the workforce.  A single-minded focus on enforcement, as proposed by anti-immigrant Members of Congress would deny taxpayers this return on investment, and result in higher deficits, cuts in other programs, or higher taxes to pay to deport these immigrant youth.

Also from the National Immigration Forum, the story behind today’s Senate action.

The Senate vote on a motion to table the DREAM cloture vote, which took place moments ago, reflected a strategic decision to buy time to build more support for the DREAM Act.

If you were watching the vote or saw a headline about it, you may have been puzzled as to why Senate Leader Reid made a motion to table his own cloture motion, and why so many Democrats voted for it.  Why did this happen?

It’s complicated.  Republicans have vowed to block every bill in the Senate until the issues of tax cuts and funding of the government for the current fiscal year are resolved.  Democratic leadership decided they would push back the DREAM vote until these other issues are resolved.  Once the tax cuts and government funding are dealt with, Republicans will not be able to use them as excuses to oppose the DREAM Act.

However: Senator Reid needed “Unanimous Consent” to withdraw his cloture motion and push back the vote.  He did not get it, forcing him to offer a motion to table the cloture vote. 

Procedural trick: By tabling the cloture vote, Democrats will be able to bring the DREAM Act up again in the coming days when the other issues have been resolved.

Bottom line: Our allies in the Senate know that DREAM supporters have momentum coming out of the House victory yesterday.  They want to take the additional time, remove excuses now being made by Republicans, and cultivate more support for DREAM in the Senate.

A real vote on DREAM in the Senate will be scheduled later.  Please continue to contact your Senators and tell them to support the Dream Act.

Here again is the phone number you can call to be patched through to your Senators offices: 866-996-5161.

We will keep you posted as more information becomes available on the schedule for a Senate vote on the DREAM Act.
PFAW

Evolving Media Narrative of the Roberts Court

More and more Americans have noticed the Roberts Court's habit of twisting the law in order to benefit powerful corporations over the rights of individuals. As recently as a year ago, the national dialogue on the Court rarely touched on this issue. But last January's Citizens United decision was so outrageous that it made people see both the Court's previous decisions and its current work through a new lens. Evolving press coverage reflects the changing paradigm in how Americans view the Supreme Court.

For instance, earlier this week, the Supreme Court announced that it had agreed to hear a case of sex discrimination against Wal-Mart and a separate case involving global climate change. Press coverage recognized the common factor in the Court's decisions to hear these very different and unrelated cases.

The Los Angeles Times wrote:

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear two major appeals from corporate America that seek to block mass lawsuits, one involving a huge sex bias claim against Walmart and the other a massive environmental suit that seeks to hold coal-fired power plants liable for causing global warming.

In both cases, the justices agreed to consider stopping these suits before they can move toward a trial.

Monday's move is only the latest sign that the Roberts Court is inclined to rein in big-money lawsuits against business. The conservative justices have been particularly skeptical of sprawling suits that could run on for years and lead to enormous verdicts.

Under a headline reading "Two Supreme Court Cases to Test Corporate Interests," the Washington Post reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear two major challenges brought by corporate interests, ...

In both cases, corporations are challenging decisions by federal appeals courts that the suits can go forward. They come before a court that traditionally has been sympathetic to business interests, but is sensitive about recent criticism from the left that it favors corporations over consumer and environmental groups.

Time wrote:

Two federal courts have ruled that their suit can proceed as a class action on behalf of between 500,000 and 1.5 million women, but on Monday the Supreme Court announced it would review that decision. It looks suspiciously like another case in which the court's conservative majority will twist a procedural rule to prevent victims of discrimination from getting a fair chance at justice

As Jeffrey Toobin observed in the New Yorker this week:

This is the rule in the current Supreme Court. If there is a human being on one side of the "v." and a corporation on the other, the corporation wins.

The Roberts Court is learning that if you look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck for long enough, people will eventually realize that you are, indeed, a duck.

PFAW

Revitalizing Neighborhoods: The YEO Network Tours Baltimore

Last week, People For the American Way Foundation’s Young Elected Officials Network gathered in Baltimore to talk about ways states and municipalities can address the foreclosure crisis and promote neighborhood stabilization. On Saturday, 40 of the elected officials toured Baltimore to find out about creative ways city residents are working to revitalize troubled neighborhoods.

Baltimore's Fox 45 News met up with the group and interviewed Andrew Gillum, the YEO Network's director:

The first stop of the tour was the Whitelock Community Farm in the Reservoir Hill area. Whitelock, on a formerly vacant commercial lot, is tended by neighborhood residents. It sells produce to neighbors and donates food to a local soup kitchen.

 

 Whitelock Farm’s Thor Nelson shows YEOs around the farm’s greenhouse:

 

 In Central Baltimore, an area that had been losing residents…

...became the site of a brand new affordable housing for artists connected to the nearby Maryland Institute College of Art:

Charlie Duff of Jubilee Baltimore, one of the developers behind the project, showed the YEOs around one of the apartments:

Finally, the YEOs visited Load of Fun Gallery, an arts venue in Central Baltimore that uses the graffiti-covered alley behind it to host performances and events:


 

PFAW

Policy Questions at the Supreme Court

At yesterday's oral arguments on Thompson v. North American Stainlessthe case of the fired fiancé – the Justices discussed whether Title VII allows Eric Thompson to sue his employer for firing him in retaliation for a discrimination complaint lodged by his fiancée. Everyone agrees that Title VII prohibits the company from firing her. The Justices of the Supreme Court are trying to figure out if that federal law also protects her fiancé.

The Washington Post reports:

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wondered if the betrothed were included, how far would the law extend.

"Does it include simply a good friend?" he asked. "Does it include somebody who just has lunch in the cafeteria every day with the person who engaged in the protected conduct? Somebody who once dated the person who engaged in the protected conduct?"

[The fired employee's attorney] said the person fired would have to prove the intent was to punish the person who complained. And then the person would have to show that the retaliatory action was serious enough to dissuade a reasonable person from filing a complaint.

Justice Antonin Scalia put himself in the role of employer, saying he would want a clear rule on who he "had to treat with kid gloves."

Note that Justices Alito and Scalia are not mechanically calling balls and strikes, as in the severely flawed umpire metaphor then-Judge John Roberts used at his confirmation hearings - and which conservatives have been using since to bamboozle the American public. In interpreting Title VII, they are taking policy considerations into account: How would their interpretation work? How could any line-drawing be justified? How could the needs of employers for clarity be met?

This is exactly what we expect judges to do.

Conservative supporters of Alito and Scalia who repeat the tired "balls and strikes" line simply cannot be taken seriously. They simply use it to mask their extremist, results-oriented viewpoint that no matter what the Constitution and statutes actually say, corporations and powerful special interests should win, while workers, women, gays, immigrants, and liberals should lose.

PFAW

Local Chambers of Commerce Push Back Against U.S. Chamber’s Campaign Mudslinging

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $75 million to help elect pro-corporate candidates to Congress this year, benefits from the positive image most Americans have of its smaller member organizations—city and county chambers that organize locally run businesses. But now, some of these member organizations are saying they want no part in the U.S. Chamber’s massive attack ad buys on behalf of Republican candidates. From Politico, via Washington Monthly:

“We were getting pounded. We felt here, in central Pennsylvania, that the ads they were running were not professional ads,” said David Wise, president of the Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County, which is considering dropping its national membership. “This was not a unifying event. It was divisive.”

More than 40 local chambers issued statements during the midterms distancing themselves from the U.S. Chamber’s campaign — including nearly every major local chamber in Iowa and New Hampshire, key states for the presidential campaign.

Other chambers plan to take the extraordinary step of ending their affiliation with the U.S. Chamber, including the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce in Pennsylvania. Its leaders reported being inundated with angry — and sometimes profanity-laced — telephone calls from people objecting to the U.S. Chamber-backed ads.

Some local chambers were also active in countering the U.S. Chamber’s claims in the run-up to the election. According to Politico, “In Iowa, Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley survived an onslaught of U.S. Chamber attack ads in part because he circulated disclaimers issued by his local chambers.”

Though the U.S. Chamber benefits from the appearance of representing local business associations throughout the country, the numbers show that individual associations and the small businesses they represent hold very little sway over the U.S. Chamber’s national political activities. A New York Times investigation in October found that the U.S. Chamber, which does not have to publically disclose its donors, received half of its 2008 contributions from just 45 donors—large companies like Dow Chemical and Prudential Financial that have strong lobbying interests on Capitol Hill.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC this year allowed companies like Dow and Prudential to funnel money through the U.S. Chamber not only toward lobbying efforts but toward campaign advertising—all while hiding behind the positive image of hundreds of thousands of small businesses who may or may not agree with their legislative priorities. And without strong disclosure legislation, they'll doubtless continue to do so.
 

PFAW

We are now certain that today is the day for the DREAM Act in both the House and Senate. Please keep calling! 866-967-6018 for the House. 866-996-5161 for the Senate.

To assist you in your calls, here are some talking points from the National Immigration Forum.

Why should your Representative support the DREAM Act?

•    Because the public supports it—70%, according to a recent poll by First Focus.

•    Because the military wants it.  Secretary of Defense Bill Gates recently wrote a letter to the DREAM Act’s sponsor in the Senate in support of the DREAM Act.  Retired Gen. Colin Powell has also spoken publicly in favor of the DREAM Act.  The DREAM Act will help the military meet recruitment goals, because one of the ways students will qualify is to serve in the military.

•    Because taxpayers deserve a return on their investment.  Allowing immigrant students to continue their education and achieve their potential will translate into better jobs and higher tax revenue when these promising young people enter the workforce.  A single-minded focus on enforcement, as proposed by anti-immigrant Members of Congress would deny taxpayers this return on investment, and result in higher deficits, cuts in other programs, or higher taxes to pay to deport these immigrant youth.

After the Senate completes its afternoon votes, depending on the outcome, it’s possible that Majority Leader Reid could go back to the FY11 Defense authorization bill. As he has pledged:

We are also going to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell rule. We are going to match our policy with our principles and finally say that in America everyone who steps up to serve our country should be welcomed.

Republicans know they do not have the votes to take this repeal out of the Defense authorization bill, so they are holding up the whole bill. But when they refuse to debate it, they also hold up a well-deserved raise for our troops, better health care for our troops and their families, equipment such as MRAP vehicles that keep our troops safe, and other critical wartime efforts in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts around the world.

We’ve been waiting 17 years for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But our troops are also waiting. Click here to contact your Senators, and here for information about this Friday’s rally at the Capitol.

PFAW

Arizona, Immigration, and the Supreme Court

Stepping into the increasingly volatile and contentious debate over immigration, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments tomorrow on how far the state of Arizona can go to prevent employers from hiring undocumented aliens. The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting.

The case involves a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who knowingly hire undocumented aliens by suspending or revoking most of their state licenses. The Chamber of Commerce argues that the law is preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

IRCA prohibits the hiring of undocumented aliens and sets forth procedures employers must follow before hiring someone and the sanctions they will incur for violating the law. Most importantly, IRCA expressly preempts local and state laws creating sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws).

It is the "licensing and similar laws" clause that is crucial in this case, because the draconian punishment set forth in the Arizona law is the suspension and revocation of "licenses," a term defined so broadly in the statute that it even includes a company's articles of incorporation.

The Court will also decide whether Arizona can lawfully require employers in the state to use a federally-administered electronic employment verification database called E-Verify - a database that federal law expressly makes voluntary.

Agreeing with the Chamber that the Arizona law is unconstitutional are the Obama Administration and an array of civil rights groups (such as the National Council of La Raza and the Anti-Defamation League).

When the Court issues its ruling next year, it may give clues on how it might rule on Arizona's more recent "your papers please" law, which has yet to work its way up to the Court.

PFAW

Majority Leader Reid says Senator McCain is the Lucy to America’s Charlie Brown

On November 16, 1952, Lucy yanked the football out from under Charlie Brown.

Peanuts

Today, Senator McCain is doing the same to America. Majority Leader Reid:

Mr. President, there is a recurring gag in the comic strip ``Peanuts'' with which we are all familiar. Charlie Brown is getting ready to kick a field goal. Lucy is holding the ball while Charlie runs up to the ball. At the last second, Lucy pulls the ball away. Charlie Brown flies into the air, comes crashing back down, and falls flat on his back. We have all seen this time and time again. But what makes this gag funny is the same thing that made it famous. It wasn't so much that Lucy was tricking Charlie Brown; it was that it kept happening over and over. Charlie Brown kept being tricked.

It is obvious by now that our Republican friends have drawn their political strategy from this cartoon.

[. . .]

Finally, the Senator from Arizona, his party's nominee for President last election, has given a dizzying defense of don't ask, don't tell--an obsolete, embarrassing, and discriminatory policy that weakens our military and offends our values. First, Senator McCain said he seriously would consider repealing it if the military leadership thought we should. When the military leadership said it should be repealed, he pulled away the football. Then Senator McCain said he would need to see a study from the Pentagon. When the Pentagon produced a study saying repeal would have no negative impact, he pulled away the football again. And for his latest trick, he said yesterday that he opposed repealing don't ask, don't tell, a proposal that would be a great stride forward for both equality and military readiness, because of the economy. I repeat: The senior Senator from Arizona said he couldn't support repealing don't ask, don't tell because of the economy. I have no idea what he is talking about, and no one else does either.

Senator McCain is essentially telling us to lie here for the rest of the day. But we know that we cannot and will not spend another 58 years trying to kick that football and make the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a reality. The Senate must act posthaste on the FY11 Defense authorization bill. Take care of repeal. Take care of our troops. Take care of our nation’s defense.

Don’t let anyone tell you that neither the will nor the time are available. Show the Senate that they are. Click here to contact your Senators, and here for information about this Friday’s rally at the Capitol.

PFAW