Key Progressive Democratic Races in Massachusetts

A new political group that has been quietly organizing for a year or so, is gaining increasing notoriety in Massachusetts politics. Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts (an outgrowth of the unsuccessful 2002 gubernatorial campaign of Robert Reich) is assisting several candidates for state offices, while seeking to build a strong progressive electoral capacity in the Democratic Party. (I am proud to be a founding member of PDM.)

Much is at stake. Republican Governor Mitt Romney has fielded an unprecedented number of challengers to incumbent democratic legislators. These candidates, as well as GOP incumbents and candidates for open seats, have received significant assistance from the Republican National Committee -- which has reportedly funneled three million dollars into the Massachusetts Republican Party to bankroll these campaigns. Romney and his allies plan an assault on the independence of the state judiciary in the wake of the Goodridge decision of the Massachusettes Supreme Judicial Court, that legalized gay marriage.

One PDM-backed candidate, Carl Sciortino, narrowly won the September Democratic primary against the conservative incumbent, state Representative Vincent Ciampa. Since there was no Republican candidate, it appeared Sciortino would be the new representative from Somerville. Ciampa is now running a sore loser write-in campaign. He is running hard, and has a chance of winning. Sciortino, an openly gay man, ran on a broad progressive platform -- including support for marriage equality. But a virulently anti-gay group called the Article 8 Alliance, has distributed leaflets all over the district supporting Ciampa, a fierce opponent of marrige equality, and attacking Sciortino as a "homosexual extremist."

PDM and other groups are rallying to help Sciortino. Please visit the PDM web site to find out how to contribute to Sciortino's campaign, or to help in other ways.

Other PDM-supported candidates in tight races that could use extra help include:

Ed Augustus of Worcester -- in a tight race for an open state senate seat against a wealthy conservative Republican.

Katherine Clark of Melrose -- running a spirited campaign against a wealthy incumbent Republican state senator.

Monica Palacios-Boyce -- running an strong race for an open seat for state representative from the Palmer area.

Pam Resor -- a progressive incumbent state senator facing a strong challenge from a conservative Republican in a suburban Boston district.

Peter Vickery -- who won the Democratic primary for the western Massachusetts seat on the 8-member Governor's Council (the body in Massachusetts that confirms judicial nominations), is now in a tight race against a well-funded, anti-abortion former Democrat.

Please visit the PDM web site to find out how to help these candidates.

Stealth Anti-abortion Candidate in Massachusetts

When the governor of Massachusetts nominates someone to a judgeship, (including the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), the nomination goes to the eight-member Governor's Council for confirmation. The Governor's Council is an elected body, and for the first time in 30 years, there is a vacancy for the seat from Western Massachusetts. The race for this seemingly obscure office is shaping up as one of the hottest and most important in the state -- even as many activists and media outlets are giving it scant attention.

One of the main issues dividing Democratic candidate Peter Vickery and independent Aaron Wilson, is that Vickery is pro-choice -- and Wilson has avoided the question. Wilson has gone so far as to tell The Springfield Republican newspaper that he does not feel that choice, and other fundamental matters of civil and constitutional rights, are relevant to the job of picking judges.

However, Wilson apparently did not demur when it came to answering the only question on the questionnaire of Massachusetts Citizens for Life:

"As a Governor's Council member, would you support the nomination of justices who would protect the right to life of each human being from conception to natural death?"

Wilson's answer was "yes;" Vickery's answer was "no."

Massachusetts Citizens for Life is the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee -- by far the largest and most influential antiabortion lobby in the country.

Wilson, a former democrat who is running as an independent, apparently hopes to attract both conservative Democratic and Republican votes, while trying not to alarm pro-choice voters. Whatever else he may be, he is a stealth anti-abortion candidate.

The contrast could not be clearer since Vickery has been upfront and unequivocal in his support for a woman's right to choose from the beginning.

Vickery has an excellent chance of winning. He has a strong base of support in Western Massachusetts, and he is working closely with the campaigns of the rest of the Democratic ticket -- who are pro-choice down the line. But Wilson is outspending him by about 3-1 in the closing weeks with an expensive advertising blitz. Vickery needs our help. Contributions can be made by credit card from anywhere in the state and anywhere in the country. A last minute infusion of cash could be decisive in this race.

The campaign also needs volunteers: (413) 549-9933

Let's not allow a stealth antiabortion candidate to slip into this office -- an office that Peter Vickery calls the "last firewall" for protecting our constitutional rights in Massachusetts.

Sinclair to Air Smear Anyway

Mainstream journalists who have studied the anti-Kerry propaganda film, "Stolen Honor," have yet to find that the film constitutes "news" by any standard. Even the Sinclair Broadcast Group that plans to air all or part of the film on 40 stations around the country, has backed off the idea that the film is news in and of itself. Now the news angle is a "discussion" of the film. Of course the project is irretrievably tainted, as many legitimate news organizations have determined.

Seems to me what is news is that the company is so determined to air the smear; company reputation and stockholder interests be damned.

Here are excerpts from two mainstream news examinations of the film.

Dana Stevens, a writer for Slate, exposes the propaganda techniques used in the film: "Stolen Honor is the kind of show you might come across at 2 a.m. as a paid infomercial on a local-access channel and leave on for a few minutes out of sheer fascinated disgust. It's a sleazy little piece of work, a cunning act of libel-by-insinuation that introduces no facts that have not been public information for at least 30 years. The first 20 minutes consist of interviews with Vietnam POWs recounting their torture at the hands of the their Vietcong captors, with only one reference to John Kerry—a still photo of him testifying at the Winter Soldier hearings. Capitalizing on the moral revulsion provoked by these mental images of torture, the film spends the remainder of its 42 minutes trying to transmute that sense of outrage into a primal disgust with John Kerry himself. Its persuasive tactic is essentially one of brainwashing: By juxtaposing the occasional shot of Kerry's face (at the hearings, at an antiwar rally also attended by Jane Fonda) with the gruesome torture stories of surviving Vietnam POWs, the filmmaker hopes to leave the impression that Kerry is responsible for their suffering."

On Wednesday, The New York Times talked with mainstream historians and found no factual basis for the film's charges against Kerry. "The accusations include that he singlehandedly prolonged the Vietnam war, worsened the torture of prisoners of war, and ultimately caused countless, needless deaths with his antiwar activism 30 years ago. The film is rife with out of context and incomplete quotations from Mr. Kerry and other antiwar veterans. Several historians said many accusations in it were not provable or stretched far beyond reality."

Meanwhile, boycott activists are continuing to press advertisers to pull their ads from Sinclair-owned stations.

Volatile Market for Sinclair

The market responded with a big bounce for the stock price of Sinclair Broadcast Group on Wednesday following the company's announcement that it had repackaged its anti-Kerry program to more resemble news. But it only bounced about half-way back from losing 17% of its value since it announced that it would air the anti-Kerry propaganda film "Stolen Honor."

Originally, the hour-long special program was to include the 42 minute film, followed by a panel discussion. Now the program is going to use excerpts of the film and include a panel discussion. The market's response to what critics consider to be cosmetic changes may, however represent wishful thinking on the part of the investor community. Indeed, boycott activists and wary advertisers appear to be unmoved.

Most of the businesses that have pulled thier ads from Sinclair stations seem to have been local and regional businesses like law firms, car dealers and restaurants. But national advertisers have been feeling the pinch too.

The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that: "U.S. Cellular Corp., the nation's eighth largest wireless telecommunications provider, has asked Sinclair affiliates not to run its commercials two hours before, during and after the program's airing, said President and CEO John E. Rooney. Nationwide Insurance said it "plans not to advertise during this perceived politically motivated program if Sinclair Media elects to broadcast it without fair and equal opportunity for response." And Regis Corp., an operator of haircutting salons, said it has asked Sinclair not to run any of its ads near or during the program."

Burger King issued a statement late Wednesday that indicates it was unimpressed with Sinclair's news makeover. The company says it "will not permit its advertising to air during certain politically controversial programming on the Sinclair Broadcast Group's television stations. Burger King Corporation does not endorse any candidate or political party. This action will only affect one day of advertising in a total of nine local markets in which the Company had previously scheduled local media advertising."

Reuters reported: "What the market perceives is that Sinclair has backed down -- and now all the problems will go away," said Blair Levin, an analyst at Legg Mason. Levin said it was unclear, though, whether the company's critics would be appeased by the company's move and the potential impact of the controversy on its advertising."

Indeed, far from being appeased, Nick Davis, founder of the Boycott Sinclair Broadcast Group web site, stated in a press release: "Our goal is full surrender, not a broadcast on FCC-regulated public airwaves that skirts the responsibilities of free and fair reporting and violates equal time standards."

Meanwhile, local businesses, the advertising backbone of the company, are still pulling out. For example, a front page story in The Daily Hampshire Gazette in Northampton, Massachusetts reported on Wednesday that at least five area businesses have pulled advertising from WGGB, (Channel 40) the Sinclair-owned station in Springfield, Massachusetts: Dana Automotive, Kaoud Oriental Rugs of Holyoke, radio stations LAZER 99.3 and Rock 102, and Atkins Farms. Keith Parvich, the general sales manager of Dana Automotive told the Gazette, "As a heavy advertiser, we were concerned about how our relationship with Channel 40 was being percieved -- this is a very dangerous precedent for a station to be setting, Parvich said. We aren't here to take any political side and alienate our cutomers."

Sinclair Tries to Regroup

Sinclair Broadcast Group's troubles continued to mount, even as it's stock precipitously dropped again on Tuesday. On a day when the company sought to make it appear to be conceding ground to critics of its decision to air an anti-Kerry propaganda film on its 62 stations this week, things went from bad to worse.

Not only are critics not buying the company's announced make-over of the controversial program, but a group of stockholders is suing, charging that company executives engaged in partisanship and insider trading against the interests of shareholders.

The company's difficulties are epitomized by a The New York Times report in Wednesday's edition that among other things notes that "The company, already suffering from a sluggish advertising climate, has had its stock price fall by almost 17 percent and its market capitalization drop by $140 million in the last week and a half. The Times also reports that "The Burger King Company announced that it would pull all its commercials from Sinclair stations all day on the date the program is broadcast. "Burger King wants to maintain neutrality during this election," said Eric Anderson, a spokesman.

Meanwhile, thanks to scrutiny the company has brought on itself, investors have discovered that several top Sinclair executives and a member of the board unloaded almost all of their stock just before the "Stolen Honor" flap caused the company' stock to tank. William S. Lerach, an attorney for the stock holders told reporters that he is not alleging that the company knew that running "Stolen Honor" would ruin the company -- the company's value was steeply declining anyway. However, these top insiders were able to save themselves millions of dollars, and make the many dubious businesses involving "Stolen Honor," while holding almost no stake in the company itself.

In an apparent effort to appease advertisers and investors, the company announced on Tuesday that it would not air the anti-Kerry film "in its entirety," but that the hour-long program would include a panel discussion. Of course, that is what was planned all along, as the company itself says in its press release. It appears what the company has done is to repackage the program and give it a title -- but it still includes the anti-Kerry film as the core of the program. The company has also decided not to air the program on about 20 stations, in cities where Sinclair owns more than one station in a market. That leaves 40 stations that plan to air the anti-Kerry propaganda program. The program will also now air on only one date and time: Friday, October 22, 2004 at 8:00 P.M. Eastern time, instead of at variouis times on different stations across the week.

While some publications have published stories that Sinclair has reversed itself and is not actually airing "Stolen Honor," others see through the fog.

"Sinclair is packaging 'Stolen Honor' as news and directing its stations to run a program about it, uninterrupted, in prime time Friday night," the Columbia Journalism Review editorialized on Tuesday. "In a last-minute maneuver, the company announced today that the repackaged program would bear the title "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media." The editorial concludes however the program is "not news; it's propaganda, which no amount of re-packaging will effectively hide."

Nick Davis who runs the Boycott Sinclair Broadcast Group web site writes, "Folks, we're close but we're not there yet. The move to a new Friday "documentary" is not nearly enough to let us yield, not yet. We have now nearly 100 advertiser pullouts, with more coming in daily. Remember," he continued, "it was the work of you that caused the stock price to fall. We can succeed in this. We're so close, and we will not give in. Keep fighting."

Sinclair: The Shrinking Giant

Sinclair Broadcast Group is getting a bad rep on Wall Street due to a history of poor performance and what analysts view as a disastrous business decision to air an anti-Kerry propaganda film on all of its 62 TV stations this week. A boycott of Sinclair's advertisers is snowballing, and other unforseen troubles of the company's own making are bringing wave after wave of unwanted bad publicity.

The stock value of the corporate giant is in free fall. According to some accounts, the company has lost 11% of its value since the company announced its decision to air the controverisal film. A major story on the front page of The New York Times business section on Monday morning detailed stock analysts' concerns about the unwise politization of the media company, and predicted the very political and economic backlash the company is now experiencing.

Sinclair stock has dropped every day since the company ordered is stations to air the anti-Kerry hit piece -- 8% on Monday alone. Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that when the stock market closed on Monday, "The stock has fallen 53 percent this year. It dropped 7 cents, or 1 percent, on Friday to close at $7.04. It traded at a 52-week low Monday of $6.49. Before Sinclair's plans to show the documentary more than a week ago was first reported, the stock was at $7.50."

It appears that its only going to get worse for the shrinking media giant.

MoveOn.org is emailing members urging them to question mutual funds and pension funds that are heavily invested in Sinclair.

The Baltimore Sun reported that the DC Bureau chief for Sinclair Broadcasting, Jon Lieberman publicly denounced the film as "political propaganda" and told his bosses he would not participate in presenting it as news. Lieberman's statement epitomizes the view of most of those who are outraged by Sinclair's dictatorial decision, "it's not about right or left," he said, "it's about what's right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election." He was later fired by Joseph DeFeo, Sinclair's vice president for news, and "escorted out of the building," according to CBS News. Now, of course, Leiberman is a hero to journalists everywhere for speaking up for journalistic integrity, and will undoubtedly be featured by every media major and minor media outlet in the U.S. this week.

News outlets nationwide were already running the story about how Kenneth J. Campbell, a University of Delaware professor and a decorated veteran of the war in Vietnam has filed a libel suit against Carton Sherwood, the producer of the film at the center of the controversy. Campbell claims that the film shows him at a 1971 war protest with a voice-over that claims many of those who took part in the event were later "discovered as frauds'' who "never set foot on the battlefield, or left the comfort of the States, or even served in uniform.'' Campbell says he will add Sinclair to the libel suit if it airs the film this week.

Meanwhile, the boycott continues to gather momentum, and media reports continue to surface examples of businesses that have withdrawn their advertising. For example, HER Real Living, a real-estate company with 30 offices in Central Ohio, has pulled its ads from Sinclair's local Fox and ABC affiliates.

The North Carolina law firm of Henson and Feurst also says that is has withdrawn its advertising according to a letter posted on The Daily Kos. Attorney Thomas W. Henson wrote, "We spend each day fighting for these rights for our clients against companies and industries that abuse their power, and do not approve of a company which chooses to violate its use of the public airwaves in a manner inconsistent with our constitutional liberties."

The Sinclair story may very well shape up to be the most spectacular corporate meltdown in recent American history.

Sinclair: Sinking Faster?

The extraordinary decline in the stock value of the Sinclair Broadcast Group and the rise of the Sinclair advertiser boycott, may be one of the most important trends in the popular media reform movement aimed at the problems caused by concentrated ownership of mass media.

One could argue that the massive publicity the company has received since it ordered its 62 stations to air an anti-Kerry propaganda film, cuts both ways –
Similarly, liberal financier Sheldon Drobny, one of the owners of Air America Radio network wrote on Friday that Sinclair’s poor performance over time is due largely to the "politcal agenda" of the company’s CEO David Smith. Drobny thinks that "the company will be forced to change its programming or sell it’s valuable TV licenses to another company if Smith does not get his act together."

While the Boycott Sinclair Broadcast Group web site now claims “over 50 confirmed advertiser pullouts from Sinclair, including at least one large national advertiser” the site has a policy of not revealing the names of companies that have pulled out -- "Unless they have specifically instructed me to do so. At this time, I have no such instructions."

The media and others, however, are not bound by this unusual choice. The Flint (Michgan) Journal reported on Friday that a Detroit law firm had pulled its ads from the only Sinclair affiliate in the state.

The Daily Hampshire Gazette (Northampton, MA) reported on Saturday that Democratic candidate for Governor’s Council (the body that picks judges in Massachusetts) has pulled his planned ads from the Sinclair owned station in Springfield, MA. "They have a first amendment right to broadcast it," said attorney Vickery, "and Democrats have the First Amendment right to refuse to subsidize it."

The Cincinatti Enquirer reported on Friday that a local pizza chain is pulling its ads for a day from the local Sinclair station.

The (Portland) Press Herald reported that a credit union that advertised on the Portland station was also joining the boycott.

While some of these decisions were made earlier in the week, as detailed on These advertiser lists are especially useful, since calls and emails to local stations are routed to Sinclair headquarters, which is happy to receive all the flack in its electronic waste baskets. The local Sinclair-owned stations have no say in the central decision making of the tightly held, Smith family-run company.

Sinclair Broadcast Group - Sinking Fast

The corporate media behemoth Sinclair Broadcast Group is about to learn a lesson of the marketplace faster than you can say Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Sinclair is, of course, the now infamous owner of 62 television stations, that has ordered its stations to preempt their regular prime time program schedule next week to air a virulently anti-Kerry film titled "Stolen Honor." Sinclair claims the film is legitimate “news,” but critics and independent journalism experts say that it not only flunks the smell test by any reasonable standard, but that it has been widely available on DVD for some time, and in no way qualifies as “news.” (Ever seen a segment of 60 Minutes available on DVD in advance of its broadcast?)

Anyway, the company directive, unprecedented in the history of television news, has provoked so much outrage that the company’s stock price is falling and an organized boycott of it's advertisers is underway. News accounts and activity on blog sites suggests that the rolling disaster the company has brought upon itself is gathering speed.

Salon.com reports: "Sinclair's stock, which is already underperforming, dragged down by the weight of the company's enormous debt, a consequence of mismanagement at the top, drooped even more following the "Stolen Honor" announcement. And that comes on the heels of the stock hitting its 52-week low in late September. (Sinclair trades for roughly $7. In 1995 the stock traded for $45, and that was before the late '90s stock market surge.)”

Salon also reported that it was unable to get through to Sinclair for comment because the company’s phone line was jammed.

Numerous efforts to persuade Sinclair not to air the anti-Kerry hit piece are now under way. For example, the organization Media Matters, suggests that people who have investments in mutual funds or pension funds that in turn own stock in Sinclair, let the funds know of their views. And at the Boycott Sinclair Broadcast Group site, one can find the contact information for many of the companies that advertise on Sinclair owned stations.

This almost instant and escalating effort may be unprecedented in American history for having been so rapidly, powerfully, and decentrally organized. I have already read reports that a law firm in Flint, Michigan, and a furniture store in Minneapolis have dropped their advertising on the Sinclair owned stations. A blogger on the The Daily Kos reports that Sylvan Learning Centers has also yanked thier ads.[UPDATE: the boycott group now reports 40 companies have pulled thier ads. A comprehensive source for information about the Sinclair situation can be found on The Daily Kos, including the names of a number of companies that have pulled out, and some of those that have refused.]


One dimension of the sleazy attack video is the political pedigree of the film’s producer, Carlton Sherwood, who previously wrote a book about Korean cult leader, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the purpose of which, according to documents obtained by PBS’ Frontline, was to “silence critics.”

Even if Sinclair caves and agrees not to run the film, or agrees to air a positive portrayal of Kerry as well, (which has been offered by a film maker), the campaign against the company has already added strength to an existing effort by the Northampton, Massachusetts-based media reform organization Free Press to address the company’s long record of abuses of the public airwaves. The group is is organizing challenges to the broadcast licenses of a number of Sinclair owned stations.

The Free Press also appears to be the best one stop shop for finding the various anti-Sinclair campaigns.

What we are seeing may be a case study in rapid corporate self-destruction that will fascinate business school students for years to come.

Conservatives for Kerry?

Expect a conservative revolt at the polls. Conservative leaders are going public with their outrage at the betrayals of the Bush administration over what they consider to be bedrock conservative principles: Fiscal restraint; avoidance of unnecessary foreign wars and entanglements; low taxes; personal privacy, and more.

Item: Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) has been battling the administration on the excesses of the Patriot Act from the beginning. He was a speaker a the presidential nominating convention of the far-right Constitution Party, and he recently told the media he could not vote for Bush.

Item: Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roy Moore has been touring the country with Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka – much to the consternation of fellow Republicans.

Item: The Lone Star Iconoclast, the weekly newspaper of Bush's home town of Crawford, Texas broke with Bush and endorsed Kerry. "He let us down," wrote W. Leon Smith, the Reaganite editor and publisher.

Item: Doug Bandow of the conservative/libertarian Cato Institute, has posted a major article on Salon.com titled Why Conservatives Must Not Vote for Bush. While some conservatives will send a protest vote to the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, or even Ralph Nader, Bandow is up front that it would be better for conservatives if Kerry is president. His basic argument is that on the issues of primary concern to conservatives, Kerry could hardly be worse. More importantly, he believes that if the Republicans control both houses of Congress, they will provide a check on Kerry on everything from the budget to judicial nominations. Kerry will have to deal.

Bandow notes that many conservatives are horrified by Bush’s record on the budget deficit and the disastrous war in Iraq. He cites Dan Devine of the American Conservative Union, who says, "A rational conservative would calculate a vote for Kerry as likely to do less damage fiscally.”

“Iraq, already in chaos, is no conservative triumph,” writes Bandow. “The endeavor is social engineering on a grand scale, a war of choice launched on erroneous grounds that has turned into a disastrously expensive neocolonial burden.”

“Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to administration claims,” Bandow continues, “and no operational relationship with al-Qaida, contrary to administration insinuations. U.S. officials bungled the occupation, misjudging everything from the financial cost to the troop requirements.”

Still, there is no question that many, probably a vast majority of conservatives are loath to vote for Kerry. But Bandow makes clear that of those who are also loath to vote for Bush, merely not voting for Bush, (by staying home or casting a protest vote) does not necessarily defeat Bush. Obviously, the only way to be sure that Bush is no longer president, is to vote for Kerry. In some ways, conservatives share the same dilemma as those progressive voters who are horrified about Bush, (for overlapping, but also very different reasons) but are also loath to vote for Kerry and are tempted to vote for Ralph Nader or Green Party candidate David Cobb.

No one can say what people will do in the privacy of the voting booth. But one thing is certain: many intelligent, thoughtful, and conflicted conservatives and progressives, whatever their differences, are deeply concerned about the state and direction of the country. I think they may surprise the world, and maybe even themselves.

Christians for Kerry and Edwards

Politicians often seem to be trying just a little too hard. For example, they seem to invoke faith and God more than most people. When some of them get consistently carried away, people often wryly note that they seem to be running for preacher rather than public office. Some pols go even farther. George Bush and some fellow GOP leaders, act like they believe they are literally God's prophets, holding forth not only on their own Faith, but castigating their opponents as puppets of The Evil One. (On a good day, they try to be subtle about it.) But when the time comes to appear more statesmanlike, the surrogates gather like storm clouds on the horizon.

As I write, the primarily protestant Christian Right, in tandem with certain far right-wing Catholic Bishops, are gearing up for a final assault on the religious faith of John Kerry. Many people will follow these leaders to varying degrees, and they will be looking for people who, well, don't agree.

Some moderate and liberal Christians may occasionally find themselves at something of a loss for words in such discussions around the neighborhood, and around the water cooler. Fortunately, help is on the way. A group called Christians for Kerry/Edwards has put together a web site chock full of useful resources and links to progressive religious organizations. They have some tips for getting through that ride on the elevator -- or wherever one might happen to be trapped -- with folks whose notion of Christianity has become conflated with the policies and ambitions of certain Republican candidates.

For those who seek a little more adventure in their elevator rides, there are also Christians for Kerry/Edwards buttons and tee-shirts available.

Christians for Kerry/Edwards also provides deeper rationales for the conversations that go beyond the elevator -- as well as statements that Kerry and John Edwards have made about how their personal faith has informed their lives and their notions of public service.

The group points out that Mr. Bush, who had made much of his Christian faith, originally ran as a "compassionate conservative." They discuss the notion of Christian compassion in this context and emphasize their view that Christian compassion is more about deeds than words. By that measure, they find that Bush has been long on talk and short on deeds in the face of growing human suffering in the U.S. and in the world. Kerry on the other hand, is offering a roster of deeds he would seek to accomplish if he were president. So when Kerry talks about his plan for America, Christians for Kerry/Edwards are hearing a roster of the kinds of deeds they would hope and expect from a fellow Christian.

The strength and clarity of the compassionate Christian views of Christians for Kerry/Edwards make for a refreshing read. They are likely to equip many a beleaguered Christian liberal with what they need for politically adventurous rides on the elevator, and beyond.

Peter Vickery -- A Candidate Who Matters

While all eyes are on the presidential slugfest, and races that could determine control of the U.S. House and the Senate, there is a race for a seemingly obscure office in Massachusetts that may have national implications.

The office is Councilor, a member of the Governor’s Council, that is. The Governor’s Council is an eight-member elected body that, among other things, confirms or rejects the governor’s nominations for state judgeships.

The importance of this body was underscored this year when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in a case called Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health. It was a 4-3 decision.

Since then, Republican Governor Mitt Romney (who has national political ambitions) has done every thing he can to get the court to reconsider, and through a series of executive decisions, minimize the impact of this far reaching civil rights case.

If one of the Goodridge Four justices dies or resigns from the Court, Governor Romney will certainly appoint an opponent of marriage equality, setting off a nationally watched confirmation battle. Odds are -- that judge will be antiabortion as well.

Peter Vickery is the Democratic nominee for an open seat on the Governor’s Council, from Western Massachusetts. He is an attorney and a progressive democrat for whom being pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-clean elections, and a strong supporter of the Goodridge decision are things to be proud of. Vickery, running for the first time for public office, defeated three better-known opponents in the Democratic primary in September.

Here is a taste of Vickery’s clarity and forthrightness: “Judicial independence is under threat in Massachusetts. Conservatives in both major parties want to politicize the judiciary by making judges run for re-election every six years. And they want to amend the Constitution to undo the Supreme Judicial Court's equal-rights decision in the Goodridge case... I support the right of same-sex couples to marry and I support a woman's right to choose. I will vigorously oppose any attempt to take those rights away.”

A victory for Vickery will be a breath of fresh air in a state where patronage jobs are a major political currency -- undermining excellence and even competence in state government.

While the top democratic elected officials, such as U.S. Representatives John Olver and Richie Neal, have rallied around Vickery in the tradition of party unity in this area, and he has been endorsed by the state AFL-CIO, analysts believe that the race is not a foregone conclusion – even with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry heading the ticket.

Vickery is opposed in the general election by a criminal defense lawyer named Aaron Wilson, who shied away from competing in the primary and instead became an independent to run in the general election. Wilson ran in the democratic primary in 2002 against a 30-year incumbent (now deceased) and won 38% of the vote. He is well-funded and is a tough campaigner. There is no Republican in the race, but Wilson is apparently running as the defacto conservative Republican, since, unlike Vickery, he refuses to say where he stands on choice, marriage equality and workers’ rights.

I invite residents of western Massachusetts who want to see government reformed, and oppose the patronage system and the old boy network wherever it may be found, to join me in voting for Peter Vickery on Election Day. Even if you do not live in Massachusetts you can contribute to his campaign.

http://www.votevickery.com/index.html

Sleeper Factors

Amidst all the campaign hoo ha there are sleeper factors at work that are beyond the control of the presidential campaigns and the political parties. These factors are present in events that are causing people to talk with and learn from one another in ways that the media cannot track, and the pollsters cannot measure. I believe these sleeper factors may very well determine the outcome of the presidential election.

Last week I wrote about what I called "The Moore Factor" -- the release of the video and DVD of Fahrenheit/911 in tandem with his national speaking tour, mostly on college campuses. While it may seem odd to talk about the high profile Michael Moore as a sleeper factor, I promise to explain in a moment.

Consider this: the first day sales of Fahrenheit/911 videos and DVDs on October 5th, set a record. According to a Reuters report, "Day 1 sales figure and projected Week 1 sales of 3 million combined units set the benchmark as the most successful documentary ever released on home video." One-point-four million of these "units" were sold on the first day to stores, which in turn, have to sell them to customers. But clearly, they wouldn't be buying units they did not believe they would sell. That means of the first day sales, 600,000 were sold to individual customers. Fahrenheit/911 is at the top of the Amazon.com sales charts.

The political impact of so many people viewing and discussing this film with friends and family, unmediated by the campaigns and the pundits, is incalculable. How people react to this film in the privacy of their homes or their dorms -- as they go back to watch certain scenes again, and again -- is a force now being unleashed that will alter political culture in America.

Part of Moore's call is for people to think and act for themselves. If one believes the polls and the news media, only a handful of states are even worth voting in this year in terms of the presidential contest. Moore went to Nashville, Tennessee and sought to deprogram people from believing that Tennessee, which polls show to be fairly close is necessarily a Bush state. "I don't trust these polls and I'll tell you why," he declared. "First of all, they're not polling young people; they're not polling anyone with a cell phone. They poll likely voters, and "likely voters"; means someone who is consistently voting. So that means they're not polling first-time voters, and they're not polling the nonvoters or the occasional voters that we're going after... It's said so much that this is a Bush state, people just start to believe it; I don't believe it. I believe John Kerry can and will win this state."

Millions of young voters have been registered this year -- hundreds of thousands in swing states like Ohio and Michigan alone. And Moore's efforts have helped. But the polls have no way of measuring the likely impact of all this. Moore is correct about the inherent unreliability of supposedly scientific polls that cannot control for so many new and large variables. Of course, its in the business interest of the polling companies to pretend, but that does not mean that the rest of us have to believe.

Meanwhile, there is another catalytic tour that is reaching out to prospective voters in swing states. Unlike Moore's mediagenic arena events, (reliably assisted by protests by the College Republicans), two touring companies of actors are staging performances of Words of Choice, a compelling play by Cynthia Cooper, that has been playing in comparatively smaller venues all year, and is now on a "Go Vote" tour. The show ends up in the swingest of the swing states, Florida, where there will be shows in Coral Gables, Gainesville, Tallahassee and Orlando.

Here is a description of the play: "A fusion of shorts from journalism, poetry, oral history, comedy and spoken word, Words of Choice projects the rich panorama of modern lives. In it, a father describes his feelings after learning of his daughter’s rape, a pregnant teen tries to recall the phone number of her date, a woman learns of severe fetal anomalies during Jewish holidays, two adventurous thirty-somethings spill all in comic confessions, and a deranged publicist announces the release of the morning-after burrito. A dozen writers are represented, including Kathy Najimy, Angela Bonavoglia, Justice Harry Blackmun, Gloria Feldt, Emilie Townes, Judith Arcana, Michael Quinn, and The Onion. Performances are followed by a discussion with artists and activists."

Cooper wrote in her new blog on HotFlashReport about a recent performance in Wisconsin: "...our three actors had performed at the Electric Earth Cafe in Madison. Young women from the university -- freshmen, it turns out -- commented after the show. 'I grew up as a Catholic. I grew up hearing pro-life messages and I sort of thought I was pro-choice, but I was really confused," says one. 'I came for information. All of the women's stories are great. All of the different reasons that women have. A lot of people forget about women's rights. It really makes you think,' she says."

Sometimes performances of Words of Choice are followed by news stories as well -- maybe not as often as Michael Moore, but certainly as deserving.

Moore and Cooper's events are each in their ways, building a new and vibrant political culture. They are bringing art, entertainment, history and journalism alive -- and engaging people in the politics of the moment in ways that help people to experience thier place in history, as actors on the Ameican stage. What could be more politically profound than for people to come away with a better appreciation of their roles as citizens, and communities of citizens, instead of as passive consumers of political "messages" and dubious political data?

Words of Choice invites people to think, and to talk with each other about things often left undiscussed in our culture. But Cooper is determined to let thoughtful discussions of abortion take place in this election year, this last month, when so much is at stake for reproductive rights for women.

I think it will be at events like these, and in the conversations that take place afterwards among friends and family, that this election will be decided -- when people talk about what is really important in their lives, and what is important the country and in the world. These are the kinds of events, and the kinds of conversations, that break through the group-think of the political parties and the mass media. These are events at which people are free and encouraged to think for themselves. There is nothing more vital to the health of a constitutional democracy.

Bush is Toast

I listened to the second presidential debate on the radio. In the first part of the debate, George Bush not only reminded of his previous terrible debate performance but he boldly, if unconsciously, demonstrated a new way of revealing his character flaws. He seemed to think that his arguments were more credible if he shouted them. He came across as especially coarse when he shouted the slogans he had repeated over and over again in the first debate.

Mr. Bush, to this radio listener, even seemed to shout-down moderator Charles Gibson in order to reply to John Kerry on when Gibson wanted to ask a follow-up question. During this first part of the debate, Bush seemed to alternate between being whiney, defensive and angry before finally getting into a calmer, coherent and more-or-less articulate groove that he was mostly able to sustain through the debate. But the damage was already done.

Listening to the two men side by side, on question after question, the stature gap that was revealed in the first debate was confirmed. Kerry came across as stable, knowledgeable, and statesmanlike, winning on substance on point after point.

One of the truly remarkable features of Kerry's debate performance was that he managed to integrate a posture of fiscal conservatism with economic populism. He was able to talk about balancing the budget while effectively portraying Bush as the advocate of big corporations and the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. He was also devastating in his portrayal of Bush as having squandered the trillion dollar surplus with tax cuts "for the wealthiest people in the country," and giveaways for big corporations including Enron. Kerry offered a strong argument for balancing the budget in part by closing corporate tax loopholes and other give-aways.

Bush almost sounded convincing when he talked about taking "unpopular" decisions in the name of "doing the right thing." But Kerry effectively rejoined that Bush "rushed to war without a plan to win the peace." Bush's main appeal was based on bold declarations and appeals to patriotism: "freedom is on the march" in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said. As dubious as the reality is, such rhetoric sounds good and there are people who can't get enough of that kind of stuff. But I don't think there are enough of those folks for Bush to win reelection. Certainly not among those who came into the debate undecided.

Bush's poll numbers have been in a slow and steady free-fall since the first debate, as Kerry's poll numbers have risen. It would seem that the side by side impressions of the two candidates that launched that trend, were confirmed in this debate.

Vote in Unscientific Online Polls!

Among the stranger battle grounds in the total war of this year's presidential campaign is the arena of "unscientific" online polls maintained by most of the major, and many minor news organizations on their web sites.

Prior to the vice presidential debates, both camps, unwilling to cede the slightest appearance of momentum to the other side, sought to mobilize their partisans to vote. If the outcome of these votes is any indication of partisan organizing success, the offices of DNC chair Terry McCauliff must be lit with little plastic trophies of John Edwards,beaming in victory.

However a special trophy has gotta go to someone who goes by the screen name "skinner" who maintains a remarkably comprehensive running list of online polls on the presidential contest on a discussion board hosted by Democratic Underground.The list includes online polls for newspapers and TV stations in swing states like Florida, Michigan, and North Carolina. Here is the version as of this writing.

As inconsequential as unscientific online polls may seem to be, the political parties are taking them dead seriously. Well, OK, they take a lot of things seriously. So "why should you bother?" wondered Jeff Horwitz in an October 6 posting on Salon.coms's War Room blog.

"Well," he answered, "networks like MSNBC do mention the results on the air, which theoretically might influence other voters... at last count, over 2.2 million ballots had been cast on the MSNBC site."

Here are some of the major news organizations that had online polls in the vice presidential debate, and will probably have them for the last two presidential debates. (If you want to organize your friends, forward this message!)

ABC News
CBS News
CNN
FoxNews
MSNBC
PBS
USA Today
Time
Washington Post

Rev. Moon’s Faith Based Alternative to Sex

Ten years ago investigations by Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and The New York Times exposed how the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon was quietly infiltrating school systems and other institutions with a deeply flawed sexuality curriculum called “Free Teens” in New York, New Jersey and around the U.S.


Fast forward ten years: Free Teens is still at it. But the difference between then and now, according to a remarkable investigative report by veteran religion reporter Don Lattin in The San Francisco Chronicle, is that not only is the Bush administration in the business of providing patronage grants and jobs to its political supporters in the religious right through the so-called Faith Based Initiative, but the Moon empire is getting its share.

I was particularly struck by this report because I was a co-author of the PPFA investigation into Free Teens, as the editor of its investigative newsletter at the time, Front Lines Research . Once exposed, school systems, Catholic churches and other “abstinence” oriented organizations dropped the Free Teens program like a hot potato. But the Moon organization has a way of surviving such set backs. Indeed, they have friends in high places.

The Chronicle reported, “Moon has also partnered with the Bush administration in support of the Korean evangelist’s strong teachings against premarital sex. Free Teens USA, an after-school program in New Jersey promoting abstinence until marriage, has been given $475,000 by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, another part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Free Teens is led by Richard Panzer,… [an] alumnus of Unification Theological Seminary. Panzer was also a leader in the American Constitution Committee, one of many political organizations affiliated with Moon.”

The Chronicle also sat in on a “marriage seminar” for church leaders taught by a “marriage specialist” with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Unbeknownst to the audience and, apparently to the sponsors of the event, the teacher was a graduate of the Rev. Moon’s Unification Theological Seminary, and before her job with the Bush administration, “was the director of marriage education at the University of Bridgeport in Bridgeport, Connecticut” a Moon controlled school whose president, Neil Salonen, is a former president of the Unification Church in America. People who completed the three-day seminar held last month in Oakland, received a”Certified Marriage Education Professional Document of Completion,” from, you guessed it, the University of Bridgeport.

All this may strike people as rather unusual, since according to mental health professionals and former members, the Unification Church almost arbitrarily selects one’s spouse, and marriages are performed in mass ceremonies in sports arenas. That’s after the deceptive recruiting practices that separate people from their biological families in order to induct them into the “True Family” headed by the Rev. and Mrs. Moon. It is for these, among other reasons, that the Unification Church has been called a cult, and across the political and religious spectrum is understood to be an organization that engages not in family building, but family smashing activities. I could go on -- and I did in my book Eternal Hostility: the Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy, in which I discuss, among other things, the role of the Moon organization in the abstinence education movement and its ties to former president George H. W. Bush.

As for the New Jersey-based Free Teens, their web site says up top that there are “alternatives” to sex. It doesn’t quite say what those are, but indeed, you could join the Moon organization and not have any. Members are to remain abstinent until marriage, and only allowed to consummate the marriage when church leaders give the green light, usually after years of missionary or political work.

The Moore Factor

The sound of desperation you hear when some people talk about Michael Moore is usually an indication that they understand that Moore and his messages are resonating with an ever-widening swath of the electorate. It’s beyond dispute that Moore has already affected the national debate about the war in Iraq as well as the credibility of the Bush administration, but it could be that we ain’t seen nothing yet.

The video and DVD for his documentary film Fareinheit/911 will be available beginning October 5th in video stores nationwide. Millions more people will be renting it, and having group showings and discussions. Fundamental questions about the behavior and intentions of the Bush administration will be raised in ways largely unaffected by slick television ads, stodgy newspaper editorials and yammering commercial radio talk show hosts and TV talking heads.

That Michael Moore has struck a chord is indisputable. Although some in the mainstream news media sneer at his style, others quietly cringe that he beat them to important stories about the Bush administration and that he raises questions that others dare not. Moore is popular because people recognize his profound sense of humanity, and his clear compassion for and identity with the lives of ordinary people -- something that too many people in public life are at considerable pains to find within themselves. What’s more, the baseball-hatted filmmaker clearly has the guts -- and the means -- to take on the rich, the powerful, and the hypocritical. That he makes us laugh – and cry – is such a refreshing change from the insufferable tedium, sanctimony, and transparently disingenuous “spin” of so much that passes for public discourse, we appreciate the effort, even when the gags get a little lame.

Currently, Moore is on a speaking tour of 60 college campuses and NBA arenas -- and he is drawing big crowds. Five thousand people turned out to hear him at Richard Stockton College in the swing state of New Jersey; ten thousand at Syracuse University in upstate New York, four thousand at the University of Central Florida in Orlando and so on. Moore calls it, “The Slacker Uprising Tour,” and he is seeking to rouse students and other non-voters to register to vote prior to the registration deadlines, which vary by state.

If all this were not enough to make Moore a factor in the closing weeks of the national elections, he also has two books coming out -- a collection of letters letter and emails he has received from American servicemen, titled “Will They Ever Trust Us Again? Letters from the War Zone” and “The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader.” Additionally, the film is still showing in hundreds of theaters across the country.

Of course, Republicans are freaking out, and in at least one instance, have resorted to censorship. When two GOP Virginia state legislators publicly twisted the arms of administrators at the state funded George Mason University, the school quickly caved and cancelled a scheduled appearance by Moore on October 28th. CBS News reported that this institution of higher learning didn’t even bother to inform Moore before announcing its reversal to the press. But the censorship is already backfiring, generating more attention than the event itself would have. Never one to back-off in the face of censorship, Moore is promising to show up anyway.

Let’s Start with the Latest Televangelist Scandals

Rev. Jimmy Swaggart is back in the news because he thinks joking on TV about killing gays is funny. (It seems like whenever Swaggart makes the news, its for consorting with prostitutes or for spouting hateful rhetoric. I could have missed something, but barring extensive research, that’s what it seems like from where I sit.) The latest Swaggartism is, of course, from column B. According to the Associated Press, Swaggart told his television audience on September 12th that he would “kill” any man who looked at him romantically.

“I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry,” he declared in his internationally viewed broadcast. “And I’m going to be blunt and plain. If one ever looks at me like that, I’m going to kill him and tell God he died,” Swaggart announced as his congregation laughed and applauded.

The last time Swaggart distinguished himself in this way, he was a leader of the bash Islam brigade of American evangelical Christian leaders, whose display of rhetorical pyrotechnics was almost certainly the largest outburst of religious bigotry in my lifetime. Among other things, Swaggart called Islam a “failed religion of hatred.”

Swaggart is now busy surfing waves of complaints and unflattering media attention, and has apologized for saying he would kill gay men and lie to God that he had done it. He says he threatens to kill various people in this same “joke” formula all the time. Funny guy, that Jimmy. Perhaps he is unaware that so many people are victims of violence for the mere fact of being gay, or being mistaken for being gay, that the FBI has collected statistics about it for a decade as part of a national effort to combat hate crimes. Swaggart told his hometown newspaper, the Baton Rouge Advocate that he is sorry he offended anyone, he does not condone violence, and he continues to oppose homosexuality.

Given Swaggart’s resolve in the face of controversy, perhaps he will be calling on fellow televangelist, Rev. Paul Crouch, who may be in need of some counseling.

According to an extraordinary series of articles in the Los Angeles Times, Rev. Paul Crouch, head of Trinity Broadcasting Network, (TBN) settled a lawsuit against a former employee for $425,000 to silence him from disclosing a homosexual affair in 1996. The agreement was confidential, but the former employee is now claiming, among other things that he felt he was forced to have sex with Crouch in order to keep his job. Enoch Lonnie Ford, 41, the alleged victim, says, “Paul Crouch needs to be exposed, and the truth needs to get out.” Crouch, now 70, is president of the Orange County-based TBN, the largest religious broadcaster in the world.

Crouch and TBN deny the allegations and say that they only settled the suit as the best way to protect the ministry against the scurrilous charges. They also say, and the LA Times account confirms, that Ford sought millions of dollars more from Crouch and TBN for not publishing a manuscript in which he details the charges he already agreed to keep confidential in the settlement agreement. TBN calls it “extortion,” and revealed that Ford is a convicted sex offender and a drug user.

Wow! Some sensational story, huh? Its eerie, though, that the vast media pack hasn't jumped on this story of alleged sexual coercion, hypocrisy and criminal activity on the part of one of the most prominent religious leaders in the world. Coverage and commentary has been spotty at best. It’s unfair of course, for the media to function as a conveyor belt for unsubstantiated charges against public figures from disreputable or highly biased sources. Maybe the vast media pack has gotten gun shy after recent debacles like the duping of Dan Rather and the smear campaign waged by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth…

Nah. More likely, the LA Times is so far ahead in reporting on this, that the competition is caught short. Additionally, although Crouch’s empire is far larger than any of the other televangelists he is less well known beyond his audience than the more flamboyant Swaggart, or the politically prominent televangelists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

Still, the relative absence of follow-up reporting and commentary is striking at a time when sex abuse by Catholic priests and settlements from church funds to silence alleged abuse victims, and cover-up on the part of church authorities continues to be one of the largest, if not The largest corruption scandal in the history of modern religious institutions. Oh yeah, and until a series of excellent investigative reports by the Boston Globe broke the dimensions of the story wide open, press coverage of that one was spotty too.