CALIFORNIA YANKEE

New York Times Endorses Lieberman Challenger

The New York Times endorsed Connecticut's rebel Democrat, the Greenwich millionaire and anti-war campaigner, Ned Lamont, over Connecticut's three term Senator and the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman.

The Washington Post and Connecticut's two largest newspapers, The Hartford Courant and the Connecticut Post, backed Senator Lieberman.

The Washington Post says Senator Lieberman is being challenged in Connecticut for something that in Washington is a rare asset - his ability to work with Republicans and get things done in Washington:

This is a talent and temperament that is helpful to the Democrats in the minority but will be needed even more if there's a change in power in one or both houses of Congress or, in 2008, in the White House. Then, more than ever, the Democratic Party, if it hopes to accomplish anything, will need people such as Mr. Lieberman who bring some civility to an increasingly uncivil capital -- who can accept the idea that opponents may disagree in good faith and who can then work to find areas of agreement and assemble working majorities of 60 senators. His ability to do so is a strength, not a weakness, for the party as well as the nation.

The Hartford Courant agrees, calling Senator Lieberman the antacid for today's exceptionally corrosive politics:

We endorse U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary for his skill in bridging the partisan abyss in Washington - a valuable asset.

This veteran of Capitol wars is adept among Democrats when it comes to working across the aisle on threats facing America, from greenhouse gases to intelligence failures.

[. . .]

His specialty is working with Republican moderates - and sometimes conservatives - to craft bills that can pass the most divided, least civil Congress in memory.

As head of the Governmental Affairs Committee in 2002, he wrote the Senate's version of the homeland security bill. With Republican Sen. John McCain and the 9/11 families, he forced President Bush to accept a bipartisan commission to investigate the intelligence failures leading to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The commission's riveting report sold more than a million copies, and some of its most important recommendations were embraced.

The list goes on.

Mr. Lieberman's rectitude, though it strikes some as self-righteous, is principled. He led the charge to tone down sex and violence in video games for more than a decade. His denunciation of President Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct helped make him Al Gore's choice as running mate in 2000.

As a champion of conservation and a protector of Long Island Sound and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he disappointed many when he alone among Northeast Senate Democrats voted for the 2005 energy bill that did nothing to curb the nation's oil addiction or protect the environment.

The Connecticut Post also looks at the Lieberman record:

It spans more than 35 years of elected public service starting in 1970 when he was first elected to the state Senate, continuing in 1982 with his election as state attorney general, one of the first "activist" attorney generals in the nation and then moving on to three terms in the U.S. Senate.

There have been many times when we've disagreed with the senator, but his overall record is commendable and the record of a fighter who has been there for Connecticut in the areas of defense
contracts, the environment, education, health care, civil rights, and transportation.

The New York Times is correct in saying the Lieberman primary challenge would never have happened absent Iraq and that the primary has become a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. As the Times puts it, this Democratic primary is about Senator Lieberman's moderate fair-mindedness against a partisan radicalism that alienates most Americans.

The Times endorsement of the Greenwich millionaire and anti-war campaigner over Senator Lieberman, like the paper's revelation of secret intelligence programs is more evidence that the Times is suffering from Bush derangement syndrome.

Nasrallah In Damascus

Hezbollah's terrorist in chief, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, is in Damascus meeting with Ali Larijani, secretary of 's Supreme National Security Council, and Syrian President Hafez Assad:

According to the Associated Press, the purpose of the meeting is to discuss ways to maintain supplies to Hezbollah fighters with "ian arms flowing through Syrian territories."

The AP cautions there was no mention of Larijani's travels in ian state-run media and the reports could be independently confirmed.

Thoughts On Lebanon And The War Against Terror

Terrorism, whether it is al Qaeda flying airplanes into buildings filled with innocent civilians, the Taliban blowing up schools and police stations in Afghanistan, al Qaeda in Iraq blowing up civilians in Baghdad, al Qaeda trainees blowing up civilian trains in London or Mumbai, Palestinians in Gaza shooting rockets at civilian targets inside Israel, or Hezbollah attacking across Israel's northern border, killing and abducting Israeli soldiers and firing rockets at Israeli civilians, will not be defeated without peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestinians. This issue, the case for a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel, is translated by extremists into a battle between East and West, Muslim, Jew and Christian.

Last night I reread British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s magnificent July 17, 2003 address to a joint session of Congress. There is much Blair said three years ago that should be remembered as we continue to prosecute the war against terror.

Blair, reminded us that terrorism is spawned where there is no freedom, where many millions suffer under brutal dictatorships, living in unimaginable poverty nurtured by a fanatical strain of religious extremism.

To eliminate terrorism, Muslims must be able to see Muslim nations still Muslim, but with some hope for the future, not shackled by tyrannical regimes whose principal victims are the very Muslims they pretended to protect.

The Liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban and the Iraq from Saddam's savage regime is the starting point for a new Middle East: Iraq, free and stable; and Syria, made to realize that the world will no longer countenance support for terrorism; the whole region helped toward democracy. And to symbolize it all, the creation of an independent, viable and democratic Palestinian state side by side with the state of Israel.

This struggle against terrorist groups and states is about liberty. The fight is not for domination. We're not fighting for an American world, we're not fighting for Christianity or Judaism, but against religious fanaticism of all kinds. In Blair’s words:

We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind--black or white, Christian or not, left, right or to be free, free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a living and be rewarded by your efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear, free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others.

That's what we're fighting for. And it's a battle worth fighting.

Our love freedom is not a unique product of our culture. Freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are not only American, or Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit:

Anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify it around an idea. And that idea is liberty.

We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal. 

This is why I continue to support the war against terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Israel's campaign against Hezbollah.

A cease-fire in Lebanon is urgently wanted. But it should be a cease-fire under conditions where it can be lasting cease-fire and a step towards a lasting peace and victory over the conditions spawning terrorism. This requires that Hizbullah be reined in.

Hizbullah's founding document calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. Hizbullah's record of terrorist attacks is long: the 1983 bombing of the barracks of U.S. Marines deployed peacekeepers in Beirut to keep the airport open for relief supplies; the bombing of the U.S. Beirut embassy in 1983 and 1984; the hijacking of TWA flight 847 and murder of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem in 1985; a series of attacks on Israeli targets in Lebanon; the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992 and of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center in 1994. More recently, Hizbullah operatives have plotted to blow up the Israeli embassy in Thailand, and a Lebanese member of Hizbullah was indicted for helping to design the truck bomb that flattened the Khobar Towers U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia in 1996.

Before September 11, 2001, Hizbullah was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist organization. Hassan Nasrallah, the group's secretary-general, recently proclaimed, "Death to America was, is, and will stay our slogan."

The current "crises" stems from Hizbullah's unprovoked attack across Israel's northern border, killing and abducting Israeli soldiers. In 2004 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1559 calling upon Lebanon to disband the military wing of Hezbollah. In 2005, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1583 calling upon Lebanon to exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south. Again this year the UN Security Council called on Lebanon to make more progress in controlling its territory and disbanding militias. Had Lebanon complied with the UN demands, the present crisis could have been avoided.

The right approach in dealing with the campaign against Hezbollah's terrorism is to work for an urgent but enduring cease-fire in Lebanon, one that can deal with the causes of extremism that began this crisis and that can also lead to the establishment of the sovereignty of the Lebanese government throughout its territory. Anything short of that will simply encourage more violence in the long run.

South Korean Tops First Straw Poll for Annan Successor

South Korean foreign minister Ban Ki-moonhe came out on top Monday, as the UN Security Council conducted its first straw poll in the process to find a successor for Kofi Annan as secretary-general:

Ban 12
Tharoor 10
Surakiart 7
Dhanapala 5

The balloting required security council members to either "encourage", "discourage" or offer "no opinion" on the four candidates.

The poll is designed to provide candidates some about their support and allow them to make a decision on whether to continue. It also provides an opportunity for new candidates to enter the race.

According to The Australian, the straw poll raised expectations that former Singaporean prime minister Goh Chok Tong would soon enter the race:

Mr. Goh, Singapore's prime minister from 1990-2004, has strong support in the Non-Aligned Movement but he is hamstrung by the fact that ASEAN, which includes Singapore, has endorsed Dr Surakiart as its candidate.

The next straw poll is not likely until late August.

Rome Summit Ends Without Lebanon Cease-Fire

International leaders failed to agree on the terms of a cease-fire between Israel and Hizbullah and called for talks on a United Nations-mandated force to help the Lebanese army restore peace in south Lebanon.

According to Bloomberg, leaders acknowledged that winning participants for such a force would take time and be difficult:

Hezbollah, backed by and Syria, rejects a force that would eventually replace Israeli troops in a security zone. Israel has endorsed the idea of a European-led force though has said it should not be led by the UN, throwing into question the prospect of one ever being dispatched.

What is needed is a cease-fire that will ensure the Hizbullah terrorists are no longer able to reek indiscriminate death and destruction whenever they choose to throw a temper tantrum.

If ever a gang of terrorist thugs needed to be reined in, it is Hizbullah.

Hizbullah's founding document calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Before September 11, 2001, Hizbullah was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist organization. Hassan Nasrallah, the group's secretary-general, recently proclaimed, "Death to America was, is, and will stay our slogan."

Hizbullah's record of terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies is long: the 1983 bombing of the barracks of U.S. Marines deployed peacekeepers in Beirut to keep the airport open for relief supplies; the bombing of the U.S. Beirut embassy in 1983 and 1984; the hijacking of TWA flight 847 and murder of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem in 1985; a series of attacks on Israeli targets in Lebanon; the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992 and of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center in 1994. More recently, Hizbullah operatives have plotted to blow up the Israeli embassy in Thailand, and a Lebanese member of Hizbullah was indicted for helping to design the truck bomb that flattened the Khobar Towers U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia in 1996.

The current "crises" stems from Hizbullah's unprovoked attack across Israel's northern border, killing and abducting Israeli soldiers. Let's not forget that in 2004 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1559 calling upon Lebanon to disband the military wing of Hezbollah.

In 2005, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1583 calling upon Lebanon to exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south. Again this year the UN Security Council called on Lebanon to make more progress in controlling its territory and disbanding militias. Had Lebanon complied with the UN demands, the present crisis could have been avoided.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is right to try "to bring about an urgent but enduring cease-fire in Lebanon, one that can deal with the causes of extremism that began this crisis and that can also lead to the establishment of the sovereignty of the Lebanese government throughout its territory." Anything short of an enduring cease-fire will simply encourage more violence in the long run.

Remembering Tranquility Base

Its been 37 years since we heard those famous words announcing that humans had finally reached another world, "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."

On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon.

When mission commander Neil Armstrong finally took the "small step," I was watching in the Fillmore West in San Francisco. In a corner of the huge concert hall they had a large screen showing man’s first steps on the moon. The activities at Tranquility Base fit right in with the light show.

Where were you when took that the "giant leap for mankind?"

PHOTO: Aldrin Looks Back at Tranquility Base

Lunar Module pilot Buzz Aldrin was photographed by mission commander Neil Armstrong. In the foreground is the Passive Seismic Experiment Package; beyond it is the Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector; in the far right background is the Lunar Module "Eagle."

Image credit: NASA

Lamont Leads Lieberman

Connecticut Senator Lieberman's anti-war Democratic challenger, Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont, now leads among likely Democratic primary voters, 51 - 47 percent.

The Quinnipiac University poll found Senator Lieberman, running as an independent, would win reelection in a three-way race in November:

Lieberman (I) 51 percent
Lamont (D)27 percent
Schlesinger (R) 9 percent

Quinnipiac's June 8 poll found Senator Lieberman ahead 55 - 40 percent.

In today's Quinnipiac poll, by a 56 - 31 percent margin, all voters say that Lieberman deserves reelection, but likely Democratic primary voters split 46 - 45 percent on this question.

Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, says Lamont support is all about the war:

"Among the 45 percent of likely Democratic primary voters who think Lieberman shouldn't be reelected, the biggest group, 35 percent, cite the war in Iraq as the main reason," Dr. Schwartz said. "And 45 percent of likely Democratic primary voters say they would vote against Lieberman solely because of his support of the war."

The poll was conducted July 13 - 18 and has a margin of error of +/- 2 percent.

Quinnipiac's new poll numbers fly in the face of my prediction, just two days ago, that Lieberman will win the primary.

House Fails To Override Stem Cell Veto

The House failed to overturn President Bush's veto of legislation easing limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The vote was 235-193, 51 short of the required two-thirds majority.

President Bush's Veto Message:

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 810, the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005."

Like all Americans, I believe our Nation must vigorously pursue the tremendous possibilities that science offers to cure disease and improve the lives of millions. Yet, as science brings us ever closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience and history as a Nation demand that we resist this temptation. With the right scientific techniques and the right policies, we can achieve scientific progress while living up to our ethical responsibilities.

In 2001, I set forth a new policy on stem cell research that struck a balance between the needs of science and the demands of conscience. When I took office, there was no Federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Under the policy I announced 5 years ago, my Administration became the first to make Federal funds available for this research, but only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed. My Administration has made available more than $90 million for research of these lines. This policy has allowed important research to go forward and has allowed America to continue to lead the world in embryonic stem cell research without encouraging the further destruction of living human embryos.

H.R. 810 would overturn my Administration's balanced policy on embryonic stem cell research. If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers for the first time in our history would be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Crossing this line would be a grave mistake and would needlessly encourage a conflict between science and ethics that can only do damage to both and harm our Nation as a whole.

Advances in research show that stem cell science can progress in an ethical way. Since I announced my policy in 2001, my Administration has expanded funding of research into stem cells that can be drawn from children, adults, and the blood in umbilical cords with no harm to the donor, and these stem cells are currently being used in medical treatments. Science also offers the hope that we may one day enjoy the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells without destroying human life. Researchers are investigating new techniques that might allow doctors and scientists to produce stem cells just as versatile as those derived from human embryos without harming life. We must continue to explore these hopeful alternatives, so we can advance the cause of scientific research while staying true to the ideals of a decent and humane society.

I hold to the principle that we can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology and ensure that science serves the cause of humanity. If we are to find the right ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing when necessary to reject the wrong ways. For that reason, I must veto this bill.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 19, 2006.

As I posted before, there is nothing which restricts privately funded embryonic stem cell research.
The issue here is only federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Just as the federal government doesn't fund abortions, it shouldn't fund embryonic stem cell research which requires the destruction of human embryos.

President Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill

After making "nearly 150 veto threats," President Bush was forced to issue his first veto, when Congress approved legislation easing limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

While vetoing the legislation, President Bush reminded us that when he took office there was no federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. In 2001, the President established a new policy on stem cell research, the first to make federal funds available human embryonic stem cell research. President Bush's policy only allowed funding for research using embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed prior to his new policy:

Like all Americans, I believe our nation must vigorously pursue the tremendous possibility that science offers to cure disease and improve the lives of millions. We have opportunities to discover cures and treatments that were unthinkable generations ago. Some scientists believe that one source of these cures might be embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to grow into specialized adult tissues, and this may give them the potential to replace damaged or defective cells or body parts and treat a variety of diseases. Yet we must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value. We see that value in the children who are with us today. Each of these children began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization, but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete. Each of these children was adopted while still an embryo, and has been blessed with the chance to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts.

[. . .]

Some people argue that finding new cures for disease requires the destruction of human embryos like the ones that these families adopted. I disagree. I believe that with the right techniques and the right policies, we can achieve scientific progress while living up to our ethical responsibilities. That's what I sought in 2001, when I set forth my administration's policy allowing federal funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines where the life and death decision had already been made.

This balanced approach has worked. Under this policy, 21 human embryonic stem cell lines are currently in use in research that is eligible for federal funding. Each of these lines can be replicated many times. And as a result, the National Institutes of Health have helped make more than 700 shipments to researchers since 2001. There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research. To the contrary, even critics of my policy concede that these federally funded lines are being used in research every day by scientists around the world. My policy has allowed us to explore the potential of embryonic stem cells, and it has allowed America to continue to lead the world in this area.

Since I announced my policy in 2001, advances in scientific research have also shown the great potential of stem cells that are derived without harming human embryos. My administration has expanded the funding of research into stem cells that can be drawn from children, adults, and the blood in umbilical cords, with no harm to the donor. And these stem cells are already being used in medical treatments.

The issue here is only federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Just as the federal government doesn't fund abortions, it shouldn't fund embryonic stem cell research. Just because 70% of those polled want stem cell research doesn't make it right for the federal government to pay for research which requires the destruction of human embryos. There is nothing which restricts privately funded embryonic stem cell research.

Lamont And Outsiders Trying To Buy Lieberman's Senate Seat

Ned Lamont, Connecticut's rebel Democrat, is financially supported by contributors outside Connecticut and Lamont's personal fortune. Not counting the $1.1 million the Greenwich millionaire and anti-war campaigner, contributed to his own campaign in the last two months, the darling of the blogosphere's left wing only raised $829,936 in the two-month reporting period ending June 30.

Even more discouraging to the leftist netroot challenge to Senator Lieberman, 70% of the $800,000 came from outside Connecticut.

But a list of campaign donors shows there are hundreds of nonresidents seeking Lieberman's ouster, from celebrities such as Barbra Streisand to an ex-"Baywatch"-lifeguard-turned-activist to a California strawberry farmer and craft-store owner in Illinois.

[. . .]

Streisand is one of the celebrities who gave $1,000. The entertainer was joined by talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell, "All In the Family" producer Norman Lear, Rock n' Roll Hall of Famer Jackson Browne and film director Richard Donner.

Donner, who directed the 1978 movie "Superman" and directed and produced all three "Lethal Weapon" movies also contributed $2,000.

According to the Stamford Advocate, the Lamont donor list also includes several friends and family members:

His daughter, Emily Lamont of Greenwich, made one of the largest donations -- $4,200. His wife, Ann, a venture capitalist, gave her husband $2,100 toward his campaign.

Former classmate James Townsend of Oyster Bay, N.Y., donated $700. Karl Essig, a friend and an investor living in Honolulu gave $500.

"We were in Yale management school together," Essig said. "He's a terrific guy. I wish him the best in his endeavor."

Lamont's uncle, Scott Buzby of Vero Beach, Fla., said he does not see eye to eye with his nephew but cut him a $500 check anyway.

"I'm for the war in Iraq, and he's against it. I prefer to stay in there until the job's done, he wants to get out earlier," Buzby said.

Lamont's failure to resonate with Connecticut contributors continues. Over the weekend the Democratic challenger found it necessary to contribute yet another $500,000 to his campaign to unseat Senator Lieberman.

It gets even worse for the anti-Lieberman lefties. Lamont has had to spend nearly everything he has been able to raise. At the end of June the campaign only had $276,976 on hand. Senator Lieberman's necessary campaign reported raising $1.3 million during May and June and had $4.3 million cash on hand at the end of June.

With just three weeks to go, I'm more confident than ever that Senator Lieberman will win the August 8th primary.