During the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea, host Donny Deutsch asked right-wing pundit Ann Coulter: "If you had your way ... and your dreams, which are genuine, came true ... what would this country look like?" Coulter responded, "It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like." She described the convention as follows: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America." Deutsch then asked, "It would be better if we were all Christian?" to which Coulter responded, "Yes." Later in the discussion, Deutsch said to her: "[Y]ou said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians," and Coulter again replied, "Yes." When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws."

After a commercial break, Deutsch said that "Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment," and asked her, "So you don't think that was offensive?" Coulter responded: "No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament." Coulter later said: "We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all."

An October 4 report on National Public Radio's Morning Edition about evangelical Christian support for Israel featured Gershom Gorenberg, an author and associate scholar at Boston University's Center for Millennial Studies, as saying that many evangelical Christians want Jews to convert to Christianity. "That vision is one in which the Jews eventually disappear," Gorenberg said. "And if you say that at the end of days, in a perfected world there aren't going to be any more Jews, what you're saying is that right now, you don't accept the legitimacy of Judaism."

Coulter's comments about religion were noted by the blog WhiteHouser.

Coulter also asserted during the interview: "I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely un-self-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would." She went on to state that "there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple" and that "I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture."

As Media Matters for America documented, Coulter has been interviewed at least 194 times on at least 13 individual programs on MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC since April 28, 1997 -- apparently her first appearance on the network. Media Matters also noted that Coulter, when interviewed by Deutsch on the July 26, 2006, edition of The Big Idea, said that former President Bill Clinton exhibits "some level of latent homosexuality." Earlier that day, MSNBC had hyped the interview as "must-see TV."

From the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch:

DEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We're going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your -- forget that any of them --

COULTER: I like this.

DEUTSCH: -- are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women's -- with abortion -- what would this country look like?

COULTER: It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like.

DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?

COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, no, but I'm talking about this country. You don't want to make this country -- it's not about Republicans. I'm saying, what would the fabric of this country look like? Forget that the Republicans would be running the show.

COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], the Republican Party would look like [Rep.] Duncan Hunter [R-CA] --

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don't want -- I'm not talking about politically the landscape. What would our -- would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more --


COULTER: We would be a lot safer.

DEUTSCH: Would there be more tolerance? Would there be -- would women be happier, would the races get along better? The Ann Coulter subscription -- prescription. What -- tell me what would be different in our fabric of country, because --

COULTER: Well, all of those things.

DEUTSCH: -- I can give -- I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate --

COULTER: Oh, no.

DEUTSCH: -- that there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other -- tell me what -- why this would be a better world? Let's give you -- I'm going to give you -- say this is your show.

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they --

DEUTSCH: Christian -- so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.

DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But -- so we would be better if we were - if people -- if there were no Jews, no Buddhists --

COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by --

DEUTSCH: -- in this country? You can't believe that.

COULTER: -- you know, liberals on diversity --

DEUTSCH: Here you go again.

COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And --

DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.

COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.

DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some Seinfeld episode? OK.

COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches -- the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not -- we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or --

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly -- you're too educated, you can't -- you're like my friend in --

COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean --

COULTER: We have the fast-track program.

DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" --

COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners --

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued -- when you say something absurd like that, there's no --

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself --

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more Big Idea when we come back.

[...]

DEUTSCH: Welcome back to The Big Idea. During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?

COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said -- your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that's what you said -- don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic --

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK --

COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean, [Rev. Jerry] Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.

DEUTSCH: We will let the audience decide then, won't we? Ann Coulter. New book. More Big Idea straight ahead.   Read More »

From Iowa Votes 2008

Richardson TV Ad

July 18, 2007 -- There's a new 30-second Richardson ad called "Stand Up" that began running today in Iowa on local affiliates and cable channels.

In a grassy New Mexico field with a mountain range backdrop, a calm Richardson -- donning a grey Southwestern-style button-down shirt, belt buckle and jeans -- calls for all troops to be pulled from Iraq and urges Congress to action.

Here's the transcript:
I'm Bill Richardson … and here in New Mexico, we've lost too many soldiers in Iraq … just like Iowa and every other state.
We have to end this war now.

The one thing the Iraqis agree on is they want us to leave.
Our troops have done everything we've asked and I don't want to see any more die.

I approved this message because Congress has to stand up to this president. We need to get all of our troops out of Iraq.
George Bush won't do that. But I will.

If you are not aware of this website, they have great deal of useful and current information on primary, caucus and convention phases for the 2008 Presidential election, broken down by state. Check it out.

Link

Thanks to Bill Unger for bringing it to our attention:

Olbermann: Bush, Cheney should resign

'I didn't vote for him, but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job.'

SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
Updated: 8:13 p.m. ET July 3, 2007

"I didn't vote for him," an American once said, "But he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

That--on this eve of the 4th of July--is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The man who said those 17 words--improbably enough--was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair's-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne's voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president's partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world--but merely that we may function.

But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne, is an implicit trust--a sacred trust: That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

Our generation's willingness to state "we didn't vote for him, but he's our president, and we hope he does a good job," was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.

And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped our President in 2001.And those who did not believe he should have been elected--indeed those who did not believe he had been elected--willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison--at the Constitutional Convention--said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes "advised by" that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish--the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental com-pact between yourself and the majority of this nation's citizens--the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.


This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of "a permanent Republican majority," as if such a thing--or a permanent Democratic majority--is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

Yet our Democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.


The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.

I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.

I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.

I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.

"Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people."

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.


It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party's headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

And in one night, Nixon transformed it.

Watergate--instantaneously--became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law of insisting--in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood - that he was the law.

Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the Courts. Just him.

Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the "referee" of Prosecutor Fitzgerald's analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush--and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal--the average citizen understands that, Sir.

It's the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one--and it stinks. And they know it.


Nixon's mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to "base," but to country, echoes loudly into history. Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign

Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.

But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them--or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them--we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time--and our leaders in Congress, of both parties--must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach--get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone--anyone--about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, "I didn't vote for him, but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive
URL: Link

From National Jewish Democratic Council, June 22, 2007

164 HYPOCRITICAL HOUSE REPUBLICANS OPPOSE $2.4 BILLION AID TO ISRAEL
June 22, 2007

NJDC Strongly Condemns House GOP Leadership for Urging Members to Oppose Foreign Aid Bill

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 22, 2007

WASHINGTON - In a stunning act of political hypocrisy, 164 House Republicans - at the urging of their party leadership - voted against the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill early this morning, traditionally a top priority of the pro-Israel community. The legislation, which passed by a margin of 241-178, contained $2.4 billion in aid to Israel. Today, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) strongly condemned the House Republican leadership for urging Republicans to oppose the bill.

In a letter sent by the Republican leadership to their Members, Republicans were told: "Please advise your boss that Leadership will be voting NO on final passage of the Democrats' State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, and strongly encourage Republican Members to do the same." [emphasis added]

"After all their rhetoric about supporting Israel, Republicans yesterday placed politics above the U.S.-Israel relationship. By claiming to support Israel from one corner of their mouths, while telling Members to vote against billions in aid from the other corner, the Republican leaders have engaged in a sad, cynical act of political hypocrisy," said NJDC Executive Director Ira N. Forman. "For years, support for the foreign aid bill has been a top priority of the pro-Israel community. This vote was a real blow to the bipartisan consensus that we've worked so hard to develop on Israel."

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) writes that "by approving the foreign aid bill annually, and earmarking the critical funds for Israel, Congress reaffirms the strength and vitality of the U.S.-Israel relationship, boosts the American economy and helps to fulfill our nation's foreign policy objectives in the Middle East." [AIPAC Issue Brief, "Aid to Israel," 1/19/07]

The GOP leadership's actions could signal a disturbing return to the days when Congressional Republicans demagogued the foreign aid issue with isolationist rhetoric that sometimes bordered on xenophobia. After September 11, isolationism gave way to internationalism and foreign aid began to enjoy bipartisan support. This latest move by the House GOP calls into question the new ideological direction the party has undertaken. While the GOP leaders continue to "claim" support for aid to Israel, their opposition to the entire foreign aid bill has clearly put Israel's funds in jeopardy.

"I sincerely hope the GOP leadership does not intend to return to the 'world-is-flat' days when Republicans routinely demogogued the foreign aid issue to score political points," continued Forman. "Make no mistake, if our entire foreign aid package becomes victim of partisan football, it will put funds for Israel in jeopardy. The State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill contains more funding for Israel than any other country. Aid to Israel accounts for nearly 50% of all military aid in the bill. [CQ House Action Report, 6/19/07]

The bill also contained strong language condemning the Arab League for its boycott of Israel, calling it an "impediment to peace in the region and to United States investment and trade in the Middle East and North Africa," demanding that "all Arab League states should normalize relations with their neighbor Israel" and calling on the Bush Administration to "report to Congress annually on specific steps being taken by the United States to encourage Arab League states to normalize their relations with Israel to bring about the termination of the Arab League boycott of Israel …" [HR 2764]

The vote was roll call #542 and is available at Link

"Aid to Israel has long been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. It is a cost-effective way of serving America's national security interests in the Middle East, bolstering a reliable U.S. ally in a volatile and critically important region," writes AIPAC. [AIPAC Memo, 3/11/07]

SAVE THE DATE

Saturday, July 14, 2007

BBQ for Bill
Sugar Sands Park
300 S. Military Trail
Boca Raton
11 AM - 3 PM   Read More »

Talk show host and pundit Ed Schultz is railing that "the front runners" for the Democratic nomination for President are now "out of step" with the views of the American public who wants us out of Iraq now, without preconditions. We need to call-in 1-877-934-6833 to say that perhaps if he and other so-called pundits stop referring to Clinton, Obama and Edwards as front runners and give credit to Governor Richardson for his call to remove all troops from Iraq now, there could be a new front runner for the nomination.

Florida for Richardson volunteers would like to help our fellow volunteers in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.

If you have call lists (names and telephone numbers) and a phone
script, we will be very happy to begin making calls to these three early states. We decided that personal cell phones - with unlimited night and weekend calling plans -- would be the best way for Florida to help in Governor Richardson's campaign to encourage folks to give a serious look at Gov. Richardson, attend a caucus or vote in the primary (depending on the state).

Would the state leaders in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire please get in touch with Jack Karako in Florida (jackpc1@yahoo.com) to give us the tools we need to get started?

If you live in one of the following counties:
Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Leon, Hillsborough or Pinnellas,

please take note of the new Area Chairs in your counties. Please contact them directly and they will let you know how you can best help.


Miami-Dade Chair:
Barry White
bwtamia@bellsouth.net

South Palm Beach County Chairs:
Mark Alan Siegel
masiegel@gate.net
&
Bill Unger(br />
skinsfanbu@yahoo.com

North Palm Beach County Chairs:
Kevin Baker
Kevin.Baker@thestreet.com
&
Robert Hackney
rhackney@moylelaw.com

Hillsborough/Pinellas County Chair:
Frank Lupo
fml42@verizon.net

Leon County Chair:
O.C. Allen
ocallen@comcast.net

Live Video-Chat at Take Back America
We're broadcasting live video of all the presidential-hopefuls and other signature events at Take Back America.

To tune in, create a free account on our Take Back America website below and/or login with your existing account. Then click "Live Chat" at the top of any page on the site.

Already have an account? Login here...
Need an account?
Create a free Take Back America website account to access the live video-chats and lots of other interactive features airing for Take Back America 2007.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Live Video-Chat Schedule

MONDAY, JUNE 18th

Progressive Senators Town Hall: 8:00-9:30 PM ET
TUESDAY, JUNE 19th

Sen. Mike Gravel: 8:30-9:00 AM ET
Gov. Bill Richardson: 9:00-9:30 AM ET
Sen. Barack Obama: 12:00-12:30 PM ET
Sen. John Edwards: 12:30-1:00 PM ET
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20th

Sen. Hillary Clinton: 8:00-8:30 AM ET
Rep. Dennis Kucinich: 8:30-9:00 AM ET
Live Video-Chat

With Presidential-Hopefuls...


Gov. Bill Richardson
9am - Tues 6/19


Sen. Barack Obama
12noon - Tues 6/19


Sen. John Edwards
12:30pm - Tues 6/19


Sen. Hillary Clinton
8am - Wed 6/20

From Usatoday.com

First posted June7, 2007

Richardson adept as recreational hunter

By Barry Massey, Associated Press Writer

SANTA FE, N.M. -- Bill Richardson -- governor, presidential candidate, hunter -- is a good shot, and he has the prey to prove it.
"I would call myself a recreational hunter. I am not an avid hunter or an expert hunter," Richardson said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

The New Mexico governor says hunting is just a hobby and he's still a novice since he took it up in earnest only about four years ago, when he became governor of New Mexico. Fellow hunters praise his skills.

Richardson has bagged traditional game -- such as elk and turkey -- and stalked the exotic. He shot an oryx, a long-horned antelope native to Africa, during a guided outing in 2005 on a New Mexico ranch owned by media mogul Ted Turner.

He owns a 12-gauge Browning over-and-under shotgun, which he's used for hunting birds, including quail and dove. Richardson also owns a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol, which is not for hunting, but he has a state permit to carry it concealed. He's borrowed rifles to hunt big game such as elk, deer and the oryx.

Richardson has purchased hunting licenses each year since he took office in 2003, according to state Game and Fish Department records.

In campaign appearances, Richardson cites his Western political roots to explain his positions on issues such as gun control and an endorsement by the National Rifle Association during his gubernatorial re-election last year.

While a congressman, the Democrat voted against a ban on assault weapons and opposed a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. As governor, he backed and signed legislation allowing New Mexicans to carry concealed weapons.

The Western images fill a new television ad, introduced last week and airing in Iowa and New Hampshire that focuses on Richardson's energy policies. The ad opens with New Mexico landscapes and includes scenes of Richardson hunting with two other people and riding horses with his wife, Barbara.

Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University, said Richardson's attempt to portray himself as a Westerner may help distinguish the governor from other Democratic candidates.

"This is not an image that Democrats normally run with," said Goldford, who added that the governor's pro-gun positions may not win over liberal voters.

In the Republican field, Mitt Romney has been criticized for calling himself a lifelong hunter although he never had hunting licenses in any of the four states where he has lived. Romney says he's hunted rabbits and varmints, and didn't need a license to hunt for certain small animals.

Richardson -- relaxed in his Capitol office and dressed in blue jeans, cowboy boots and a silver bolo tie with turquoise -- said he began hunting because he "wanted to go one step beyond" the skeet shooting he'd done in the past. With skeet, clay targets are flung into the air at different angles.

"When I became governor ... I was looking for hobbies. And I basically took up horseback riding, which I knew how to do. I had horses before. And hunting," said Richardson.

"My true recreational loves are riding my horse and hunting because there are no cell phones, no beepers, no BlackBerries."

The governor says he prefers hunting birds.

"You know I'm a little impatient and when you're doing oryx and elk, you tend to get one or two shots. You've got to find them. But with dove, you have a lot of opportunities," he said.

Friends describe Richardson as a good shot.

Jamie Koch of Santa Fe recalls Richardson shooting a grouse as it flew through a narrow gap in trees during a horseback trip into the Pecos Wilderness near Santa Fe.

"Man he just nailed it," said Koch. "I said to myself, 'He's never going to hit that damn grouse.' It was a heckuva shot."

Turner gave permission for Richardson's hunt but he wasn't at the 360,000-acre Armendaris Ranch when Richardson killed the oryx in September 2005, according to Tom Waddell, the ranch manager. The governor also didn't have to pay the $2,500 fee that's normally charged for an individual to hunt trophy oryx -- one with at least 36-inch horns. Guides gutted and skinned the animal that Richardson shot.

Richardson said it was his most memorable hunt. He downed the oryx with one shot from at least 100 yards.

He had the oryx head mounted and keeps it in a downstairs room at the governor's mansion. His other hunting trophies also are displayed there: a set of bull elk antlers and a stuffed wild turkey.

And what happened to the elk meat?

"We ate it -- at the mansion," said Richardson.

Link

Follow the link above (or go to www.sunsentinel.com) that also includes an unscientific preference poll for Presidential candidates. I only voted a couple of times, but Richardson is in the lead in South Florida. Let's circulate this poll, and create an even bigger buzz.......

Jerusalem Post, June 7, 2007

JPost.com » BlogCentral » The Presidential Blog » The Road to the White House » The Iranian threat (Part I)


June 07 2007; 09:06AM
The Road to the White House: The Iranian threat (Part I)
Posted by JPost.com staff | Comments: 83

About 'The Road to The White House'

Question #2
How would you grapple with Iran's nuclear drive?

Contributors:

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois (D)

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York (D)

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York (R)

Senator Joe Biden of Delaware (D)

Senator John McCain of Arizona (R)

Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (R)

Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina (D)

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas (R)

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (D)

Barack Obama: When I traveled to Israel last year, I met with Israelis across the political spectrum and heard the diversity of views for which Israel is famous. But on one issue, there was consensus: a deep concern about the threat posed by an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

Israelis are right to be concerned. A nuclear weapon in the hands of this radical theocracy could have dire consequences: a nuclear arms race drawing in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey; pressure on other nations to accommodate Iranian demands; emboldened terrorist groups acting under an Iranian nuclear umbrella; and, perhaps, the proliferation of nuclear technology to other states and terrorist groups.

For Israelis, the threat is even more pronounced in light of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and chilling call for Israel to be "wiped from the map." Israel does not have the luxury of treating these threats as mere rhetoric. Neither should the United States.

Unfortunately, recent findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggest that Iran has made considerable progress - more than had been realized - toward mastering the technology required to build nuclear weapons. So the need to address this threat is urgent.

In facing such a threat, no President of the United States should take any option, including the military option, off the table. But at this stage, our first line of offense must be a sustained, aggressive, coordinated diplomatic effort to make clear to Iran the costs of its current path.

The current strategy of ignoring Iran and issuing threats through intermediaries has not worked. I would engage Iran in direct, bilateral discussions - much as we negotiated with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. In these discussions, we should make clear to Iran that its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will lead to greater isolation, and increased economic pressure. At the same time, we must communicate directly with the Iranian people, who are not as radical as their government, letting them know the opportunities for cooperation that exist if their government ends its current destructive policies.

Our diplomatic offensive must include stronger multilateral actions as well. The UN Security Council has sanctioned Iran twice in the past year, but it is time to ratchet up the pressure. We must push Iran's trading partners in Europe and energy suppliers in the Gulf states to use additional economic leverage against Iran, and we must demand that the Russians and Chinese focus on the serious threat to their interests posed by a nuclear Iran. We need to build this pressure over the coming weeks and months, not months and years.

And we can do more on our own. I am pushing Congress to pass my bill that makes it easier for state and local governments to divest their pension funds of companies that invest in Iran's energy sector, providing the revenue Iran uses to pursue nuclear weapons and sponsor terrorism. Divestment is a useful tool to bring additional economic pressure to bear on Iran.

Finally, showing Iran we are serious means maintaining close diplomatic and military relationships with our allies in the region. In Israel's case, that means providing our full military assistance package and continuing our cooperation with Israel in the development of the missile defense technology that Israel needs to defend itself.

Hillary Clinton: Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued a series of bellicose statements calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime's quest to acquire nuclear weapons.

The Iranian regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements. Hizbullah's attack against Israel last summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders. In light of this threat to our security, US policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons; no option can be taken off the table.

We must continue to put pressure on Iran through economic sanctions. I recently joined Sen. Frank Lautenberg in sponsoring a measure to strengthen existing sanction provisions in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which prohibits American companies from conducting business with nations that sponsor terrorism. Some American companies have exploited a loophole in the law by creating foreign subsidiaries to do business with rogue nations like Iran. Our legislation would close the loophole.

Among other options that should be pursued is a process of direct engagement with Iran, as recommended by many, including the Iraq Study Group. During the Cold War, we spoke to the Soviet Union while thousands of missiles were pointed at our cities. That was a smart strategy used by Republican and Democratic Presidents, which worked to the benefit of our national security, even though it was often a difficult one.

I am encouraged that the Administration is now engaging in talks with Iran but hope that they will include the nuclear issue among the items that they raise with the Iranians. As we face the refusal of Iran to suspend their nuclear ambitions, we need to deliver a strong message that we will not stand by and tolerate this behavior. We should be able to deliver that message forcefully through direct talks.

Rudy Giuliani: (Editor's note: Remarks were said on Tuesday during a GOP debate in New Hampshire when asked about the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from going nuclear): Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table.

And during the debate the other night, the Democrats seemed to be back in the 1990s. They don't seem to have gotten beyond the Cold War. Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They're a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists.

And we just saw it just last week in New York, an attempt by Islamic terrorists to attack JFK airport; three weeks ago, an attempt to attack Fort Dix. These are real problems. This war is not a bumper sticker. This war is a real war.

Joe Biden: Iran with the bomb could spark an arms race in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria joining in. Given the fault lines - between Sunni and Shia, Israelis and Palestinians, Persians and Arabs, Turks and Kurds, fundamentalists and moderates - that's the last thing we need. And it's the last thing Israel needs.

No President should take any option off the table, including force. But we have time: Iran is years away from having a bomb and a missile to deliver it. We need to use the time wisely.

We have to keep our eyes on the prize: preventing Iran from getting the bomb. This administration spent five years obsessed with the idea of getting rid of the Iranian regime.

None of us like the regime, but think about the logic: We want you to renounce the bomb - and by the way, when you do we're still going to try to take you down. The result: Iran accelerated its efforts to get the bomb and it is much closer now than it was when President Bush took office.

We need a policy that isolates Iran, not America and tips the balance in Iran against pursuing nuclear weapons. That means keeping our allies, Russia and China on the same page as we ratchet up economic and diplomatic pressure on the government to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. At the same time, there are growing fissures within the ruling elite - we need to exploit them.

Above all, we have to recognize that our biggest allies in this effort are the Iranian people. They're open to America. They don't like a regime that denies them basic political and social rights and that can't deal with corruption, unemployment and inflation. The Iranian people need to know it is their government, not the US that is choosing confrontation over cooperation. So we should tone down the rhetoric and talk. It's amazing how little faith this administration has in America's ideas and ideals.

Force must be the last option because it's a bad option. First, with our forces bogged down in Iraq, our threat to use force doesn't look very credible. Second, we can set back Iran's program but not stop it. Using force would lead to retaliation by Iran, including against our troops in Iraq. It would cause the Iranian people to rally behind Ahmadinejad and the extremists. Third, even a "limited" strike would be perceived as something much bigger by the Iranians and could spark a real war. The only thing worse than a poorly planned intentional war is an unplanned unintentional war.

John McCain: The world's chief state sponsor of international terrorism, Iran defines itself by hostility to Israel and the United States. It is simply tragic that millennia of proud Persian history have culminated in a government today that cannot be counted among those of the world's civilized nations.

When the president of Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off of the map, or asks for a world without Zionism, or suggests that Israel's Jewish population return to Europe, or calls the Holocaust a myth, it is clear that we are dealing with an evil man and a very dangerous regime.

Teheran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons clearly poses an unacceptable risk. Protected by a nuclear arsenal, Iran would feel unconstrained to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy. Its flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that agreement obsolete, and could induce Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others to reassess their defense posture.

Moderate Gulf states would have to accommodate the new reality, and the world would live, indefinitely, with the possibility that Teheran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to one of its allied terrorist networks. Coupled with its ballistic missile arsenal, an Iranian nuclear capability would pose an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.
UN Security Council action is required to impose progressively tougher political and economic sanctions.

Should the Security Council continue to drag its feet, the US must lead a group of like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework. The opposition of Russia and China to effective sanctions on Iran - and on issues ranging from Myanmar to Darfur to North Korea - is why I proposed the creation of a league of Democracies in which Israel would be welcomed. When democracies are united in addressing threats like Iran, we cannot afford to allow autocracies to thwart action.

There are many ways to increase pressure on Iran. Financial sanctions have had an initial effect. Iran's need to import refined gasoline, to cite one example, suggests an important vulnerability. And countries such as China and Malaysia, which have signed deals to develop Iranian gas fields, and Russia, which provides weapons systems to Teheran, should know that Iran would be a critical element in American's bilateral relations with each nation. In the meantime, the US should immediately investigate whether any of these deals violate the terms of last year's Iran Freedom Support Act.

The US should also privatize the sanctions effort by launching a divestment campaign. By persuading individuals, pension funds, and financial institutions to divest from companies doing business with Iran, we can isolate and delegitimize a hostile government. We will also, as we did with the South Africa divestment campaign, increase the debate inside the country about whether the present course serves the interests of the Iranian people or merely those of a misguided elite.

Americans and all proponents of freedom need to reassure the millions of Iranians who aspire to self-determination that we support their longing for freedom and democracy. There is much more we can and should do to translate such support into concrete action.

Every option must remain on the table. Military action isn't our preference. It remains, as it always must, the last option. We have some way to go diplomatically before we need to contemplate other measures. But it is a simple observation of reality that there is only one thing worse than a military solution, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran. The regime must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world.

Mitt Romney: Iran is an intolerant, repressive regime that is developing nuclear weapons, supports terrorism and is located right near much of the world's oil and natural gas. I believe that radical Islamic jihadists and the spread of weapons of mass destruction represent the greatest threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union and, before that, Nazi Germany. That threat would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

In January, I discussed the threat of Iran at the Herzliya Conference. Since then, Iran has done little to change its dangerous course. It has continued to operate its nuclear program in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. It has issued a new banknote that features a red nuclear symbol superimposed on the map of Iran.

On April 9th, Iran marked a new national holiday - "Nuclear Day." Recently the press reported Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement that the countdown to Israel's destruction had begun. Clearly, this is a regime that is unrelenting in its pursuit of nuclear weapons and a threat to the world

To aggressively combat Iran's nuclear ambitions and exploit the regime's vulnerabilities, I have outlined a five-pronged strategy:

First, we should tighten economic sanctions. Denying Iran access to the international banking system is crucial. The US and Europe should ensure that Iran finds it very difficult to obtain credit and make purchases in foreign currencies. In addition, I have called for strategic divestment among state pension funds from companies that support the Iranian regime's dangerous actions.

Second, we should isolate Iran diplomatically. Of course, we keep communication channels open. Yet until there are indications that high level engagement would do anything other than reward bad behavior, America should not engage Iran in direct, bilateral negotiations over their nuclear weapons program that legitimize Iran's defiance of the world. As part of this effort, Iran's President Ahmadinejad should be indicted under the terms of the Genocide Convention for incitement to genocide.

Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states should support Iraq's government; turn down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict; stop the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hizbullah; and tell the Palestinians to drop their terror campaign and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Fourth, we must make it clear to the Iranian people that while nuclear capabilities may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril. The military option must remain on the table. The regime should know that if nuclear material from their nation falls into the hands of terrorists and is used, it would provoke a devastating response from the civilized world.

Fifth, our strategy must be integrated into a broader approach to the Muslim world. We must work with moderate Muslim communities and leaders to build a lasting Partnership for Prosperity and Progress - a global effort which would support progressive Muslim communities and leaders in every nation where radical Islam is battling modernity and moderation. This Partnership for Prosperity should help provide the tools and funding necessary for moderates to win the debate in their own societies. In the final analysis, only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat radical Islam. But we can and should support this effort.

John Edwards: The situation in Iran has only gotten worse under this Administration's approach. Recently, Iran's hardliners rejected the UN's second resolution imposing new sanctions on Iran. Then, Ahmadinejad went ahead and announced his country had started enriching uranium on an industrial scale. Clearly, we need a new direction.

The situation is deadly serious, but there is a path forward. We need to continue to contain Iran through measures that will force the nation, over time, to finally understand the world community will not allow it to possess nuclear weapons.

You should never tie the hands of an American president or take any option off the table, but instead of focusing on military action, we should focus on the many steps in front of us that have not been used. Every major ally agrees a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and both China and Russia recently voted with the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran. We should continue to work with all these parties to help us put a system of carrots and sticks in place.

We first need to be negotiating directly with Iran. Communication will give us more information and more control. At the height of the Soviet Union, we still talked with the Kremlin, and we talked with China at the height of tensions. It's good that the Administration has just begun to talk with Iran, but in many ways these short talks are too little, too late. We need a fundamental re-engagement of the country.

For carrots, we should make nuclear fuel available to Iran and control the cycle, but allow Iran to use the fuel for any civilian purpose. Second, we need to offer an economic package. The Iranian economy is already struggling, and this would be very attractive to the people.

And, for sticks, we need to threaten much more serious economic sanctions if Iran continues its nuclear operations. We also need to take steps to isolate Ahmadinejad, so that the moderates and those within the country who want to see Iran succeed economically, can take advantage of it.

Sam Brownback: Ahmadinejad and the mullahs match genocidal rhetoric with proud defiance of international objections to their nuclear program. Their acquisition of nuclear weapons would constitute a threat to the security of the United States and the free world. This dangerous situation requires that all options remain on the table, demonstrating a credible and unwavering commitment to an Iran free of nuclear weapons.

The regime should understand the consequences of intransigence. We should speak directly to Iran and make our objections to its behavior clear. We should not negotiate with the regime, however, until it stops enriching uranium and supporting terrorism.

Our strong words should support strong actions. I propose a three-pronged solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis: squeeze the regime economically, undermine it politically, and expose it morally.
First, economic sanctions: We can and must de-fund the regime's ability to build and sustain a nuclear program.

As president, I would enforce all sanctions authorized in the Iran Sanctions Act, including against Russian, European, and Chinese corporations and financial institutions that invest in the Iranian oil and gas sectors. I would also call for additional sanctions and penalties included in the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, of which I am a cosponsor. I also believe we should encourage individuals, corporations and other countries to divest from Iran.

Second, political pressure: We must overhaul our public diplomacy efforts in Iran and challenge the regime's cynical manipulation of the nuclear issue. The Iranian people should hear that we support their desire for progress and better technology and stand with them in opposing the regime's drive for nuclear weapons. This will require US broadcasts that beam fewer hours of Britney Spears music and spend more time reporting on the regime's corruption and ineffectiveness. The Iranian people want democracy and we should give them the tools they need to reform their country from within.

Third, human rights: Any regime that relies on secret police, censorship, imprisonment, and torture to maintain its grip on power ought not be trusted to maintain a "peaceful, civilian nuclear program." The Iran Human Rights Act of 2007 ( S.1534), which I introduced earlier this month, outlines ways to leverage human rights and undermine the regime's credibility inside Iran and among the community of free nations.

Bill Richardson: Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons. But preventing Iran from going nuclear will require strong diplomacy backed by credible power and clarity of purpose. It also will take realism: above all, we must understand that no nation has ever been forced to renounce nukes, but that many have been persuaded to do so with a combination of carrots and sticks.

We need to approach the Iranian nuclear problem with both fierce determination and with open eyes. The key is to make them see that they will be better off and more secure without nukes than with them.

If we unite the world behind the right carrots and sticks, and provide the Iranians with face-saving ways to step back from the nuclear brink, we will prevail.

As we know from the Cold War, deterrence is above all a matter of clarity and credibility. We need to be absolutely clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and we need to be absolutely credible when we say what we will do about it if the Iranians continue to disregard the will of the international community.

The clear message must be this: develop nukes and you will face devastating global sanctions which will damage your economy and weaken you politically; desist from developing nukes and you will receive meaningful rewards, including robust security guarantees (above all from the United States), diplomatic recognition, better access to international credit and investment, guaranteed supplies of nuclear fuel from abroad, and an end to trade sanctions.

This sort of engagement, with a stick in one hand and a carrot in the other, is how we got Libya to renounce nukes, and this is how we must approach Iran.

For this message to be credible, the United States needs the solid support of the Europeans, China, and Russia in support of UN Security Council resolutions. If all these parties join us in sanctions, they will work. If they do not join us, they will not work. Russia is the key, because of its substantial economic interests in Iran, such as the Bushehr nuclear reactor.

Preventing Iran from going nuclear is inevitably linked to the power struggle between hardliners like President Amadenejad, on the one hand, and pragmatists and moderates in the Iranian leadership, on the other.

If we can keep Russia on board, the moderates and pragmatists will be strengthened. They will be further strengthened if we make sure that Iran can save face as it renounces nuclear enrichment. This is possible: Iran insists that it only wants nuclear energy, not weapons. Accordingly, a solution that guarantees them secure supplies of enriched uranium, to be monitored by the IAEA, may become politically palatable.

Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, June 11, 2007

Link

Latin Chamber's president has a new goal
He will resign to focus on voter turnout


By Tal Abbady
South Florida Sun-Sentinel

June 11, 2007


He arrived in Miami as a young refugee while his father languished in a Cuban prison.

But Jose "Pepe" Lopez kept his distance from Cuban exile politics, focusing instead on helping Hispanics in Broward County and becoming one of the community's key players.

Now Lopez, 59, the 10-year president of Broward's most influential Hispanic group, the Latin Chamber of Commerce, wants the country's fastest-growing minority group to flex its political muscle at the polls.

He plans to step down as chamber president this year to work to improve Hispanic voter turnout.

Though he'll remain actively involved with the chamber, Lopez's decision to end his tenure as president surprised local circles and the group's membership.

"When people think of the Latin Chamber, they think of Pepe Lopez, as much as he tries to convince people otherwise," said Andres Bejerano, president and co-owner of Traxxis GPS Solutions and chairman of the chamber's board of directors. "We're not going to let him go that easy."

Board members are trying to persuade Lopez to stay, perhaps by relieving him of some of his daily tasks as president. But Lopez says he's ready for the next phase of his life.

Among the chamber's first members in 1988, Lopez helped expand the group to include 600 members and 40 corporate partners who form the core of Broward's Hispanic business community and act as a resource for new business owners.

But Lopez says the organization has grown too linked with his name. He insists it's not a one-man show.

"I keep hearing, `If Pepe Lopez leaves, the chamber will crumble.' That's a myth," Lopez said. "We need new blood and new ideas."

Lopez says he'll continue to lobby on behalf of the chamber and plans to make his company, Florida State Business Consultants, a partner. He will also help board members find a larger office space to buy than the one they currently rent.

Grassroots leaders and business owners say Lopez built a power base for Hispanics in Broward County at a time when few South Florida Hispanics lived north of Miami. He helped launch the Hispanic Affairs Council in Hollywood and the social service agency Hispanic Unity. He's also one of the organizers of the Hollywood Beach Latin Festival.

"He's been a hard worker and a fighter for Hispanics. He's going to be missed," said Peter Hernandez, head of the Hispanic Affairs Council in Hollywood.

Through the years, leadership roles have come easily to Lopez, whose raspy voice and sharp humor grab audiences at chamber events, including an annual legislative lunch that draws hundreds of business owners.

A teenager when he fled Cuba with his mother and sister in 1961, he grew up without his father, Domingo Lopez Roja, a police captain who was arrested by Fidel Castro's government. Lopez joined anti-Castro youth groups in Miami but wasn't engaged by exile politics.

He worked as a police officer in Hollywood from 1975 to 1981, eventually becoming president of the Hollywood Police Benevolent Association.

"I loved being a cop. I loved chasing people, but then it became too political," he said.

He became a private investigator but always sought to promote the presence of Hispanics in a county that was primarily white and non-Hispanic.

"A lot of people here at that time had come running out of Hialeah, and I don't have to tell you who they were running from," Lopez said.

When the chamber came along, it was a natural platform for Lopez, members say.

"He's helped us grow from a small little organization that had a club atmosphere into a force in the business community," Bejerano said.

The chamber celebrated its 20th anniversary last year, just as census figures showed Hispanics constitute 22 percent of Broward's population.

"This is just the beginning. Politically, we have the numbers," Lopez said, referring to Broward County's roughly 118,000 registered Hispanic voters. "But it doesn't mean much because Hispanics who run for office get few votes."

Lopez, who ran unsuccessfully for Hollywood's city commission in 2000, plans to dedicate himself to an organization he recently founded, the Latin American Voters Association. The group will organize voter turnout drives and publish information about candidates and issues to educate Hispanic voters before local elections.

"It's my aim to get Hispanics elected to political positions," Lopez said.

He says retirement is out of the question, citing his 84-year-old mother, who works as a seamstress in Kendall. He's also not worried about the chamber's survival.

"I don't know if it's the Cuban coffee we serve at our meetings, but we have members who've been with us for 10 years," he said.

Tal Abbady can be reached at tabbady@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4523.


Copyright © 2007, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Monday, June 11, 2007


Link

Democrats court votes of Hispanics


Party activists, politicians say trends are changing, cutting Republican support



By Anthony Man
Political Writer

June 11, 2007



HOLLYWOOD · No longer willing to write off Hispanics on the assumption that they're automatically Republican voters, Florida Democrats are increasingly courting them as a promising source of support.

"We're not going to cede one Hispanic vote," said U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, one of dozens of elected officials at a weekend Democratic Party conference at the Westin Diplomat Resort & Spa.

Invigorating the party's efforts to court Hispanic voters could yield a powerful advantage for Democrats, but Wasserman Schultz said Hispanic voters often get too little attention in South Florida campaigns.

"People automatically think Republican and they're totally wrong," she said. "In election after election in South Florida, Hispanics are the swing vote that makes the difference."

State Rep. Darren Soto, D-Orlando, agreed. "They will go `Viva Bush' one year and they will go viva someone else another year."

Soto was one of two first-term state legislators -- along with state Rep. Luis Garcia Jr., D-Miami Beach -- who energized a gathering of the party's Hispanic Caucus.

Last fall, Garcia won the previously Republican seat that includes the Little Havana section of Miami. Garcia, who was appointed a vice chairman of the state party over the weekend, is starting a Democratic Club in Little Havana.

Soto became the fourth Hispanic Democrat in the House by winning a special election this spring. But the party is still far behind the Republicans, who have a large contingent of Hispanic lawmakers from Miami-Dade County.

Still, Garcia, Soto and Wasserman Schultz said several factors put the Hispanic vote in play. Among them: Non-Cubans aren't as likely to have historical ties to the Republican Party as Cuban-Americans.

"Living in Weston, I see it just walking around the neighborhood. There are people from Colombia, Venezuela and Peru. They don't have the same preconditioning to vote Republican," said Weston resident Andrew Torres, president of the new Broward chapter of the state Democratic Party's Hispanic Caucus.

Garcia said Fidel Castro's grip on power has helped the Republicans, especially with older Cuban-Americans, "because he's the boogeyman." Democrats said younger Cuban-Americans, born in this country, don't have the same intensity of feelings toward Castro and don't have the same ties to the Republican Party as their parents.

Florida U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said once Castro is gone, "you will see Cuban-Americans shift to the Democratic Party."

Nelson said that's happening already, citing his own re-election last year, in which he won more than 40 percent of the vote in Hialeah precincts.

Torres said the increasing numbers of younger voters and people from countries other than Cuba make this a good time to capitalize on trends favoring Democrats.

"There's a fantastic opportunity to attract more Hispanics to the Democratic Party," he said. "We want to provide a vehicle where more Hispanics, especially younger Hispanics, are involved."

Soto warned that such factors wouldn't produce results on their own. Candidates must craft their campaigns carefully.

Overwhelmingly Catholic, Hispanic voters might be more conservative on social issues such as abortion and gay rights than many in the Democratic Party, Soto and Torres said.

Garcia and Soto said their successful campaigns showed that common campaign techniques need to be finessed.

For example, Soto said, many Hispanic people work two or three jobs and are less likely to have the time and energy to pay attention to traditional political advertising. Personal contact is vital.

Soto said it is important to make voting easy. Garcia credits his victory to an effective effort to get voters to use absentee ballots, a strategy long dominated by the Republicans.

And Soto said it is a good idea to reach out to voters with at least some use of Spanish, "even it it's a sentence here or there." That can greatly increase a voter's comfort level with a candidate. "A lot of people who only speak Spanish are still eligible to vote."

Millie Herrera, past president of the state Hispanic Democratic Caucus who has run for office in Miami-Dade County and served as a party official, said Democrats must do a better job than in the past.

"If the Democratic Party has not reached out to the Hispanic community, and the Republican Party has, they will go with the Republican Party or register non-partisan," she said.

Anthony Man can be reached at aman@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4550.

I am still getting over a head cold and apologize to our Florida volunteers for being unable - though quite willing - to join their debate watch parties in person.

I am pleased to read the positive comments about Governor Richardson's perfomance in last night's New Hampshire debate, but as a father who often praises his kids with a dose of realism, I was disappointed by the Governor's performance. It wasn't that he didn't have a message but compared to some of the others, he had a difficult time getting his thoughts out concisely befor being cut off by the moderator.

I cringed a few times, when the moment called for a clear and confident response that wcould have distinguished the Governor from some of the other candidates. An example of that: on the final question of the evening about what his #1 priority during his 100 first days -- if eveything was still the same then as now -- was as beautifully set up a question as we would have possibly written it ourselves. The succinct answer would have reinforced his outstanding international diplomatic qualifications, but the Governor answered that primary school education and teacher minimum wage would be his #1 priority -- a commendable policy nevertheless --but in a debate where he clearly outranks just about everyone else on his vast international experience -- the Governor allowed Dodd, Edwards, Clinton, Obama and most importantly Biden to have the last word about ending the Iraq war and restoring the strained relationships with our allies and engaging with our adversaries.

I have heard the Governor say this himself so many times. Why did he not say it in the debate?

The second cringing moment: I heard the Governor say that he holds China accountable for the intransigence of the Sudanese government in accepting international peacekeepers that can put an end to genocide in Darfur. The situation in Darfur is a major personal concern of mine. I am not sure that Save Darfur Coalition would share the Governor's view that boycotting the Beijing Olympics in the summer of 2008 is the immediate and concrete resolution to stopping genocide today. Boycotting the Moscow summer Olympics in 1980 did nothing to end the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and I doubt that a similar boycott would do anything to put pressure on the Chinese Government to convince Sudan to end Janjaweed attacks on Sudanese civilians. If anything, it would piss off the Chinese. That is not the answer I was expecting to hear from a diplomat. I also heard him oppose no fly zones - which others in the debate supported. I am sorry, he lost me there.

Did the Governor go off-text inadvertently or did he imply that he would actually wait more than 12 months to stop genocide? The question was another slam dunk for the Governor to accentuate his diplomatic credentials; what came out of that is something that puzzled me personally.

I had missed last Sunday's Meet the Press. I was told privately that the Governor needed coaching in being more precise with his answers. Having watched last night's debate, I would have to agree that we have our job to do in the coming weeks to be more precise with our answers, and find ways to clearly use the Governor's intermational diplomatic experience to our benefit.

The format of the July 23 debate would insist on NOT sounding like an experienced politician, but more as a dynamic leader with a positive vision who can motivate younger voters.

I am still and will remain a loyal Richardson supporter, because of my belief that the country needs someone of his experience and leadership. I hope that my rant can have some positive value as we still have months before most of the voters take a critical final look at the candidates before voting in the first caucus or primaries.

In addition to Kevin Baker, do we any others with contacts to YD's across our state? Frankly, I didn't know we had this many chapters:

Link