[Quick note from the Duchess ... yep, its been awhile since my last update on my own "news" and I promise to have something for you soon. Its just that I've been a busy gal with work projects and volunteer duties. Stay tune.......]

Kucinich Tells Airport Audience He's In Demo Race To Win
DESERET MORNING NEWS
by Jody Genessy
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590045156,00.html

Demos Zero In On Nuke Testing
SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
by Thomas Burr
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02232004/utah/utah.asp

JOHN OR JOHN
by David Christopher Naylor Swanson
david@davidswanson.org
http://www.davidswanson.org
[Former Press Secretary to the DJK campaign]
February 19, 2004

Is there a substantive difference between John Kerry and John Edwards? You wouldn't know it from the issue-free media coverage. CBS touches on issues in 21.4 percent of its campaign coverage, 33.4 percent for ABC, and 32 percent for NBC, according to a study by MediaChannel.org, which must have been extremely generous in defining a story as dealing with issues. Still, you might know that Edwards is younger and better looking, and you might get the impression that the media has decided that seeing Edwards pull ahead will be a more exciting horse race than watching Kerry coast along. And that - what the media wants - is usually all that matters. Still, just for the heck of it, I thought I'd try to find out what it might mean for our jobs, schools, health care, farms, etc., for one of these guys to be in the White House, and whether one of them might be in any way preferable to the other.

I shouldn't call the media issue-free. After all, they have told us that Edwards is against NAFTA. But what does that mean? Kucinich repeatedly challenged all of the other candidates to commit to repealing NAFTA. Rev. Al Sharpton was the only one who ever made that commitment. So, Edwards is against NAFTA and against repealing it, whatever that means. The media has also told us that Edwards is more "moderate" than Kerry. What does that mean? They both voted for the war. They both supported President Bush's claims regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They both want to continue the occupation of Iraq. They both voted for the "PATRIOT Act." They both want to maintain the current health care system of HMOs and for-profit insurance. They both refuse to defend same-sex marriage. Neither one is proposing free preschool and college. Neither one is offering a WPA-type jobs program. Neither one will make any cuts at the Pentagon. Neither one, in other words, is Dennis Kucinich. But the media has decided to call Kerry the liberal one and Edwards the moderate, which would seem to mean - if nothing else -- that the media plans to have Edwards win.

The media has insisted for the past year on giving these candidates lots of attention, including Edwards when he was nowhere in the polls. For much of 2003, both Kucinich and Edwards were stuck in the low-to-mid single digits in both national and Iowa-only polls. Journalists might have written Edwards off as a long-shot and stopped covering his campaign. Instead, pundit Joe Klein [who is an ass] called Kucinich a "vanity" candidate while labeling Edwards and Joe Lieberman "serious candidates who have yet to catch fire." The pattern of media coverage showed that many journalists held similar attitudes. Edwards received respectful coverage, not to mention newspaper endorsements, in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses. The main way in which issues have squeezed into the media coverage is through the Associated Press, which has asked each campaign for short answers to questions and published the responses.

A review of the AP answers by the two Johns shows the following. Both Johns take similar strong positions that contrast with Bush on school vouchers, on immigrants' rights, on veterans' rights, on health savings accounts, on balancing the budget, and on gun laws. Both Johns favor an identical pathetically small adjustment to the minimum wage. Both Johns give vague non-answers that still sound better than Bush on the Kyoto climate change treaty, on trade agreements, and on sanctions against Cuba. On the question of civil unions for same-sex couples (the question did not ask about marriage) Kerry said he strongly supported that right, while Edwards said he supported such rights but was careful to indicate he wanted it left up to states. On the question of volunteer service, Kerry offered a more substantive and specific answer, while Edwards - among other things - suggested more neighborhood watches as a "homeland security effort."

A second media source of a little bit longer statements on the issues is the PBS News Hour website at:
http://www.votebyissue.org/primary/
On this site, you can read the candidates' answers to issues questions, or you can take a quiz in which you pick your favorite answers without knowing until afterward which candidates they came from. The quiz part of the site only includes candidates who are still in the race, plus Howard Dean who will presumably be removed soon. Here's a quick comparison of Kerry and Edwards based on PBS:

Both Johns agree on Social Security, opposing privatization, means testing, or raising the retirement age (though both also fail to propose restoring it to 65). They agree on partial repeal of some of the abuses of the "PATRIOT Act," leaving others in place. Both Johns speak of poverty and homelessness with the insight and empathy typical of a Republican. Both claim the 1996 demolition of welfare has been a success. Edwards puts some of the blame for poverty on fathers, some of it on teens who get pregnant (he thinks a national media campaign will help with that problem), and he says - I kid you not - " we also must address the root causes of homelessness such as substance abuse and mental illnesses." Nowhere does he mention the cost of housing. Both Johns say they will provide child care, health care, education, and job training. Edwards throws in - as he seems to do on most issues - tax credits. Kerry at least connects homelessness to the problem of finding affordable housing. Both Johns would enforce current trade agreements and proceed with the Free Trade Area of the Americas but include labor and environmental protections in it. Both would, rather alarmingly, give tax breaks to corporations to keep jobs in America. " I will give a 10 percent tax cut to corporations that produce goods here and keep jobs at home," says Edwards. (That will probably drain the public treasury but not be very influential.) Both Johns will close the offshore PO Box loophole. Edwards says he will stop at the border any goods produced in highly abusive conditions, but does not explain how he will square this with NAFTA and the WTO. Kerry says he will review all of our trade agreements for 120 days, as if the loss of millions of jobs had not yet registered with him. Kerry does plan retraining programs to help displaced workers find new jobs.

Edwards will address the health care crisis with - you guessed it - tax credits, plus increased federal funding. Kerry will do the same. On gun control and gay rights they say the same things on PBS as they said in the AP. On energy and the environment, they both provide similar strong platforms that contrast with Bush. Kerry's is the most specific in its promises (albeit over 10 or 16 years): "I'll make the U.S. independent of Middle East oil in ten years-and create 500,000 jobs by investing in renewable energy sources, such as ethanol, solar, and wind. And we'll use renewable fuels to produce 20% of our electricity by 2020." On employment, the only thing new here from Edwards is: "My REACH Fund and Economic Revitalization Zones will bring venture capital and management expertise to create businesses in rural and urban areas that are losing jobs today." Kerry adds to what he's said elsewhere, that he will create a "State Tax Relief and Education Fund that will help states with $50 billion over two years to stop the education cuts, tuition increases and tax raising that are inhibiting our economic growth, causing layoffs and hurting families," and a "College Opportunity Tax Credit that will make four years of college affordable for all Americans."

On the economy, the only thing new here is Edwards' promise that "tax credits will help families buy their first home and save and invest." On education, both Johns say they would fully fund No Child Left Behind. Kerry, really getting into the tax-credits-fix-anything groove laid down by Edwards says, "I'll ensure that young people have a place to go after school with increased funding and a new After-School tax credit to help millions of parents." Meanwhile Edwards says he'll give college scholarships to students willing to teach where they're needed most, and "expand after school centers and early childhood education [and] offer excellent, voluntary preschool to 1 million children. He will also "ask colleges and universities to 'adopt' struggling schools." He'll also "offer students one year of tuition at a public college in exchange for working 10 hours a week." So much for PBS.

In hopes of once and for all figuring out which of these senators would make a better president, I read the issues information on their campaign websites. This provides a little more detail on mainly the same points covered by the AP and PBS. You can read about Kerry's tax credits for college scheme and try to calculate whether or not you'll be able to afford higher education. He also offers four years free if you then give two years to national service.

Edwards' website is surprisingly informative, given his speaking habits, but does not provide many new themes not touched on in AP and PBS. You can read a little more about his "Rural Economic Advancement Challenge, or REACH fund, to bring venture capital and management expertise to entrepreneurs and small businesses in small towns and areas that are losing jobs today." He also wants to designate towns and areas hard hit by foreign trade as Economic Revitalization Zones that are eligible for tax credits and other aid to encourage business investment, which sounds like a recipe for ocrporate welfare as a correction to the problems created by our trade agreements' corporate welfare.

And, "to help working Americans invest in American business, Edwards will cut capital gains taxes for 95% of Americans." This guy may be the son of a mill worker, but he may want to consider families' need to pay their bills before they start investing. Edwards will also create matching savings accounts, matching "$1 in private savings with as much as a $1 refundable tax credit for savings." (Again, where will people find money to save, and how will this not threaten Social
Security?)

Edwards does say he will raise taxes on unearned income for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans and "retain the tax on very large estates." Edwards also says he will cut government employees by 10 percent, but exclude "defense and homeland security" from any cuts. Finally, Edwards would "close government agencies that have outlived their usefulness, such as the Office of Thrift Supervision," but he does not explain why the OTS is no longer useful or whether its work would be done by the federal or state governments, something of concern to those fighting predatory lending. In the end, I cannot offer a powerful argument for why Kerry or Edwards is preferable to the other, although I lean toward Kerry. Both are clearly preferable to Bush. But clearly both of them could benefit from being pushed in the direction of the democratic wing of the Democratic party. So, my recommendation is to vote for Kucinich in the remaining primaries and caucuses in order to push whichever of these two wins in a positive direction.