The YouTube page has a description that makes an important point.

The Bush Administration's mindless threats to use nuclear bunker busters against Iranian nuclear research facilities could, if implemented, wipe out 2.6 million people in Iran, Pakistan, and India, and expose another 10.5 million to nuclear fallout.

If you think there are too many terrorists now, think of how many terrorists such an attack would recruit.

Why is it that there are so few politicians in either the GOP or the Democratic Party that actually show any common sense or common decency? Kucinich should not be the rare exception to the dismal rule of politicians. The rest of Congress should be following his lead, not trying to marginalize him because corporate and wealthy donors don't like what he has to say.

 

From their Action Alert:

No Compromise on Liberty

As we’re celebrating independence and freedom this Independence Day, many senators are getting ready to come back to Washington and sell out some of our most fundamental freedoms.

This July 8, senators will make a crucial decision: whether or not to eviscerate our treasured right to privacy in our own homes and let lawbreaking telecom companies off the hook for handing over private information without a warrant.

Email your senators today. Demand they protect your privacy and the rule of law.

The default text for the email also makes an important point:

Please also reject any bill that lets the president keep spying on the personal phone calls and emails of Americans without getting a warrant. Checks and balances are critical in our democracy.

You have to ask what the point is in electing Democrats if they are going to act like Republicans on issues like stopping FISA expansion which are vital to our freedoms as Americans.

 

Here's a description of the Green Party presidential candidate questionnaire from the McKinney campaign website.

Many state Parties formulate their state ballots from a list of Presidential candidates recognized by the Presidential Campaigns Support Committee of the Green Party of the United States. Besides access to the Green Party's nominating process, the list is also used to govern access to Party resources and support.

Part of the process involved responding to a questionnaire which included many questions on issues of public policy.

Ms. McKinney has a lot to say in her answers to the questions from the Green Party. Cynthia McKinney's description of her campaign's goals shows a tremendous grasp of long-term thinking that is treated as heresy by most pundits and politicians these days.

I am entering this process because I believe a successful Green Party campaign can do the following:

--Institutionalize the Green Party as a meaningful, effective, and permanent part of the United States' political landscape;

--Popularize and grow the Green Party as an electoral/social vehicle to unite people across socio-economic lines that are often used to divide;

--Recognize and publicize the internationalization of problems facing average households across our nation;

--Inject radical common sense solutions into our national political debate;

and

--Positively affect public policy to improve our quality of life with justice for all.

Building a real alternative party to the Republicans and Democrats is a critically important political project. Ralph Nader's candidacy represents a protest against the status quo, but a Green candidacy builds for the future while speaking out against how terribly fucked up things are in the present.

McKinney's answers to the public policy questions represent what liberal values and politics are all about. Even if you don't plan on voting for her, it still is worthwhile to familiarize yourself with what she has to say. I'll end with a really great quote from her.

My service in the Congress gave me a clear understanding of how our system works -- or doesn't work -- for average, ordinary Americans whose values our policies purport to represent.

Read Ms. McKinney's Answers to the Green Party Questionnaire.

 

Some Notes on Living is a wonderful blog. Proudprogressive is my favorite writer there, though the others have quite a lot to say too. I just read a posting on Trans Pride in SF with a couple of sentences which say something of critical importance.

Remember if Gender ID and Expression is not protected - seriously no lesbians or gays are truly protected either. No matter how well you are assimilated. To society at large - we are all gay , all queer. The Ts are the canaries in our coal mine - don’t kid yourselves.

The same is true of the leather community, the sexually liberated (sometimes referred to as "promiscuous"), and the polyamorous. Until someone accepts as an equal every butch dyke, leatherperson, drag queen, and every other person whose very being makes it impossible to forget they are queer, they don't accept the most assimilated lgbt person either.

 

I never thought I would be devoting so much text to a rapid right-wing shift by Barack Obama. He already was a centrist, so the media is being deceptive when they say he is shifting towards, rather than away from the center. He keeps acting more and more like Hillary Clinton and John "Keating Five" McCain.

However, one encouraging point is that Obama's rightward shift did not seem to help him in the latest CNN poll.

The latest disturbing Obama position was his pronouncement that he would expand Bush's hate-based initiative to shift public funding from inclusive charities to religious ones. This is doubly discriminatory against atheists. It forces atheist taxpayers to pay for religious indoctrination, and it puts atheists in hostile environments when they want to participate equally in government funded services.

Also, the very premise of these hate-based initiatives is bigoted against atheists. The shifting of funds provides no tangible benefits for the poor. (The corruption in so many churches means that they almost certainly are resulting in less federal money actually reaching the poor.) The claim behind this garbage is that religious faith somehow makes someone more responsible and morally superior. The lack of even questioning, much less challenging, of such absolute nonsense shows how prejudice against freethinkers permeates our society and the corporate media that help to shape it. (Note: I refer to these initiatives as "hate-based" rather than "faith-based" because the former more accurately reflects the programs' true intent.)

The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has a great 7/1/08 press release that focuses on the state/church separation aspect of the issue. The text follows:

FFRF Protests Pious One-Upmanship by Political Candidates

Faith-Based Initiative Should Be Abolished, Not Renamed

July 1, 2008

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics), today condemned Barack Obama's "gratuitous" pandering and his pledge to expand and rename George Bush's faith-based initiative. The Foundation is a nonpartisan educational organization working to keep church and state separate, which has taken the lead in legal challenges against the faith-based initiative.

Statement by Foundation co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor:

Just as seven years ago the Foundation condemned Pres. George W. Bush's creation of his misguided "faith-based initiative," today the Foundation protests the shortsightedness of candidate Barack Obama in endorsing its continuation.

This is the wrong direction for our country. The next president should have the integrity and courage to back off from Bush's fiasco and abolish the so-called faith-based initiative. It has been a waste of taxpayers' money, has injected religion into politics, deprived needy clients of the best help, and has punched a huge hole in America's vaunted "wall of separation between church and state."

It's lovely to say, as Obama does, that "I believe deeply in the separation of church and state." But actions speak louder than words. There is negligible difference between Obama's and Bush's stated provisos on the faith-based initiative. Like Obama, Bush claimed the faith-based initiative would not allow religious groups to use public grants to proselytize or discriminate against clients, and that public money going to places of worship was only to be used for secular programs. But there is no accountability and no monitoring provisions, as the GAO audit of 2006 documented.

It's also fine for Obama to say the government and its recipients are going to follow the law. But every day at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, we field complaints about violations of the separation between church and state even over established law, such as school prayer. Obama offers no plan for monitoring the constitutional pitfall of a "partnership" between religion and government.

The Foundation has taken and won many court challenges against the faith-based initiative. For instance, a federal judge in our Faith Works case in Milwaukee ruled in 2002 that $800,000 in direct federal subsidy to a ministry that existed to "bring homeless addicts directly to Christ" was unconstitutional. The funds were spent (and wasted) by the time we won the case. In 2005, we halted the final federal grant to MentorKids USA, in which volunteer mentors had to sign a statement that they believed literally in the creation story before they could go on to openly proselytize children of prisoners. We stopped a "parish nursing program" in Montana in 2003, and in 2007 a "chaplaincy" in Indiana set up to minister to state employees. Important and pioneering as our legal cases have been, they are a mere drop in the bucket in terms of the public financing of proselytization under the faith-based scheme.

Obama praises Take Youth Education for Tomorrow, a program run by churches and church schools to teach reading after school and during the summer, largely in church settings. Churches and the offices of religious organizations are innately coercive environments. What about parents who don't want their children to have to go to church in order to get reading help? When taxpayers are footing the bill, such programs should be held in a neutral setting--there is, after all, no shortage of public schools, already tax-supported!

It is not only the 16% of the population who is nonreligious who is offended. Many Muslims are forbidden to enter Christian churches. Jewish children may not feel comfortable entering a Christian church. Even many Christian sects are uneasy about adherents entering churches run by competing denominations. The idea is fraught with practical and constitutional peril.

Weirdly, Obama criticizes Bush for failing to reach out to faith-based groups about how to apply for federal dollars. Yet this was a cornerstone of Bush's faith-based initiative. At countless regional and federal faith-based conferences, hands-on technical support at public expense (including "free lunches") is exactly what the Bush Administration has offered churches and religious agencies for seven expensive years!

Obama says "we all have to work together--Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and nonbeliever alike--to meet the challenges of the 21st century." True, even laudable. But that does not mean "we" should all be taxed to support churches or religious agencies. Many Americans proudly are descended from immigrants who came here to escape mandatory tithes and taxation in support of churches against their consent.

Obama's tone is more balanced than Bush's. But he spoils the effect by criticizing those "who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square." Secularists have never said faith can't be displayed in public. We do insist that faith should not be part of government, subsidized by government or promoted by government. The genius of the founders of our secular republic was to recognize that keeping religion and government separate is the way to prevent religious corruption and coercion.

Obama's reference to needing "people of faith on Capitol Hill"--as if Capitol Hill weren't at the moment dominated by "people of faith"--is both a naive platitude and exclusionary. How would religionists feel if Obama had said: "We need people without faith on Capitol Hill"?

Let's abolish the faith-based initiative and go back to the days before John Ashcroft first proposed so-called "charitable choice." Religious social services have always been free to bid for social service grants, but they were expected to create a secular arm, keep separate books and take their crosses down. A return to the status quo is the simple answer to the mess created by Bush's faith-based initiative.

Obama's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is merely a renaming of Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Ironically, nearly everything Obama criticizes Bush's initiative for ("it was used to promote partisan interests," "it has to be a real partnership--not a photo-op") can be said of Obama's plan and his "photo-op" speech today. Same taxi, different driver. Where's that vaunted "change" that Obama's campaign has been promising?

On a related topic, we are appalled at the arrogant, presumptuous hubris of politicians who claim to know "God's will." Obama joins an unfortunately long line of political candidates and public officials (which includes more than its fair share of despots), who talk about "fulfilling God's will" and "doing the Lord's work." Why are these politicians so special that they possess a direct pipeline to a divinity? The presidential candidates have crossed the line between acknowledging sincere personal faith to wearing faith on their sleeves and unapologetic political pandering. Both John McCain and Obama have been burned by their past close associations with pastors. Why can't they see that religion mixed with politics is always a combustible mixture?

Our country desperately needs a second political party.

 

The corporate media are claiming that Barack Obama has "moved to the center" after defeating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but he already was in the center. His shift is starting to make him sound disturbingly right wing. For instance, here are some comments from his infamous AIPAC speech on 6/4/08.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran - the hardliners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

First, let's correct the factual errors:

1) There is no evidence to support the view that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology, and they have not even suggested "a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists."

2) Iran does not pose a "grave threat to Israel." Israel, unlike Iran, is a nuclear power with an enormous military, paid for by you and me.

3) The main threat of an arms race in the Middle East is Israel's enormous military, not Iran.

Setting aside the factual errors for a moment, there is something more dangerous about Obama's rhetoric. It could help the corporate media create an impression of a broad consensus in our society for an American or Israeli attack on Iran, when no such consensus exists. It also encourages Iranian hardliners to press for a more militaristic stance against our country and to plan retaliation.

The consequences for queer Iranians are terrible. Whenever countries face foreign threats, the right always pushes for cultural conservatism and suppression of dissent. It happened in the time after 911 here, and it currently is happening in Iran.

The US already is in a terribly vulnerable position in the Middle East. We have tens of thousands of troops stuck in Iraq, a country with incredibly strong religious and cultural ties to Iran. Nearly every major Shi'ite and Kurdish political party is an Iranian ally, as are their corresponding militias. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis already support military attacks against the US troops occupying their country. The Bush regime and General "Betray Us" are pursuing an anti-Shi'ite policy in Iraq at the behest of the Saudi Royal Family, which is creating even greater animosity among the majority of the population.

Also, rising petroleum prices already are devastating the US economy. Oil closed at $142.97 on Friday. That means that crude oil prices went up 4% in just one week.

Obama's hyperbolic and irresponsible rhetoric on Iran is only adding to fears of disruption of world oil markets caused by the Bush regime's hyperbolic and irresponsible rhetoric on Iran. A lot of people blame speculators for the rise in oil prices, but the Iraq War, saber rattling with Venezuela, and saber rattling with Iran are giving investors a highly substantial basis for valuing petroleum higher.

This isn't quite the "bubble" the corporate media are telling you it is.

If Iran, one of the world's most important oil producers, is attacked, this will terribly disrupt world oil prices. Such a disruption would be even greater in the highly likely event that Iran retaliated against an attack on its sovereignty. A modest estimate of oil prices would be $250-300 per barrel.

If you don't like gas prices and our economy now...

When you add in the strain on our already overextended military, the Obama/Bush line on Iran is hugely irrational and irresponsible. Our military already is fighting two wars. It would crazy to up the ante to three wars, with the third country much more powerful than the first two combined. You don't have to have any fondness for the heterosexist, rightist, fundamentalist regime in Iran to see that there needs to be a lowering of rhetorical temperature between the US and Iran.

It's nice that Obama is still criticizing the entrance into the war in Iraq, but given his movement towards a pro-war/pro-occupation position in the future, even that is woefully insufficient.

 

Cynthia McKinney's March 17, 2007 speech at "March on the Pentagon" Rally.

She brought up issues that most alleged Democrats won't touch (e.g., right of return for Katrina survivors, impeachment). Although she is running for president as a Green, she is taking a much stronger stance in favor of Democratic Party values and policies than Obama or Clinton ever did.

The majority of Senate Democrats voted against a filibuster of a FISA bill primarily designed to green light wiretapping domestic political opponents of the executive branch. This presents us with a terrible example of political cowardice and the ability of the telecoms to buy politicians with campaign contributions. Seeing this reprehensible behavior was starkly in contrast to a recent press release by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) urging us to remember Leonard Matlovitch. Matlovitch came out in the military all the way back in 1975. Matlovitch's life reminds us of who people really should be and how far from it the scumbag politicians in Washington, DC really are. Here's the text of the press release.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 20, 2008
1:07 PM

Remembering Leonard Matlovitch

WASHINGTON, DC - June 20 - Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) marks the 20th anniversary of the death of retired Air Force Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich by renewing its call for the elimination of the ban on military service by gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans. Matlovich was the first servicemember to take the U.S. military to court over the ban, and one of the most famous gay people of his era.

SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said, “Leonard Matlovich’s extraordinary courage in a time when gays and lesbians faced extreme prejudice is an example for us all. He was a brave pioneer and set off a struggle that we can finally envision winning. The debt that gay veterans—and the entire gay community—owe to Sergeant Matlovich cannot be overstated.”

Matlovich (1943-1988) was the recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star during three tours of duty in Vietnam. Angered by the ban, he purposely declared his homosexuality in a 1975 letter to Air Force Secretary John McLucas and fought to remain in the military. Sergeant Matlovich’s case won widespread media attention. On September 8, 1975, Matlovich appeared on the cover of Time magazine

After losing his bid to remain in the Air Force through their administrative proceedings, a US District Court judge ordered Matlovich reinstated with back pay. After more litigation, Matlovich eventually accepted a financial settlement and an upgrade to honorable discharge. He continued his tireless efforts for gay equality in the civilian sector. Matlovich announced he had AIDS during an interview with Charlie Gibson on “Good Morning America” in 1987. He died on June 22, 1988, just two weeks before his 45th birthday.

Even in death, Matlovich remains an important figure in the gay community. His tombstone in Washington, DC’s Congressional Cemetery, where additional gay veterans have since chosen to be buried, reads "When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one." Matlovich’s military career and lawsuit are documented in the Out Ranks exhibit currently on display at the GLBT Historical Society in San Francisco. Installation of a memorial plaque on the site of Matlovich’s former San Francisco residence in the Castro neighborhood is planned for later this year.

“In Leonard’s memory, and in the honor of all gay veterans and servicemembers, we must redouble our efforts to overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” said Sarvis.

Statistician Gary Gates of the Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that there are currently 65,000 gays serving in the armed forces.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is a national, non-profit legal services, watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment of military personnel affected by ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and related forms of intolerance. For more information, visit www.sldn.org.

 

Barack Obama, like his two main Republican opponents Hillary Clinton and John "Keating Five" McCain, decided that voting to filibuster the unconstitutional and dangerous FISA law changes in the Senate wasn't worth the bother. Only 14 Democrats and one independent socialist voted to keep this sickening legislation off of the Senate floor.

Obama's inaction is only surpassed by his words. See Huffington Post 6/25/08:

"The bill has changed but I don't think the security threats have changed. I think the security threats are similar," said the Illinois Democrat. "My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people. I do want accountability, and making sure, as I've said before, someone is watching the watchers, that you don't have an administration that feels that it can make its own determinations about when warrantless wiretaps are applicable without going through a FISA court and that's what we had."

There is a boldface lie in there.

This FISA bill is not intended to protect "the security interests of the American people." In fact, it undermines our security. FISA currently gives the executive branch everything it needs to fight terrorism. The purpose of warrantless and unconstitutional spying always has been to spy on domestic political opponents. Obama knows this and thinks he can bullshit the American people, just like McCain and Clinton do.

The problem of the GOP style behavior among most Democrats including Obama and Clinton requires examination, not support. I haven't decided what to do in the fall elections, but I am leaning strongly Green after the FISA betrayal by Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party "leadership." If Obama is going to be a Bush/Pelosi/McCain/Clinton/Hoyer/Cheney clone, then it really is time to give up on the Democratic Party and never look back.

 

Hat Tip to Marc Crispin Miller's blog Notes from the Underground.

From Democracy Now! 6/24/08:

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Feingold, will you filibuster this bill?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: We are going to resist this bill. We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also—Senator Dodd and I and others will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We’re not just going to let it be rubberstamped.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you filibuster, though?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: That’s what I just described.

However, a subsequent posting on Notes from the Underground reports on a contact with a Feingold staffer.

Just got off the telephone with Senator Feingold's office. He is dead set against the bill. However, I was repeatedly advised that his comments on Democracy Now were misinterpreted. Oh? Thereafter, I was told that the senator is " not yet " committed to undertaking a filibuster. This is horrific.

This underscores the importance of contacting the Obama Campaign and calling Senators demanding a filibuster of this unconstitutional and unAmerican legislation.

 

Congress has been way too willing to go along with the Bush regime's efforts to use our constitution as toilet paper. The latest example is legislation that not only gives telecoms and the Bush regime immunity for past illegal spying on the American people, but also gives even more leeway to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

FISA already gives more than enough wiggle room already for any administration to do surveillance on any actual terrorist. The Bush regime had all the intelligence tools they needed to prevent the 911 attacks; they just didn't try. The real reason Bush and his cronies want to get around FISA is because they would like to continue spying on decent, patriotic people whose only "offense" is disagreeing with Bush regime policies.

Background from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Please take the following steps to oppose this attack on American civilization.

1. Barack Obama originally supported this legislation, repeating the Bush/Pelosi spin that it is a compromise. Now, he has clarified his position (hat tip to From the Left) to the extent that he will work to strip the telecom immunity from the final bill. That's a step in the left direction, but he really should filibuster the whole damned thing.

Contact the Obama campaign and demand that he filibuster the unconstitutional domestic spying legislation.

2. Call your Senators and tell them to filibuster the legislation (voting against it is not enough):

From a 6/23/08 email blast by the Center for American Progress Action Fund:

No Immunity for Telecoms that Illegally Spy on US!

Last Friday, the House of Representatives granted de facto amnesty to the phone companies who cooperated with the Bush administration's illegal spying on American citizens. Our final opportunity to prevent this from becoming law lies with the Senate. We must stop the Senate from making the same terrible decision, a decision that chips away at one of our most fundamental and progressive values-the right to privacy.

Please call your senators right now and tell them to vote against any bill that lets the Bush administration and these telecom companies off the hook for shredding the constitution.

We cannot let the Senate give the phone companies and the Bush administration a free ride for past and future violations of our basic civil liberties. If we join together and ask our Senators to stop this bill by supporting a filibuster and voting NO against a bill that gives the phone companies amnesty, we can protect our privacy rights from this assault by conservative forces in Congress.

Call Your Senators Today.

The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121 (see below for a list of direct numbers). Tell them your state and ask them to connect you to your senator. Be sure to speak with both senators from your state. When you complete your calls, let us know what happened using this report form.

In addition to giving phone companies a free pass, this bill fails to restore adequate judicial review for future surveillance, which will continue to put our privacy rights at risk. Protecting our privacy rights is a core progressive value. Don't let them slip away. Take action by calling your senator today. And don't forget to report back to us.

...

Direct Phone Numbers to Senators (Listed by State)

Alabama
Sen. Richard Shelby (R) (202) 224-5744; 224-3416
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) (202) 224-4124; 224-3149

Alaska
Sen. Ted Stevens (R) (202) 224-3004; 224-2354
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) (202) 224-6665; 224-5301

Arizona
Sen. Jon Kyl (R) (202) 224-4521; 224-2207
Sen. John McCain (R) (202) 224-2235; 228-2862

Arkansas
Sen. Blanch Lincoln (D) (202) 224-4843; 228-1371
Sen. Mark Pryor (D) (202) 224-2353; 228-0908

California
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) (202) 224-3553; (202)228-2382
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) (202) 224-3841; 228-3954

Colorado
Sen. Wayne Allard (R) (202) 224-5941; 224-6471
Sen. Ken Salazar (D) (202) 224-5852; 228-5036

Connecticut
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D) (202) 224-2823; 224-1083
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I) (202) 224-4041; 224-9750

Delaware
Sen. Joseph Biden (D) (202) 224-5042; 224-0139
Sen. Thomas Carper (R) (202) 224-2441; 228-2190

Florida
Sen. Bill Nelson (D) (202) 224-5274; 228-2183
Sen. Mel Martinez (R) (202) 224-3041; 228-5171

Georgia
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) (202) 224-3521; 224-0103
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R) (202) 224-3643; 228-0724

Hawaii
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D) (202) 224-6361; 224-2126
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D) (202) 224-3934; 224-6747

Idaho
Sen. Larry Craig (R) (202) 224-2752; 228-1067
Sen. Michael Crapo (R) (202) 224-6142; 228-1375

Illinois
Sen. Dick Durbin (D) (202) 224-2152; 228-0400
Sen. Barack Obama (D) (202) 224-2854; 228-5417

Indiana
Sen. Evan Bayh (D) (202) 224-5623; 228-1377
Sen. Richard Lugar (R) (202) 224-4814; 228-0360

Iowa
Sen. Charles Grassley (R) (202) 224-3744; 224-6020
Sen. Tom Harkin (D) (202) 224-3254; 224-9369

Kansas
Sen. Sam Brownback (R) (202) 224-6521; 228-1265
Sen. Pat Roberts (R) (202) 224-4774; 224-3514

Kentucky
Sen. Jim Bunning (R) (202) 224-4343; 228-1373
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) (202) 224-2541; 224-2499

Louisiana
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) (202) 224-5824; 224-9735
Sen. David Vitter (R) (202) 224-4623; 228-5061

Maine
Sen. Susan Collins (R) (202) 224-2523; 224-2693
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) (202) 224-5344; 224-1946

Maryland
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D) (202) 224-4654; 224-8858
Sen. Ben Cardin (D) (202) 224-4524: 224-1651

Massachusetts
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D) (202) 224-4543; 224-2417
Sen. John Kerry (D) (202) 224-2742; 224-8525

Michigan
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) (202) 224-4822; 228-0325
Sen. Carl Levin (D) (202) 224-6221; 224-1388

Minnesota
Sen. Norm Coleman (R) (202) 224-5641; 224-1152
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) (202) 224-3244; 228-2186

Mississippi
Sen. Thad Cochran (R) (202) 224-5054; 224-9450
Sen. Roger Wicker (R) (202) 224-6253; 224-2262

Missouri
Sen. Christopher Bond (R) (202) 224-5721; 224-8149
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) (202) 224-6154; 228-6326

Montana
Sen. Max Baucus (D) (202) 224-2651; 224-4700
Sen. John Tester (D) (202) 224-2644; 224-8594

Nebraska
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) (202) 224-4224; 224-5213
Sen. Ben Nelson (D) (202) 224-6551; 228-0012

Nevada
Sen. John Ensign (R) (202) 224-6244; 228-2193
Sen. Harry Reid (D) (202) 224-3542; 224-7327

New Hampshire
Sen. Judd Gregg (R) (202) 224-3324; 224-4952
Sen. John Sununu (R) (202) 224-2841; 228-4131

New Jersey
Sen. Robert Menendez (D) (202) 224-4744; 228-2197
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) (202) 224-3224; 228-4054

New Mexico
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) (202) 224-5521; 224-2852
Sen. Pete Domenici (R) (202) 224-6621; 228-3261

New York
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) (202) 224-4451; 228-0282
Sen. Charles Schumer (D) (202) 224-6542; 228-3027

North Carolina
Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) (202) 224-6342-; 224-1100
Sen. Richard Burr (R) (202) 224-3154; 228-2981

North Dakota
Sen. Kent Conrad (D) (202) 224-2043; 224-7776
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) (202) 224-2551; 224-1193

Ohio
Sen. George Voinovich (R) (202) 224-3353; 228-1382
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) (202) 224-2315; 228-6321

Oklahoma
Sen. James Inhofe (R) (202) 224-224-4721; 228-0380
Sen. Tom Coburn (R) (202) 224-5754; 224-6008

Oregon
Sen. Ron Wyden (D) (202) 224-5244; 228-2717
Sen. Gordon Smith (R) (202) 224-3753; 228-3997

Pennsylvania
Sen. Arlen Specter (R) (202) 224-4254; 228-1229
Sen. Robert Casey (D) (202) 224- 6324; 228-0604

Rhode Island
Sen. Jack Reed (D) (202) 224-4642; 224-4680
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse(D) (202) 224-2921; 228-6362

South Carolina
Sen. Jim DeMint (R) (202) 224-6121; 228-5143
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) (202) 224-5972; 224-3808

South Dakota
Sen. Tim Johnson (D) (202) 224-5842; 228-5765
Sen. John Thune (R) (202) 224-2321; 228-5429

Tennessee
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) (202) 224-4944; 228-3398
Sen. Bob Corker (R) (202) 224-3344; 228-0566

Texas
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) (202) 224-5922: 224-0776
Sen. John Cornyn (R) (202) 224-2934; 228-2856

Utah
Sen. Robert Bennett (R) (202) 224-5444; 228-1168
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) (202) 224-5251; 224-6331

Vermont
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) (202) 224-4242; 224-3479
Sen. Bernard Sanders (I) (202) 224-5141; 228-0776

Virginia
Sen. John Warner (R) (202) 224-2023; 224-6295
Sen. James Webb (D) (202) 224-4024; 228-6363

Washington
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) (202) 224-3441; 224-0514
Sen. Patty Murray (D) (202) 224-2621; 224-0238

West Virginia
Sen. Robert Byrd (D) (202) 224-3954; 228-0002
Sen. John Rockefeller IV (D) (202) 224-6472; 224-7665

Wisconsin
Sen. Russ Feingold (D) (202) 224-5323; 224-2725
Sen. Herbert Kohl (D) (202) 224-5653; 224-9787

Wyoming
Sen. Michael Enzi (R) (202) 224-3424; 228-0359
Sen. John Barrasso (R) (202) 224-6441