Loren Collins for Congress

Two weeks ago today was a numerical milestone in this country, albeit a mathematically empty one.

On August 17, the United States federal debt surpassed $8.5 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt.

It was news several months back when Congress moved to raise the U.S. debt ceiling to $9 trillion. Based on how long it took to accumulate the last half-trillion, one could estimate that we will reach the $9 trillion mark sometime around Independence Day, 2007.

So unless our spending is reined in, we have only another ten months or so before Congress will find itself raising the debt limit yet again.

One of the items on my Issues page is a call for greater Transparency in Government, and as it happens, there is a bill currently before the U.S. Senate that would make a significant stride in the direction of greater governmental transparency.

The bill is S.2590, and includes Georgia Senators Isakson and Chambliss among its co-sponsors. This "ederal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006" would create a searchable online database, itemizing all entities receiving federal funding. I believe more could be done, but this would be a good start.

Unfortunately, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska doesn't appear to be quite so keen on it. The Senator, who last year fought so hard for his $223 billion "bridge-to-nowhere," is now attempting to prevent the American public from learning more about where their money is spent. After all, if this bill is successful, long-time porkers like Stevens and Senator Robert Byrd might find their homestate expenditures under ever-increasing scrutiny.

It appears that there is not yet a House counterpart to this bill. If elected, I would strongly support its passage.

With the heart of campaign season right around the corner, this blog is going to be seeing more action in the coming weeks. So for those of you who prefer to follow blogs through an RSS reader, I have added several links for this blog's RSS feed to the sidebar.

For those unfamiliar with what RSS is, you can learn more about it at Google Reader or other simlar pages.

There is an internet phenomenon called a "meme" (pronounced MEEM) that often increases during campaign season. Sometimes a meme is a fad idea or website that explodes in popularity, but in the political context it is often a factoid that becomes a common talking point for one side. Unfortunately, talking point memes have a bad habit of being incorrect.

One such talking point showed up in an e-mail I received over the weekend, and I thought I might stand the chance of nipping it in the bud, as well as addressing the policy proposal it was used to bolster. Specifically, it claimed:

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries
which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war...Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.

In fiscal year 2006, the Iraq War has already cost $101.8 billion.

By contrast, America's international development assistance was $16.2 billion in 2003. Even if we assume that total international aid has doubled to $33 billion for this year, that still would cover only a third of this year's budget for the Iraq War. As it stands, it is probably less than a fourth. So the claim is factually incorrect.

As for the underlying proposal, it takes too singular a view of our foreign relations. What about the country's stance on human rights, or its participation in the War on Terror, or its willingness to promote democracy and fight internal corruption? When it comes to humanitarian assistance for famine or epidemic victims, should we deny suffering individuals our aid solely because their government didn't back us on a single issue?

Would such a policy increase America's stature in the world, or would it draw more ire?

President Bush had a lot to say about America's role in Iraq during a news conference on Monday, including the following:

"Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged or cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job would done would be -- send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job was done would be a disaster."

I agree with these sentiments. But the language the President uses strikes me as rather vague.

I'm a supporter of the Powell Doctrine of war, specifically the prongs of clearly defined objectives and a designated exit strategy. So it gives me pause when the President describes our objectives in Iraq as being merely "the job." At least seven times in Monday's press conference he tied our presence in Iraq to the completion of "the job," and another seven times to "the mission."

But what is "the job"? Without defined objectives, how can we know when "the job" is done? The closest the President appears to have gotten to answering that question on Monday was with these words:

"Look, eventually Iraq will succeed because the Iraqis will see to it that they succeed. And our job is to help them succeed. That's our job. Our job is to help their forces be better equipped, to help their police be able to deal with these extremists, and to help their government succeed."

But those aren't objectives to meet; they're tactics and practices. They are the means, rather than the ends. And it's the ends that will tell us when we've completed our objectives.

That's also why this statement of the President's surprised me:

"We're not leaving so long as I'm the president."

I'm uncertain how to interpret that. What if "the job" is completed before 2009? Does the President mean that he is absolutely certain we can't finish "the job" in the next 2+ years? If so, then what, specifically, does he think will take longer?

I believe our troops are serving a valuable and irreplaceable function in Iraq right now, but I also believe that we need goalposts to tell us how close we are to finishing. Merely saying we're there to complete "the job" is far too open-ended.

This evening, a new drama series premiered on network TV. It's set in Atlanta. It centers around an independent-minded Georgia congressman.

A congressman named Collins.

Granted, he's a Senator and his first name is Jeffrey, but that's beside the point. When I sent out press releases announcing my own qualification this morning I was unaware of these details, so the timing is simply impeccable.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

COLLINS QUALIFIES AS CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE

ATLANTA, GA --- Loren Collins announced Monday that he has qualified with the Georgia Secretary of State as a write-in candidate for U.S. Congress, running in the November 7, 2006 general election for the Fourth District Congressional seat. His Notice of Intent was printed in the Fulton County Daily Report on July 11, 2006. Collins will face Democrat Hank Johnson and Republican Catherine Davis in the general election.

At 28, Collins is the youngest candidate in this year's Congressional races in Georgia, and the only independent thus far declared. Along with Jim MacQuarrie, of Pasadena, California, Collins is working to found a new third party by reviving the name of an old one: the Bull Moose Party. It is intended as a refuge for socially liberal Republicans, economically conservative Democrats, and pragmatic Libertarians. The party website, which launched on July 4th, is located at www.bullmoose.org .

Collins is an attorney with the Law Office of W. Bryant Green, III. He is a 2004 graduate of the University of Georgia School of Law. During his years at UGA he worked in the District Attorneys' offices in both Clarke and Madison Counties. This is his first run for political office.

The web address for Collins's campaign is www.VoteLoren.com .

# # #

For more information, please contact Loren at (404) 814-0179 or by e-mail at loren@voteloren.com.

One admitted weakness of this campaign website, as it stands, is a lack of photographic representation of yours truly. There are two reasons for this. First, I believe a political race should be more about ideas than appearances.

But I can't deny the impact of images, and I have no intention of hiding my visage. Which leads us to my second reason, which is that I'm simply still in the process of having decent photos made. When I do it, I plan on doing it right.

In the meantime, I shall have to rely on other pictures, such as the one that follows. It is an updated 'campaign poster' that I originally put together for an ill-fated Congressional run two years ago.

'Loren of the Rings' Poster

A little silly? Sure. But I'm rather fond of how my name looks in that font.

At this point in my campaign, before I've done much outside of this website, it is rather satisfying and heartening to find words of support from people I have not personally met. Such was the case two weeks ago, when I noticed a comment on the AJC's Political Insider blog, from a poster named Justin (emphasis added):

"The debate made me feel bad that most likely one of those two is going to be my representative in congress. The fact that it was televised on C-SPAN for the nation to see made me feel ashamed. Thank goodness this year I have a real alternative to vote for. The most intelligent and exciting candidate to come out of this district in a long time is Loren Collins."

Justin, whoever you are, thank you. I can only pray that I continue to live up to your expectations.

Today Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney issued a statement regarding certain anti-Semitic comments made by persons at a function of hers last Tuesday.
The remarks are recounted by the Anti-Defamation League. She says on the front page of her campaign website:

"The people who made those remarks were not associated with my campaign in any formal way, and I want to make clear from this hour that any informal ties between me and my campaign and anyone holding or espousing such views are cut and renounced."

Yet directly to the right of these very words, merely an inch away on a computer screen, is a direct link to the exact same kind of language Ms. McKinney is dissociating herself and her campaign from.

The link in question is Released FAA tapes Reveal Cynthia McKinney Was Right About 9-11 War Games, an August 3 post at fromtheramparts.blogspot.com, and it includes the following statements:

Let me emphasis this, Cynthia McKinney was right on target again about the war games confusing the FAA and military on 9-11; which of course is why 9-11 unfolded the way it did that day. This revelation about the war games is even more evidence 9-11 was an inside job. This brothers and sistahs is why the NeoCons and Zionists want to defeat Cynthia McKinney in this upcoming run off election!

McKinney put her seat in jeopardy by daring to suggest we be fair and open minded on the Israeli-Palestinian question. The rabid Zionists went after her in 2002 and they were successful. Don’t allow these warmongers to win again. Don’t allow them to send another Milquetoast sock puppet to Congress whose loyalties will be to the Zionists and the corporations rather than the people.

These statements are every bit as anti-Semitic as the remarks Ms. McKinney is attempting to distance herself from, and yet they are directly and prominently linked to from her official campaign website. It may also be noted that the author in this post explicitly endorses the theory that the Bush Administration planned the attacks of 9/11.

If there is any question as to the author's meaning, a glance at his other posts quickly settles that matter. In his post Zionist Psychopathy on July 19, he alleges that Jews are descended from Neanderthals and writes:

That same Neanderthal/Hun mentality is evident today in Israeli policies in Palestine and Lebanon. It manifests itself in the bowels of AmeriKKKan think tanks, foundations, the mass media, lobbying groups and the legislative and executive branches subject to massive Zionist influence. That is why in the midst of massive overkill of innocent civilians by Israel, there is such deafening silence, such lack of moral outrage and protest by the corporate media, and Western policy makers. Part of the problem is many in the media and many policy makers share that same psychopathic mentality. But it appears, even those who don’t share that mentality, are afraid to challenge the Zionist propaganda apparatus.

An April 7 post entitled Demonizing Cynthia McKinney includes such statements as "The weasels in the corporate mind control apparatus and the nefarious NeoCon and Zionist hatchetmen are engaged in another witch hunt to demonize and vilify Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney" and "For these and other reasons, the powers that be (the mainstream media and NeoCon-Zionist cabal) are out to get Cynthia McKinney."

There is also a subsequent post about Ms. McKinney's defeat, from August 11. It contains further anti-Semitic references: "On Tuesday Cynthia McKinney went down to defeat in a run off election, the victim of an obvious collusion of reactionary forces within her own party, Republicans and Zionist/NeoCons who made up their minds to oust her." "...Cynthia McKinney was targeted by the Zionists and their lapdogs in both parties because she, like Del Jones, was a thorn in their sides." "The whites who voted for him felt more comfortable with Johnson, a former County Commissioner who knows how to play the game and who is not about to criticize Israel or go against the Zionist agenda if he is elected to Congress."

These posts drip with Anti-Semitic sentiment. All of the standard Anti-Semitic tropes are present, merely with the word "Zionist" exchanged for "Jew." McKinney's election troubles are the fault of the "Zionists." The "Zionists" are working hand-in-hand with the corporations. The "Zionists" are the ones with true power. "Zionist" influence controls the media, and the lobbyists, and the government. Not to mention the assertion that Jews are actually descended from another prehistoric race of humans.

This is not merely the equivalent of the language that was used last week; it is far worse. And it is unmistakably tied to Ms. McKinney's own website, entirely at Ms. McKinney's discretion. She is consciously and prominently linking to an article with anti-Semitic remarks, located on a blog with so many such remarks that it could be fairly labelled an anti-Semitic website.

This is wholly inappropriate content for an official website of a sitting Congresswoman. She may have lost the primary, but she is still my Representative in Congress and she will continue to represent the Fourth District until January. As our delegate in Washington, it is unacceptable for Ms. McKinney to link to such anti-Semitic material.

The campaign site's Library has been updated with multiple resources for Fourth District residents. Lots of free information to assist in individual research and decision-making. Eventually the page will also include writings of my own that are more in-depth than is suited for a blog post.

I've also added the beginnings of a blogroll to the right side of this page. Included so far are a handful of non-partisan Georgia political blogs, as well as every Georgia congressional candidate blog I could locate. Alas, out of 26 other candidates, there appear to only be four active blogs at this time.

I have confirmed with the Secretary of State's office that I qualified as a write-in candidate for the election. My intention at this time is to put out a press release early next week.

Over on my Issues page, I've added three new sections: Education, Immigration, and Iraq. Three of this year's hot-button topics.

I'll continue to update the page with new issues over the coming weeks, and I'll probably tweak the existing ones as time goes by. So don't forget to check back in from time to time.

In his victory speech last night, Hank Johnson allowed his enthusiasm to get the better of him for a moment, as he began to talk about how he hoped for an orderly and friendly transition of power in Washington. He then caught himself and reminded his supporters that he didn't mean to dismiss the November election. Everybody had a good laugh.

But his underlying assumption is telling: it is automatically assumed that the Democrat will win the Fourth District election in November. Denise Majette won the 2002 general election with 77% of the vote. The smallest majority McKinney ever got was 57.8%, in 1996. 60,000 people voted in yesterday's runoff election in the Fourth District, while fewer than 9,000 cast ballots in the Republican primary last month.

And while I trust that Hank will be true to his word and engage Ms. Davis over the coming months, a general election is still a rather mundane ordeal when the end result is treated as a foregone conclusion. I want to provide some surprise, even if only a little, to this unsurprising race before us. To offer a choice other than (D) or (R), because political ideology comes in more than two flavors.

...and Hank Johnson has won the Democratic nomination for the Fourth District Congressional seat.

My congratulations to him, my condolences to Congresswoman McKinney, and now I look forward to the day when Mr. Johnson and Ms. Davis refer to their opponentS in the November election. With the primaries finally over, I can get to work on forging an image myself.

Today is the runoff election for the Fourth District Democratic nominee. Today's vote will determine whether Cynthia McKinney or Hank Johnson is on the ballot in November.

Today is not a day to write my name in, and to vote for me. That opportunity will come in November.

Tomorrow is when the fun really begins for this campaign.

Yesterday, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran a Q&A with American University professor Robert Pastor, who served as director of Latin American and Caribbean Affairs on the National Security Council under former President Jimmy Carter.

He acknowledges that Cuba is unlikely to continue in its present state at length after Fidel is gone. But it is his closing comments that I wanted to share, as they reflect the approach I was attempting to voice the other day, but he sums it up much better:

"I have long felt that the United States should simply lift the [Kennedy era] embargo and open up travel and trade. That is our strength and Castro's weakness. His strength is isolation, militarism, hostility, fortress Cuba. Our strength is openness, free travel and trade and movement of ideas, and yet we're the ones enforcing the embargo."

A more open policy with Cuba will not strengthen its Communist regime; rather, it would be, with time, our greatest tool to bring freedom to Cuba.

OPEN LETTER TO J.M. RAFFAUF AND CYNTHIA MCKINNEY

August 5, 2006

Dear Mr. Raffauf and Congresswoman McKinney:

Your letter of July 31, 2006 to Cynthia Tucker and John Mellott and your letter of August 2, 2006 to Tom Baxter and Jim Galloway alleged that items in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution contained material that was "untrue, defamatory and libelous."

This is to inform you that such statements were not defamatory or libelous, and that your letters contained certain statements that were untrue and/or misleading.

Passages from your letters are bolded:

1. Tucker wrote that "she (the Congresswoman) slugged him (the officer) with her cellphone." This false allegation is not supported by any witness or any other evidence. Additionally, Tucker is maliciously attempting to spin this into a felony by falsely alleging that she assaulted the officer with a deadly weapon.

The full sentence written by Ms. Tucker was "When he stopped her, the officer said, she slugged him with her cellphone." This phrasing is not substantially different from a representation of the incident reflected both on Congresswoman McKinney's Congressional website and her campaign website, as written by Greg Palast: "The congresswoman responded to this assault by, report has it, applying a fist to the offender."

The involvement of a cellphone is also reflected on her Congressional website: "He has alleged that she struck him with her cellphone." And it was referenced by Chief Terrance Gainer on CNN American Morning, a program on which you both were appearing.

And the suggestion that a cell phone constitutes a "deadly weapon" is remarkable spin on your part, not Ms. Tucker's.

2. Instead of admitting the fact that the officer used force by grabbing the Congresswoman, Tucker states only that the officer "stopped her."

This is a rather strict demand on Ms. Tucker's phrasing, considering equally innocuous descriptions made by Mr. Raffauf himself on the aforementioned CNN American Morning program: "What you had was bad security policy being implemented by a poorly trained officer that led to the inappropriate stop and inappropriate touching of the congresswoman." Or Mr. Raffauf's response when asked what happened that morning: "Well, we don't know -- we haven't been told what happened that set..."

3. Tucker falsely attempts to attribute words from her father to her by stating that "her father, a spokesman for her campaign." Her father was not a spokesman for the campaign."

It is true that the Congresswoman's father was not merely a spokesman for her campaign. Rather, he was her 1996 campaign manager, a much more powerful and influential position.

4. Tucker wrote of Congresswoman McKinney: "She suggested that President Bush had known in advance about the Sept. 11 attacks but did nothing to stop them so his friends could profit from the ensuing war." The award winning documentary film "American Blackout" definitively exposed this statement by Tucker as false, as the Congresswoman never made this statement even though Tucker continues to assert that she did.

Congresswoman McKinney stated on March 25, 2002: "What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?" I leave it to the interpretation of the reader to decide what was being alleged with that statement.

On a related note, I see that Congresswoman McKinney's campaign website recently added a front-page link to an online column that includes the following passage (emphasis added):

"Let me emphasis this, Cynthia McKinney was right on target again about the war games confusing the FAA and military on 9-11; which of course is why 9-11 unfolded the way it did that day. This revelation about the war games is even more evidence 9-11 was an inside job. This brothers and sistahs is why the NeoCons and Zionists want to defeat Cynthia McKinney in this upcoming run off election!"

Does Congresswoman McKinney share in these sentiments that she links to? And does she similarly blame the "Zionists" for her troubles (as the author does in not only this piece, but in multiple weblog posts on his site)?

Both of your letters also contained the following passage:

The Power Rankings by Congress.org show that Congresswoman McKinney ranked number 277 of 435 Congresspersons in legislative effectiveness. She was the highest ranking Georgia democrat followed by Congressman Barrow (337); Congressman Marshall (347); Congressman Scott (367); Congressman Lewis (433); and Congressman Bishop (434).

In the latter letter, you also wrote "A copy of the rankings "Members by Legislative Score" is attached hereto." No such copy was included in the online letter, but on August 4, Congresswoman McKinney's campaign website posted a news item that links to those rankings. It has already been well-documented and observed that this represents only part of Congress.org's overall Power Ranking, wherein Congresswoman McKinney ranked an unimpressive #408 out of 438.

Of the six ranking numbers you cited in your letters to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, not a single one of those six accurately represents the rankings presented in Congress.org's "Members by Legislation Score" list.

You state Congresswoman McKinney ranked 277. Congress.org clearly identifies her rank as 285. Even if nonvoting delegates are excluded, her rank only rises to 283.

You state Congressman Barrow ranked 337. Congress.org clearly identifies his rank as 332.

You state Congressman Marshall ranked 347. Congress.org clearly identifies his rank as 385.

You state Congressman Scott ranked 367. Congress.org clearly identifies his rank as 419.

You state Congressman Lewis ranked 433. Congress.org clearly identifies his rank as 350.

You state Congressman Bishop ranked 434. Congress.org clearly identifies his rank as 437.

Wherever your numbers originated, they did not come from the 2005 "Members by Legislation Score" on Congress.org's website.

Perhaps you were referencing some other list, in which the Representatives were ranked differently. As you are undoubtedly aware, the rankings for these five gentlemen are somewhat arbitrary, as their legislative scores were part of a 116-way tie for 0. Despite their 100+ ranking position spread, Congressmen Barrow and Bishop had the same legislation score. No legislation introduced by any of them made it out of committee in 2005. And Congress.org's methodology only looked at 2005.

Congresswoman McKinney, by contrast, is seen to be in a 23-way tie for the third-lowest score in the House for 2005, with a score of 0.50. This score represents the House passage of a single bill during 2005, which in Congresswoman McKinney's instance was H.R. 2099, the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area Act.

It is perhaps fortunate for Congresswoman McKinney that Congress.org's methodology looked to 2005 in particular. The Library of Congress's THOMAS archive identifies only one other bill sponsored by Congresswoman McKinney that was passed into law, H.R. 2261 during the 107th Congress, which renamed a Decatur post office for Earl T. Shinhoster. Congress.org's ranking criteria specifically excludes "bills of a ceremonial or commemorative nature such as naming of post offices."

Congresswoman McKinney also introduced a resolution, H.Res 610, that was adopted during the 105th Congress, which expressed the sense of the House of Representatives in commending the Republic of Mozambique. Congress.org's criteria also excludes "non-binding resolutions that expressed the 'sense of the Congress.'"

THOMAS does not indicate any other bills sponsored by Congresswoman McKinney since 1993 that made it out of commitee. Congresswoman McKinney introduced H.R. 1587, the Agent Orange Respiratory Cancer Act of 2001, during the 107th Congress, and its provisions were eventually adopted into law as part of H.R. 1291 that same year. Her original bill, however, never made it out of committee. Congresswoman McKinney also reportedly was responsible for the passing of a study resolution for southeast DeKalb, but a search of THOMAS did not reveal the bill's identity. Finally, it indicates that Congresswoman McKinney introduced an amendment to a bill that was adopted, H.Amdt 171 to H.R. 1757 during the 105th Congress.

Thus, Congresswoman McKinney's legislative resume for her first ten years in the Congress appears to be a ceremonial bill, a non-binding resolution, an amendment, and two minor proposals that were most likely incorporated into larger bills. Only in the current Congress has she finally seen her first substantive bill pass the House, and it now awaits Senate action. It is easy to see why she would be proud of this accomplishment.

If there are other bills of Congresswoman McKinney's that passed the House but escaped my attention, I welcome enlightenment on them. I will readily amend my comments here to acknowledge any other bills introduced by the Congrsswoman that made it out of committee.

As a Fourth District resident, I ask on behalf of my fellow constituents that you retract and/or correct these false and misleading allegations.

Sincerely,

Loren C. Collins

For over forty years, the defining aspect of our relationship with Cuba has been our embargo. In that time the Soviet Union collapsed, the Berlin Wall fell, we opened trade with China, and yet the embargo still stands.

And not entirely without reason. While other nations have had turnover in their leadership, allowing us to make inroads with the new people in power, Cuba has remained under the thumb of the same man for almost half a century. This year, Fidel Castro's rule surpasses Kim Il-Sung's 46-year reign over North Korea, which may make him the longest-serving dictator in modern history.

Given Castro's current health troubles, though, we are finally seeing a change in Cuba, as the reins of power have been handed (at least temporarily) to Fidel's brother Raul Castro. Admittedly, Raul is just as much a revolutionary as his elder brother, and it has been U.S. policy for a decade to not recognize any post-Fidel government that includes Raul. It has been suggested that America stands its best chance of affecting change in Cuba after leadership has passed to a younger generation.

That may be true, but I believe our efforts would be more successful if we would consider initiating changes now, with Raul. At 75 years old, he does not have decades of leadership in his future. It is only a matter of years before the torch is passed again.

If we reevaluate our policy toward a Raul-led Cuba now, we can make a tremendous impact on our island neighbor over the next several years. If we move first, it can be seen as a gesture on our part, rather than any success of Raul's. If we can start opening doors of trade and communication with Cuba now, then there is all the more chance that when the time comes for a new leader in Cuba, the Cuban people will themselves expect and demand more than an all-powerful dictator. And the United States, with a few years of cooperation under our belt, could be in-place to be a much more persuasive ally to the people than we would stand to be as an outsider with a list of demands.

By starting now, it is possible that we could cause a great leap forward (ahem) for the Cuban people in the near future, rather than a mere step forward when the next dictator comes along. It is at least worth serious consideration. Merely continuing to follow a course that has brought no success in 47 years is not enough. The time is ripe to reconsider how we can best bring greater freedom to the Cuban people.