There has been a renewed push to end the 1985 FDA provision that banned gay men from donating blood. Eighteen Senators including Frank Lautenberg signed a letter to the Commissioner of the FDA calling for a change in policy:
The senators' letter noted that in March 2006, the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and the American Association of Blood Banks reported to an FDA-sponsored workshop that the ban "is medically and scientifically unwarranted."
The move to ban donations was a response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, but in their letter the Senators noted that we live in a much different society than we did in 1983:
"Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
They said we turn away potentially healthy blood donors because of an out of date system and we're not necessarily any safer for it. But the FDA didn't seem interested in hearing what the Senators had to say:
"while FDA appreciates concerns about perceived discrimination, our decision to maintain the deferral policy is based on current science and data and does not give weight to a donor's sexual orientation."
That was in an article and I can't find it on the FDA's website, but that's a disappointing response from them. The statement seems kind of ridiculous because how can they not give weight to sexual orientation if it's only a ban on gay men? You can view the letter the Senators sent here. I contacted Steven Goldstein with Garden State Equality for comment and got this:
The ban on anyone not being able to give blood is a relic of the stone age. The fact is, safe and unsafe sex practices have nothing to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with individuals on a person to person basis.
The Senators pointed out the need for a comprehensive review of the policies that deal with blood donation because currently,a heterosexual woman who has had sex with numerous AIDS-infected partners can give blood after waiting a year, but a gay man who's been celibate since 1978 is banned. The Courier Post had an editorial yesterday endorsing Lautenberg's efforts to end the ban:
lifting the ban will save lives -- and bring an end to a needless bias against a considerable segment of our population.
The editorial called it an archaic policy that limits desperately needed blood supplies. If we're able to screen blood for diseases, it shouldn't matter whether that blood comes from heterosexuals or homosexuals. If fear is driving public policy making, the soundness of the decisions needs to be called into question.
First up, President Barack Obama is at a 53% job approval rating (an improvement on the sub-50 showing last time). Disapproval is at 38%, so the the net +15 matches the margin he beat McCain by in 2008. His numbers with independents are 53-33.
On the other hand, the right track/wrong track numbers for the country are at 38-52, hardly surprising with 10% unemployment, massive deficits, and victory-less wars.
Democrats lead the generic ballot for U.S. Congress 47-39 with leaners. That doesn't exactly suggest many Democratic incumbents will be swept away, though I don't doubt NJ3 is a battlefield.
If the election were held today, Senator Bob Menendez would get 38%, a (hypothetical candidate) Tom Kean Jr would get 39%, Someone else gets 6%. Not the numbers we'd like to see, but not unfamiliar either. The pollster notes that Menendez did worse with the subgroup that was asked about him closer to the questions about health care reforms.
Senator Menendez is at 29-25, favorable-unfavorable, and Senator Frank Lautenberg is at 42-29. The negative ads of 2006 have been forgotten as Kean Jr is at 28-11. Kean was at 33-32 at the end of the last campaign, so you can see that campaigns matter.
As for health care reform, the numbers are lousy but not disastrous, as you know if you follow it in national polls. 37% think they will be better off and 42% think they will be worse off if health care reform passes. On the other hand, for the "country as a whole," "better" leaads "worse" 45-40. No doubt the numbers are dragged down by strong Republican opposition, but the two sets for independents are 31-35 and 41-33. The numbers are very striking by race, because only 28% of "Whites" think they'll be better off. Overall, 35% say they'd advise their memver of Congress to vote for a health care reform bill, 40% against, and 25% don't know. That 25% is more Democrats and Independents, so they need to be won over, perhaps by the reality of the bill helping them. (Cough, cough, too bad some genius designed most of the benefits to start years from now.)
Update 7:30PM: The WaPo says a deal has been reached and a vote will be held tonight.
Senator Frank Lautenberg sees that Senator Jim Bunning is not acting alone, but has the support of some other Senate Republicans, and he's not afraid to call it a filibuster:
"Construction sites are job sites," stated Lautenberg. "The irresponsible action taken by Senate Republicans is causing critical transportation projects across the country to be shut down. Workers are being sent home without pay and communities are being saddled with inactive projects. With unemployment running high across the country, it is unfathomable that Senate Republicans have targeted American families to pay the price for the political games they are playing in Washington. It is time for Senate Republicans to put people ahead of politics, end this damaging filibuster and let workers get back to work."
Although no final decisions have been made, Democrats confirmed it is increasingly likely that Democrats will force Bunning into an actual filibuster of unemployment insurance extension Tuesday night by repeatedly offering up unanimous consent agreements to bring the bill to a vote.
Although Members often threaten actual filibusters, they rarely materialize. Instead, lawmakers tend to rely on "Cadillac filibusters," essentially stalling procedures that can be used to block legislation without having to actually stay put on the Senate floor.
Democrats on Tuesday signaled they have the resolve to remain in session throughout the night to force Bunning to abandon his cause. The American people "want an end to these games. And I hope that today we'll see the end. If we don't, we're going to have to have a long, long night ahead of us to make the point that it's wrong for one Senator to stop our people, our American people, from getting the help they deserve," Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Tuesday.
With 27 states having borrowed about $30 billion from the feds to pay their unemployment claims, it is "just not possible" to cover all of the costs "in this budget climate," Menendez said following a meeting of New Jersey's congressional delegation with Gov. Chris Christie today. Menendez said he would work to delay New Jersey's interest payments, or perhaps forgive them entirely, to provide some degree of federal help.
It's too bad Christie contributed to this climate with his attacks on the stimulus, but after all, it worked out for him.
Meanwhile, Senators Lautenberg and Menendez are outraged that Republican SenatorJim Bunning continues to block unemployement insurance.
"At the stroke of midnight, more than one million jobless Americans lost critical benefits they rely on to help pay for housing, feed their families and afford health care," said Sen. Lautenberg. "Blocking unemployment insurance and COBRA benefits is proof positive that Republicans care more about scoring political points than helping working families survive these tough economic times. Families are struggling every day to make ends meet, and I will work to end this Republican filibuster as soon as possible."
I agree with 100% with Lautenberg, but as we asked before, what's he going to doabout it? If this is so critical, why was it left for the last weekend? Why did the Senate go into recess instead of working through the cloture delay all weekend? When will Democrats pledge to reform the rules against these endless filibuster delays, and why not threaten the Republican-created idea of the nuclear constitutional option? Why isn't the President on network TV denouncing this? (Okay, network TV is talking about Bunning.)
In the "surprising side effects category," it turns out that Bunning has also stopped the "Medicare fix" meaning that doctors get an immediate 21% reduction in their fees for seeing Medicare patients. These are the cuts that Republicans like Frank LoBiondo made law but now posture against. In addition, thousands of people have been thrown out of work by Bunning. It's pathetic, and while Republicans are responsible, Democrats are their enablers.
I am sure we are all pleased to see this from the office of Senator Frank Lautenberg:
Senator Lautenberg was released from the hospital today. He is extremely grateful for the outpouring of support from New Jerseyans all across the state and is anxious to get back to work. The Senator feels good and his doctors are encouraged by the progress he is making.
I wanted to bring your attention to an interesting post by Nate Silver of 538.com on The Myth of the Incumbent 50% Rule. He's prompted by the claim that incumbents get only the same percentage of the vote as they do in early polling, and therefore incumbents under 50% almost always lose. Here's his conclusion:
1) It is extremely common for an incumbent come back to win re-election while having less than 50 percent of the vote in early polls.
2) In comparison to early polls, there is no demonstrable tendency for challengers to pick up a larger share of the undecided vote than incumbents.
3) Incumbents almost always get a larger share of the actual vote than they do in early polls (as do challengers). They do not "get what they get in the tracking"; they almost always get more...
It is probably OK to focus on an incumbent's vote share in early polls while downplaying the challenger's number, but if you do, you need to add 6-7 percent to it to have the most accurate prediction of his likely performance in November.
Silver's data, which you can see by clicking through, shows that incumbents who poll 45% in January-June usually win -- like Frank Lautenberg in 2008, at only 45.7%, who got to 56% on election day -- and overall 19 of 30 incumbents under 50% end up winning. (Incumbents over 50% are safe.) In short, undecideds do not usually break overwhelmingly to the challengers as conventional wisdom tell us. Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com says Nate is right, and explains that the "myth" is largely based on old races. I recall, but can't find the link, that kos recently found half of incumbents polling under 50% lose and half win. Many Democratic learned this lesson in the 2004 Presidential election, where Bush won despite many polls putting him under 50%. Here in New Jersey, Menendez won despite being below 40% (though he was appointed) and Corzine lost, but did get that 7 point surge.
I can't help but wonder if this speaks to the famous New Jersey election effect -- that Democrats poll too low. Perhaps instead of looking for a Jersey explanation, it's just that Democrats here poll the way incumbents do nationwide.
Senator Menendez appeared this morning on MSNBC talking with David Shuster about the vote in the Senate yesterday to overcome a filibuster for the jobs bill and his signing onto the letter calling for the public option for healthcare reform. Both Senators Lautenberg and Menendez have signed onto the public option letter. You can see the segment here:
Statement, minutes ago, from Sen. Lautenberg's aide, Caley Gray:
STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
After several days of hospitalization and testing, Senator Lautenberg's doctors have diagnosed that he has a B-Cell Lymphoma of the stomach. This is a curable tumor, and will require treatment over the next few months.
The Senator is under the care of Dr. James F. Holland and Dr. Martin Goldman of Mount Sinai Medical Center.
STATEMENT FROM DR. JAMES F. HOLLAND
"We expect a full and complete recovery for Senator Lautenberg. The Senator will be treated with chemotherapy administered approximately every three weeks. We anticipate that he will receive between six and eight treatments, and in between treatments, the Senator is expected to be back at work in the Senate."
From all of us here at Blue Jersey, our best wishes for the tough gentleman that Frank Lautenberg is. One of the priveleges of living in New Jersey is being represented by a Senator with the solid voting history - and high Progressive Punch ratings - Lautenberg has. Our thoughts are with our Senator.
Please join me in calling our Senators to urge them to repeal the military's so called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that discriminates against gays and lesbians who want to serve their country in the US Military.
I'll spare you the reasons why discrimination sucks and simply remind you that this issue demands your urgent attention.
Lautenberg's contant info is (202)-224-3224
Menendez is at (202)-224-4744.
Timing is everything in Washington and now is the time to light a fire under our Senators to vote AND to fight to repeal this retrograde policy.
Senator Frank Lautenberg's office sent out this statement this morning:
Early this morning doctors diagnosed Senator Lautenberg with a bleeding ulcer, and he underwent a successful endoscopy procedure to treat it. After becoming lightheaded and taking a fall as a result of the condition, the Senator sought medical attention last night. The Senator is expected to make a full recovery and will be back to work soon.
U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg was taken by ambulance from his Cliffside Park condo Monday night after suffering a fall, a spokesman said.
The spokesman, Caley Gray, said he did not know if the 86-year-old senator fell in the apartment, or if he suffered any serious injuries. Gray initially said Lautenberg was taken to a local hospital as a precaution.
No further details were immediately available.
We hope the Senator is ok and wish him a speedy recovery. We will have more information as it becomes available.
In discussions with Wall Street executives, Republicans are striving to make the case that they are banks' best hope of preventing President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats from cracking down on Wall Street.
GOP strategists hope to benefit from the reaction to the White House's populist rhetoric and proposals, which range from sharp critiques of bonuses to a tax on big Wall Street banks, caps on executive pay and curbs on business practices deemed too risky.
It includes discussion of an approach to Democratic contributor James Dimon, the chairman and chief executive of J.P. Morgan, who donated to Democrats in the past. The Huffington Post got reaction from Senator Frank Lautenberg:
"Criticism of a group or organization has to be weighed in terms of the total context," he said. "When you see someone like Dimon, who's a pretty outstanding business leader, I can't imagine that he's going to want to be isolated from the Democratic presence. That doesn't bother me."
But isn't arguing that you deserve Wall Street support politically perilous? "I think that's harmful to their interests, but I'm not their doctor," said Lautenberg.
HuffPost clarified that the question was about Democrats fighting for Wall Street support. Isn't that the wrong message? "I don't think so. I think that unless there's some really egregious behavior, I think that they should support us and I think that we should be willing to accept their help," he said.
Not much to say here. Wall Street owns both parties and the elite like it that way. I'm reduced to hoping the big bonuses help close New Jersey's budget gap. I do wonder, though, what would constitute "egregious behavior" towards Wall Street.
Hearings were held in the Senate yesterday on repealing don't ask, don't tell in the Military. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified and made his belief clear:
"It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," Mullen said. "We have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity - theirs as individuals and ours as institutions," Mullen added.
I could not agree more, but Republicans complained that he was not letting the military do a fair review. Defense Secretary Gates said he wants a yearlong review of the policy:
Both Gates and Mullen pleaded with lawmakers for time to implement the repeal, but also stressed that a final decision rests with Congress. They noted the law cannot be repealed through executive action.
Should Congress approve new legislation repealing the law, Gates urged lawmakers to give the military at least a year to implement it.
For his part, Senator Lautenberg doesn't want any more delays and put out this statement saying he wants to see the policy end now:
"No American should be barred from serving in our military simply because of their sexual orientation," stated Lautenberg, an Army veteran. "It is time to recognize the incredible sacrifices being made by all of America's military men and women and the future contributions that will be made if we end the discriminatory 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. Repealing 'don't ask, don't tell' is the right thing to do and I will fight to see this outdated policy overturned."
Senator Carl Levin suggested that the 2011 defense authorization bill might be a way to implement a moratorium of the law until it is repealed. He offered concern that the Pentagon wouldn't make the change fast enough. To Mullen's statement, it seems like the opposite of how things should work when you have organization that is built on duty and honor, yet force the soldiers to violate that honor and conceal their true identity, so that people can feel more comfortable about things. At a time when we need the best and the brightest, we're limiting the field of candidates in order to accommodate and perpetuate a continued fear. It's also insulting to the soldiers themselves to have enough faith in them that they can defend our freedoms, but can't handle knowing their fellow soldier is gay.
There were some important votes yesterday in the U.S. Senate, so I thought they deserve a post of their own.
Ben Bernancke was confirmed by a vote of 70-30, with opposition coming from both the right and the left. Both Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg voted "aye" as expected. I've already said it's a blunder to re-appoint him, but in the Senate's defense, it's more President Obama's blunder.
Both our senators also voted for "pay-as-you-go" rules, in a 60-40 party line vote. The rules will require any new spending or pay cuts to be "paid for" by other spending cuts or tax increases. Of course, such rules are dropped once the conservatives get power, but with the deficit at such a high level it's a good idea in my opinion, if the economic crisis is ending. That's an "if."
"During the Clinton years, we had massive economic growth and record budget surpluses, in no small part due to these fiscally-responsible rules. We have emerged from a year in which the threat of a second economic Depression forced the need for recovery spending, which both conservative and liberal economists have credited with helping to keep our economy afloat. However, our long-term focus has always been to return to the fiscal responsibility that was present during the Clinton years. This was reflected in President Obama's first budget proposal, which would significantly cut the budget deficit in the coming years. Today is another major step out of many that will restore budget discipline and help the economy grow."
The pay-as-you-go rules were attached to the debt ceiling increase, with a party-line vote of Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing. I personally view this as amusing since just a few years ago the debt increases passed with Democrats against and Republican in favor. It's just kabuki, none of the Senators would plunge the U.S. into fiscal crisis (on purpose.) On the other hand, I do wonder why the debt increase isn't included in the normal budget legislation. Anyone know the answer?
Hopeful wrote yesterday about the effort to obstruct and hold up Judge Greenaway from confirmation to the Court of Appeals for the third circuit. Along with the calls from our Legislators, many groups are now coming forward calling for an end to the hold. The NAACP pointed out that the seat will be vacant for 4 years at the end of this month:
the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) called upon the United States Senate to confirm immediately Joseph Greenaway to the Third Circuit Court ofAppeals.
President Obama nominated Judge Greenaway on June 19,2009. Greenaway has served as a district court judge in New Jersey for nearly fourteen years. He was rated unanimously well-qualified by the American Bar Associatiofl. The Senate has yet to vote on his nomination.
Greenaway was approved in the Judiciary committee unanimously and there isn't opposition, just an anonymous hold. They also noted the significance of his nomination:
LDF also noted that Judge Greenaway's confirmatjon would do much to promote diversity on the Third Circuit. TheoThird Circuit was home to the first African-American federal judge, William Hastie, appointed in 1949. "Over sixty years later, there is again only one African American on the court --Theodore McKe.e. This is very distressing."
And the people for the American Way also called for an end to the hold:
"In the last year, the level of obstruction displayed by the GOP has been unprecedented," said Baker. "Although there's been much attention to Republican delay tactics aimed at high-profile nominees and legislation, Judge Greenaway illustrates the fact that even consensus picks with broad bipartisan support are being held up. None of us are well served by that situation. Joseph Greenaway should be confirmed without any further delay."
You can see Senator Lautenberg's floor remarks on the holding up of the Greenaway nomination here:Ultimately as Hopeful wrote in the initial diary, the question is what will they do to end the hold. At least if someone is going to put a hold, they should have to say they're doing it. Right now it appears they are just trying to have the pressure build, but that doesn't ensure any action. Just take the nominee to head the TSA, who couldn't even have an attempted attack on an airplane end the blocking of his nomination, to which he eventually withdrew. That position is still vacant as well, see a pattern?
Vote was 60-39. Both New Jersey senators Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez voted yes.
Update: We now know who the missing Republican was, that led to a 60-39 vote instead of 60-40. It was Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who was entitled to vote today, but is not running for re-election after heavy pressure from fellow Republicans to drop out.
Senators Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders, both lobbied heavily to vote no on deeply imperfect legislation, both voted yes.
Senator Robert Byrd, whose death or injury was wished for by some Republicans this holiday season, was wheeled in and cast his yes vote, adding, This is for my friend Ted Kennedy.
Senator Harry Reid brought the funny, but not on purpose. When the rollcall got to him, he voted loud and clear: No!
The clerk paused, as the room tensed up a little, to let an exhausted Senate Majority Leader catch up with what he just did, and change his vote. Which he did, as everybody in the room cracked up.
I only saw the last minute of the vote. There's more to say, so consider this an Open Thread.
As you probably know, Frank Lautenberg has been push a gun control bill that aims to close the loopholes that would allow terrorists to buy guns. Terrorists or gun control? Quite a conundrum for some folks! Anyway, Lautenberg's office is jumping on a new poll of gun owners:
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), a leader in the Senate on strengthening common-sense gun safety standards, today highlighted encouraging new poll results found in a national survey taken of gun owners, including National Rifle Association (NRA) members.
"This revealing poll shows that a vast majority of responsible gun owners support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and terrorists," said Sen. Lautenberg. "For too long, the special interest gun lobby has blocked efforts to close dangerous loopholes in our gun laws. It is time to put the safety of the American people ahead of the NRA, which is clearly out of touch with its own members and must no longer be an impediment to common sense safety initiatives."
The survey of 832 gun owners conducted by Dr. Frank Luntz found an alarming inconsistency between the interest of American gun owners and the NRA's agenda in Washington.
The study found that an overwhelming 82 percent of NRA gun owners (and 86 percent of non-NRA gun-owners) support prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. 69 percent of NRA gun owners (and 85 percent of non-NRA gun owners) support requiring that all gun sellers at gun shows conduct background checks for people purchasing guns. 90 percent of NRA gun owners (and 93 percent of non-NRA gun owners) agreed that the FBI should be able to access and keep information about gun purchases by terror suspects.
Info, including the data and press release, on the poll is here.
Senator Frank Lautenberg put out this statement following President Obama's speech:
"We have to finish the job in Afghanistan that President Bush largely abandoned, and make sure that country never again becomes a haven for Al-Qaeda to plot terrorist attacks against Americans. I support President Obama's strategy, but we must have clear measurements for progress and demand improvements in both the Afghan government and security forces."
Assemblyman John McKeon, D-Essex, has proposed legislation that would effectively take away Gov. Chris Christie's ability to pick a new U.S. senator of his choosing, should, for instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg not complete his term.
Lautenberg will turn 86 four days after Christie's Jan. 19th inaugural, and that has raised concerns among some Democrats that he might have to step down for health reasons, or even pass away, while Republicans are holding the keys to Drumthwacket. That would give Christie the ability to appoint a U.S. senator on a temporary basis, altering the balance in Washington in the short-term and giving that appointed senator an incumbent's edge in a campaign.
A synopsis of McKeon's bill (A4271) says the appointee would have to be of the same political party as the person who vacates the office. The full text of the bill does not yet exist, and the legislation is apparently still in flux. It's not clear if a governor would have to pick a candidate off a list provided by a state political party or if a governor would have wider latitude in picking a replacement.
Here is the synopsis of McKeon's bill according to the Legislature's website:
Requires Governor to make temporary appointment when vacancy occurs in U.S. Senate; provides appointee must be of same political party as person who vacates office.
There are some people who feel a change like this should have been made long before it came to this point. Jeff Gardner expressed that sentiment when we discussed this issue on Blue Jersey radio recently. Then there is another camp that views a bill of this matter as an afront to the sitting US Senator. The timing of the bill leads people to believe this is less about the merits of a change and more about maintaining control of a seat. I haven't seen anything about a Senate counterpart to McKeon's bill being introduced yet, but we'll watch out for that. Where do you come down on this change?
Updated by Jason: I'm told the full text of the Assembly bill appear after it is introduced next Thursday.
Senators Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg have joined a bi-partisan effort to condemn the self-reported attack of an anti-communist blogger in Cuba.
Ironically, the blogger, Yoani Sanchez, says she and fellow bloggers Claudia Cadelo and Orlando Luís Pardo Lazo were walking to an anti-violence demonstration on Friday in Havana when they say they were briefly detained, and beaten by what is implied were government forces. Considerably less detail is posted about what may have happened to the other two bloggers, but Sanchez has a particularly large following among American anti-Castro activists, who receive her blog posts by email and post them on line to circumvent Cuban censorship. Sanchez was listed as one of 2008's Worlds Most Influential Persons by Time Magazine. American money, and anti-communist passion contributes considerable drive to the anti-Castro movement. Menendez is a strong supporter of anti-Castro legislation, and a touchstone leader of anti-Castro Cuban-Americans both inside and outside NJ.
The statements - which join together both NJ senators with George LeMieux (R-FL), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ted Kaufman (D-DE), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) are not yet posted on either of our Senators' websites. But here they are:
Senator Menendez is listed first:
I'm sure the irony of viciously beating a pacifist dissident on the way to a march for non-violence was lost entirely on the Castro regime. Once again, the dictatorship rears its ugly head in the form of physical violence and the suppression of human rights against its own people. This is yet another indication that despite all of the hope for change on the island, the regime continues to rule with an iron fist that crushes any seed of free speech or human rights. The Castro regime wants to have it both ways - they want a new relationship with the United States, but they also want to keep attacking their own people, silencing free speech and imprisoning dissidents just as they always have. This should not and cannot be. The Castro regime can't continue to expect to get something without giving something in return, plain and simple.
Senator Lautenberg:
Freedom of speech is a basic human right that Cuba must respect if it wants a future relationship with the United States. Government-sponsored violence and intimidation cannot be tolerated and we have an obligation to speak out against these actions by the Cuban Government.
Sanchez is a stark example of how important new media can be in the role of dissident politics. Here's a blow-by-blow account of what Sanchez reports at Global Voices Advocacy and at her own blog, Generation Y (English) and (Spanish).
