Category: Fall 2003 Newswire
CT Grandparents Rally to Gain Government Support
By Kevin Joy
WASHINGTON – A heart attack left Hollister Brown unable to care for himself or pay his bills.
Costly triple-bypass surgery emptied his family’s savings last month and forced Brown, 48, to leave his job at a Hartford Wal-Mart. His wife Sheila, also 48, receives disability payments and does not work.
Their financial problems are making it difficult for the Browns to support their grandchildren, Shanekwa and LaShay, who live with them. The Browns, of Hartford, are the children’s primary caretakers.
“Back when I was raising my own kids, you needed two or three jobs to make ends meet,” Hollister Brown said. “I just can’t do that anymore, obviously.”
Although the Connecticut Department of Children and Families has money to help some grandparents who care for grandchildren, it cannot help the Browns. State money is reserved for children who have been turned over to relatives as a result of a court order, usually because of parental abuse or neglect. The relatives must go through extensive training and become licensed caregivers, similar to foster parents.
The Browns said they began caring for their grandchildren when their daughter was unable to, but they did not receive a court order.
Grandparents who take a child into their home without legal action and a license are not eligible for the state funds-which amount to about $8,500 per child annually.
The Browns, along with about 30 other Connecticut grandparents and hundreds more from across the country, marched on Capitol Hill this week for the first national “GrandRally to Leave No Child Behind.” They urged Congress to pass legislation that would give states federal money for grandparent caregivers, help provide the families with affordable housing and give them temporary help in their homes.
“We have to pay the bills, too, so what’s the difference?” said Carolyn Jackson, a parent coordinator for New Haven’s public schools and caretaker for one grandchild. “For the state to give more funding to a foster parent, usually a total stranger, that is wrong.”
Jackson said many low-income grandparents who take care of grandchildren are under 40 and, in many cases, still have children at home.
About 6 million grandparents nationwide lived with their minor grandchildren in 2000, and 42 percent of them were the primary caregivers , according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 1999, the latest year for which figures are available, 19 percent of these grandparents were living in poverty.
In Connecticut, about 19,000 grandparents report that they are responsible for their grandchildren. They take on the responsibility for a number of reasons, including a parent’s death, incarceration or long-term illness.
It’s a costly proposition.
“Utilities, food, clothing, school supplies, medical bills-the cost of living is unbelievable,” said Valerie Allen, 49, of Hartford. “I need more help.”
Allen is raising two grandsons, each with chronic asthma, and said she needs more government support to help find good housing in a better school district. She worries about how to pay for their college educations.
Financial help is scarce and difficult to locate.
“These families have shown tremendous commitment without the resources,” said Carol Shirley, spokeswoman for the AARP, a senior citizens’ lobby. “They deserve the same benefits they would get if their grandchildren were in the system under foster care. People need help in order to help themselves.”
Linda Cobbs, 52, who is raising three grandchildren in Hartford, said many grandparents help each other through old-fashioned networking.
Once a month, Cobbs leads a group called Parents The Second Time Around. She and about 30 others have been meeting for five years.
“People just say, ‘You’re a grandparent-it’s your obligation’ to pay for the needs of the grandchildren, Cobbs said. “But now it’s our responsibility as a community to make sure they aren’t being penalized and get the support they deserve.”
Politicians Report Fundraising Totals
By David Tamasi
WASHINGTON - The two New Hampshire Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives submitted their most recent campaign fundraising reports to the Federal Election Commission this week and said that neither has a 2004 opponent yet.
Congressman Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfesboro, reported raising $84,119 during the three months that ended Sept. 30, leaving him with $291,503 cash on hand. Fifth-term Congressman Charles Bass, R-Petersboro, raised $57,560 during that period, and had an available cash balance of $101,820.
Congress members must file reports with the FEC four times a year, detailing how much money they have raised and spent.
The reports can serve as a barometer to incumbents' strengths or weaknesses. Based on the amount of money they have raised, they can scare off or invite potential challengers. Congress members run for re-election every two years, and any challengers would likely announce by January their intentions to run in 2004.
First term Congress members are generally viewed as the most vulnerable because they usually have not established the fundraising prowess that comes with long-term incumbency. By this calculation, freshman, Bradley would be most likely to draw an opponent. But his spokesman said no challenger has emerged.
"We have not heard anything about potential challengers," said Bradley's spokesman, T.J. Crawford.
A closer review of his filing revealed that nearly 40 percent, or $32,950, of the cash Bradley raised from July 1 to Sept. 30 came from political action committees (PACs) and Republican Party committees. Of the $350,888 Bradley raised so far this year, more than half, $196, 215, came from PACs and political committees, including $1,500 from General Electric's PAC. Bradley received $2,000 from the International Firefighters Association of Firefighters, two contributions totaling $7,000 from the Florida, Power & Light Company Employees PAC and $1,000 from Federal Express's PAC.
Bradley spent $44,993 in the third quarter, with $27,060 going to SCM Associates, a Republican direct mail marketing firm. New Hampshire Governor Craig Benson, a fellow Republican, contributed $1,000 to the Bradley campaign.
In the 2002 election, Democrat Martha Fuller Clark raised $2,526,066 more than Bradley. Bradley beat her 59 percent to 39 percent.
Half of the money Bass raised, $29,500, came from political action committees and the Republican Party. Bass received $1,000 donations from the Mohegan Tribe, which owns Mohegan Sun Casino and the Mashantucket Pequod Tribal Nation, owners of Foxwoods Casino, both of which are in Connecticut. In addition, the National Cable & Telecommunications PAC gave $5,000 and the American Maritime Associations PAC donated $2,000 to Bass. The New Hampshire Congressman made a $1,000 contribution to President Bush's re-election effort and gave $500 to the campaign of Nashua Mayor Bernard Streeter. He spent $13,604 in the third quarter of this year.
Bass won his last two races, even though his 2002 opponent Katrina Swett raised $1,429,259 compared to Bass's $906,760. In 2000 Barney Brannen raised $99,351 more than Bass.
Bass spokesman Sally Tibbetts said he did not have an opponent yet.
On the national level, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, a Democratic candidate for president, reported raising $3.9 million during the third quarter of the year. Kerry spent much more than that -- $7 million.
Kerry's fundraising has dropped steadily since the first three months of the year, when he took in $7 million. He raised $5.9 million from April through June. In total, Kerry has brought in nearly $17 million, considerably less than the $25 million reported by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who is leading Democratic presidential contenders in fundraising.
Records for Senators Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.; Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and John Sununu, R-N.H., were not available at the end of the week because senators file their reports differently than House members, according to Barbara Riley, a spokesman for Sununu.
Lt. Governor Healey Considering Run Against Tierney
By David Tamasi
WASHINGTON - Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey is weighing a run for Congress next year against Rep. John Tierney, a Salem Democrat who will be seeking a 5th term, according to a Republican with close political ties to Healey.
"It is something that has definitely been discussed," said the longtime GOP operative, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The potential drawback would be traveling to Washington and being away from her kids."
Healey could run for the 6th congressional district seat while serving as lieutenant governor. If she were to lose to Tierney, she would remain lieutenant governor.
A spokeswoman for Healey denied she was considering a congressional campaign.
"A number of people have approached lieutenant governor Healey about running for John Tierney's congressional seat," said spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman. "She is very flattered by the encouragement she has received, but is focused on the job of lieutenant governor."
Tierney's office would not comment on a prospective challenge by Healey. "His policy is to not respond to speculation, but [he] fully appreciates the right to run and that he may have an opponent in any given race," said Tierney's spokeswoman, Leslie Knapp.
Healey, who lives in Beverly, was elected lieutenant governor in 2002 on a ticket with Gov. Mitt Romney. They beat Democrats Shannon O'Brien and Christopher Gabrieli. Healey weathered a challenge in the Republican primary from Concord businessman James Rappaport, but rallied and soundly defeated him, 64 percent to 36 percent.
Healey's strength in that primary is one of the reasons her name has come up as a potential challenger to Tierney.
"Her primary win in that congressional district was impressive enough among independent voters to look at whether she could do this," the Republican operative said. "That is a well-known fact."
The 6th district encompasses Essex County and the towns of North Andover, North Reading, Reading, Bedford, Wilmington and Burlington.
Romney and Healey received 141, 932 votes in Essex County last year. That same year, Tierney received 162,900 votes, or 68 percent of the total, in his race against Republican Mark Smith. Healey would likely be a stronger candidate than Smith because she has considerably higher name recognition and a greater ability to raise money .
Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, would not comment on whether Healey was looking at the race.
"A reason they want to keep this quiet is to limit Tierney's ability to raise money through direct mail," the Republican said. "If it is out there now, then Tierney can write letters saying he has to be well-financed against a tough opponent."
Healey's most recent filing with the state's Office of Campaign and Political Finance indicated she raised $61,350 in September and has $224,511 in her war chest. Her campaign spent $16,532 in September.
Healey's campaign has kept a number of people on the payroll and continues to pay Gray Media $2,000 a month in consulting fees. Gray Media is owned by Rob Gray, a Republican political consultant who previously served in the administrations of former Govs. William Weld and Paul Cellucci.
With the advantage of incumbency, Tierney has amassed nearly three times as much campaign money as Healey. According to his most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission Wednesday, Tierney had $688,444 in his campaign account. From July 1 through Sept. 30, Tierney raised $72,408 and spent $33,135.
A lawyer by profession, Tierney has received a 100 percent rating from the AFL-CIO in past years and could rely on support from unions and other traditional Democratic constituencies. He sits on the House Education and the Workforce Committee and the House Government Reform Committee.
Tierney was first elected to Congress in 1996, defeating Republican incumbent Peter Torkildsen, in a bitter rematch of their 1994 race. Tierney faced Torkildsen again in 1998 and beat him by 12 percentage points. Since then, Tierney has faced only token opposition.
Gene Hartigan, a veteran Massachusetts Republican political consultant who managed Torkildsen's 1992 and 1998 campaigns, said that if Healey "ran she would offer a strong alternative" to Tierney.
"I think she would be an appropriate candidate for that district," Hartigan said. "She has a definition of what she wants and is a woman, which does not hurt."
Hartigan attributed Tierney's electoral successes to two things: being a Democrat in a Democratic state and playing to his union base, which helps get voters to the polls on Election Day. By the same token, he said, "There are a lot of Democrats on the North Shore that I have talked to who do not like Tierney and find him arrogant."
Congressional Quarterly wrote in April that a Republican candidate might be able to take the district by wooing independents. "Republicans can do well in upscale towns such as Boxford, Lynnfield, Topsfield and Wenham, which gave 2002 GOP gubernatorial nominee Mitt Romney more than two-thirds of the vote," the magazine reported. "While the district has a Democratic tilt, it is not overwhelming, and the GOP can win by attracting independent-minded 'unenrolled' voters."
But Louis DiNatale, director of the Center for State and Local Government at the University of Massachusetts' McCormack Institute of Public Affairs, said Healey would be hard-pressed to beat Tierney.
"Her chances are not good," DiNatale said. "That is a swing district, and there are a lot of unenrolled [independent] voters who are going to vote Democratic in a presidential year, so the timing is not the best."
DiNatale said Healey's lack of experience would be fodder for Tierney.
Before Romney picked her as his running mate, Healey ran for the state legislature against Rep. Michael Cahill in 1998 and 2000 and lost both times. In the fall of 2001, she ran for the unpaid position of chairman of the Republican State Committee and won.
The following April, Acting Governor Jane M. Swift announced she would not run for governor to clear the way for fellow Republican Romney, the former Olympics chairman, who announced his candidacy days later. Swift's choice for lieutenant governor, Patrick Guerriero, then stepped aside and Romney moved quickly to pick Healey.
"Tierney is a tough congressman who has been through close races," DiNatale said. "He would have a lot of resources available."
N.H. Fears Chilling Effect of Federal Abortion Ban
WASHINGTON - Congress is expected send President Bush a bill this month that would ban a rarely used abortion procedure, a decision abortion-rights advocates say would create a chilling effect on doctors who perform other types of abortions.
As senators prepare to vote on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 -- which the House passed earlier this month and the President has said he will sign into law -- New Hampshire abortion-rights advocates predict the bill's language actually could affect more-common abortion procedures.
"Because the law is so vague, it's likely that abortion providers will feel the risk of prosecution," said Jennifer Frizzell, public affairs director for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. "Doctors won't be able to consider the best and most appropriate abortion-care options for their patients without the threat of prosecution hanging over their heads."
If signed into law, the bill would represent the first ban on a specific abortion procedure since the Supreme Court guaranteed a woman's right to abortion in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. House and Senate negotiators omitted a clause in the Senate bill that would have affirmed that landmark ruling.
The House passed the partial-birth ban in early October by a vote of 281-142. Both New Hampshire House members, Rep. Charlie Bass and Rep. Jeb Bradley, voted in favor of the legislation.
The Senate passed a similar measure early this year and is expected to pass this one as well. President Clinton twice vetoed bans on partial-birth abortions. Both Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) voted for the bill when the Senate first took it up.
The legislation describes partial-birth abortion as a procedure in which a physician kills a partially delivered fetus. Doctors who refuse to comply with the law could face fines and up to two years in jail.
The bill contains an exception only when a mother's life - but not her health - is in danger. It's a critical distinction. Abortion-rights advocates have said they will move quickly to challenge the law in court, citing a Supreme Court ruling three years ago that struck down a Nebraska ban because it didn't contain a health exception.
The bill states that partial-birth abortions are "never necessary" to preserve a woman's health.
"The vast majority of them are done on healthy women, and healthy babies of healthy women," said Roger Stenson, executive director of New Hampshire Citizens for Life, an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. "It's not done for the hard cases."
Abortion-rights supporters contend the procedure has been used to protect women's health. Claire Ebel, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Hampshire, said the procedure has been used in emergency situations when a fetus' deformed skull has swelled with fluids to a point that it would harm a woman if delivered vaginally.
"The procedure performed in the later stages of pregnancy is always done for the woman's health, always," she said. "There are no exceptions. No one aborts a fetus to get into a prom dress."
A survey conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that focuses on sexual and reproductive health research and analysis, found that 2,200 "partial-birth" abortions were performed in the United States in 2000. More than 1.3 million abortions were performed in the country that year.
Abortion-rights advocates argue the bill's language is "misleading" and "inexact," and could outlaw commonly used second-term abortion procedures that occur as early as 12 weeks into a pregnancy.
"It's a vague term that's used by anti-abortion activists, but it's not recognized in any medical dictionary," Frizzell said. "And it's a political definition, not a medical definition."
New Hampshire health care facilities and Planned Parenthood centers generally perform abortions only during the first trimester of pregnancy, according to Frizzell. Private- practice doctors usually handle second-trimester abortions and any potential emergencies late in pregnancy, she added.
Ebel said the ban could threaten women's lives.
"It is absolutely unacceptable at any time to give lawmakers the right to tell a doctor what she or he may or may not do in the operating room," Ebel said.
"At some point even the most rabid anti-choice legislators have to get it," she said. "What they need to get is that the women in America -- Republican, Democrat, independent, teenagers, middle-aged and all the women in between -- will never go back. We will never again surrender our rights to autonomy over our own bodies."
Stenson, of New Hampshire Citizens for Life, said there is a distinction between the procedure defined in the bill and more-common abortion practices.
"This doesn't ban abortions," he said. "This bans a specific technique, which is so brutal that it just chills the hearts of everybody in the United States that this kind of thing can be done."
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which has filed suits against a number of anti-abortion measures, has promised to challenge the law as soon as the president signs it.
"The Supreme Court has already said that a law like this would have 'tragic health consequences,' " Nancy Northup, president of the Washington-based center, said in a statement. "We will do everything in our power to prevent this dangerous ban from taking effect."
Abortion opponents speak of the bill in benevolent terms.
"Banning this practice will have a á compassion-inducing effect on our culture," Stenson said. "We've been so desensitized by violence in the United States, including the violence of abortion á, that saying no to this particular technique is a step in the right direction of making a more compassionate culture."
Senator Christopher Dodd Introduces a New Bill to Prevent Premature Births
WASHINGTON - The number of babies born prematurely in Connecticut has risen by roughly 5 percent since 1991 and by about 10 percent and nationwide, according to the March of Dimes.
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) wants to find out why. He has introduced the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers Who Deliver Infants Early Act (PREEMIE), which aims to reduce the mortality rate for premature babies by increasing research on early births.
Nationwide, nearly 500,000 babies are born prematurely each year, and more than one-fifth of them develop health problems, the March of Dimes reported. Many of them suffer from devastating disabilities and have to fight for their lives. Premature births account for 23 percent of the deaths that occur in the first month of life, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
"Premature infants are 14 times more likely to die in their first year than infants who are carried to term," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the bill's co-sponsor, said at a press conference Thursday.
Dodd, the senior Democrat on a subcommittee on children and families, said the bill "is an important step in the right direction towards preventing premature birth and providing better care for infants born prematurely."
According to Dr. Daniel Langford, a neonatologist at New Britain General Hospital, roughly 9 percent of the babies born at the hospital every year are premature --born after less than 36 weeks gestation. A normal pregnancy takes 40 weeks.
Respiratory distress, infections and low glucose levels are among the problems common in premature babies, Langford said.
The March of Dimes web site lists four potential causes of early labor: maternal or fetal stress, infection, bleeding of the uterus and stretching of the uterus. But a spokesperson for the organization said the reasons for half of all premature births are unknown.
"We need a focused, targeted research to understand the reasons for premature birth," said Dr. Jennifer Howse, president of the March of Dimes, which works to combat premature births and genetic defects. She added that the number of early births seemed to be rising-from 10.8 percent of all live births in 1991 to 11.9 percent in 2001.In Connecticut, premature births rose from 9.3 percent to 9.8 percent during the same decade.
Dodd and Alexander were joined at the press conference by parents and advocates from Bolton, Fairfield, Kensington and Stamford.
Dodd said the bill would provide $15 million a year for five years to step up research.
Civil Libertarians Praise Patriot Act Reforms, Sununu
WASHINGTON - Civil liberties advocates Wednesday rallied behind U.S. Sen. John Sununu's decision to support two bills that would impose time limits on some of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act of 2001.
If passed, the bills would extend so-called sunset clauses - which terminate certain provisions of the law after a period of time - to parts of the law that have given the government sweeping new powers in executing search warrants, using wire taps, demanding access to business records and other controversial areas.
It would also limit how long law enforcement agents can delay notifying property owners after executing search warrants, eliminate the agents' ability to get a wire tap without specifying the person and place to be tapped and limit the FBI's ability to subpoena business records.
The American Conservative Union called the bills the most comprehensive attempts yet to reform the Patriot Act, while the American Civil Liberties Union praised the typically conservative New Hampshire politician for backing what they called a significant first step in bolstering constitutionally protected freedoms.
"This is a recognition by some very powerful, conservative Republican members of Congress that this law is a problem," said Claire Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire chapter of the ACLU, which has opposed many aspects of the Patriot Act since it sped through Congress in late 2001.
Both bills enjoy bipartisan support. One is sponsored by Sen. Larry Craig of Indiana, a conservative Republican, and the other by Sen. Patrick Leahy, a liberal Vermont Democrat. Craig's bill is also co-sponsored by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI), the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act.
But Ebel said the proposed laws are just a first step toward what she said she hopes will be complete repeal and re-evaluation of the Patriot Act.
"If it's a good law, it will pass again," she said, adding that many lawmakers didn't have enough time to read the entire 400-page bill in the crush to pass it after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "It was passed in haste. It was passed in secret. There are things in that bill that I would venture to guess even those senators and representatives don't know about."
But the bills' backers made clear yesterday in a press conference that they had no intention of scrapping the entire law and that their efforts, according to Sununu, were just "an attempt to address concerns and weaknesses and vagaries in the original" law.
"We are going to refine the Patriot Act, not reject it," said Sen. Mike Crapo, D-Idaho, another co-sponsor of Craig's bill.
"I believe 90 percent of this bill made pretty good sense," Feingold said of the original Patriot Act.
David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, a conservative lobbying group, also praised the bipartisan sponsorship of the bills.
"These are people who are now taking a look at it and saying much of this is a good law, but let's make sure we didn't go too far," Keene said. "While the government should have all the power it needs to protect us, it shouldn't have all the power it'd like to have," he said.
Justice Department officials declined to comment specifically on pending legislation, but a department spokesman said, "It would be foolish to return to our pre-Sept. 11, 2001, level of vulnerability."
"We can be both safe and free," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., another co-sponsor of Craig's bill, "but we must be mindful."
Added Sununu, "What we tried to do is sit down and put aside all the rhetoric and look at what the law really does."
Meehan Not Likely to Run for Governor in 2006 if AG Does
By David Tamasi
WASHINGTON - His campaign account has almost $1.9 million in it and he has not faced serious opposition since his first race in 1992. He flirted with a run for governor in 2002, but state House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran disrupted those plans by attempting to redraw his district. A potential run for governor in 2006 could be thwarted by yet another Democrat.
Congressman Martin Meehan, D-Lowell, said that while he would "certainly look at opportunities to run for higher office," don't expect him to run for governor if his former boss, state Attorney General Thomas Reilly, does. Meehan served as Reilly's first assistant district attorney in the early 1990s,when Reilly was Middlesex district attorney.
"I not only worked for Tom as his chief prosecutor, but he is a close friend," Meehan said. "The likelihood that Tom and I would run for the same office at the same time is highly unlikely."
Federal law prohibits Meehan from using money in his congressional campaign account for a statewide race. But his large war chest could keep some prospective opponents at bay while allowing him to gain clout in Congress by contributing to other Democratic campaigns.
Meehan raised $57,000 from July 1 to Sept. 30, according to his Wednesday filing with the Federal Election Commission. Meehan said he did not have as much cash on hand as he had two years ago, and was looking "to get back to that level in the next year."
Meehan, who faced nominal opposition in 2002, said he expects two Republicans to vie in next year's primary for a chance to run against him in November.
Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, did not identify any Meehan opponent but said Republicans would be "looking at potential candidates up until the May 4 deadline of next year."
IRAQ Vote Takes Center Stage for Kerry, Again
By David Tamasi
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats have promised a vigorous debate this week on President Bush's request for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. But for Democrats running for President, especially Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, a nuanced approach may be required.
With public opinion polls showing eroding support for President Bush's postwar policy in Iraq, many Democrats have vowed to "ask questions" and not just "rubber-stamp" the president's proposal.
Yet Kerry must balance national politics with the disparate politics of early primary states such as New Hampshire and South Carolina. Navigating this political terrain has proved difficult.
Early on, Kerry was perceived as the Democratic front-runner in New Hampshire, thanks in part to high name recognition from his home state next door. But his vote a year ago for the resolution authorizing Bush to wage war in Iraq stunted his political growth in the Granite State.
"In New Hampshire, Democrats have to walk an incredibly fine line," said Andrew E. Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. "Across the country, they had to vote for the war to be viable, but within the Democratic electorate in New Hampshire, it is 2 to 1 against the war."
A poll of New Hampshire residents published last week by the UNH Survey Center found that 54 percent of respondents approved of the President's handling of Iraq. But 78 percent of Democrats - those who will drive the state's January primary -- disapprove of the administration's policy for postwar Iraq.
Smith said that it had been difficult for Kerry to "square his vote with Democrats who don't want to hear it." Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has eclipsed Kerry in the Granite State in large part because of his vocal opposition to the war in Iraq, Smith said.
"Dean has pushed this button hard, long and very effectively," Smith said.
Kerry had calculated that New Hampshire's primary would be his, but he has lagged some 10 points behind Dean in the polls since summer. Though Kerry is not conceding New Hampshire, he is looking beyond it to Super Tuesday and hoping that the seven states holding primaries Feb. 3 will propel him to the nomination.
The shift in strategy was apparent when Kerry held his formal campaign announcement speech in Charleston, S.C., after originally planning to deliver it in Boston. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, has made his military service a central theme of his candidacy and hopes to connect with the Palmetto State's many veterans.
Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said that while "there is a more pro-military attitude" in South Carolina, Kerry faced a more general problem with primary voters throughout the country.
"Kerry has to appeal to Democratic voters who see the handling of post-war Iraq as evidence of a huge mistake," Ornstein said. "Even among the more conservative Democrats, there is a visceral reaction."
While there is a difference between Democrats in New Hampshire and South Carolina, the "activists in these states are only different to a small degree," Ornstein said. "I think that Kerry was taken by surprise by the degree that Democratic voters were angry at President Bush."
David Lublin, a longtime government and international studies professor at the University of South Carolina, said the concerns of South Carolina's large percentage of African-Americans would have a major impact on the state's Democratic primary.
"African-Americans in South Carolina are more concerned about high unemployment rates," said Lublin, now at American University in Washington. "There is a strong military culture, and a lot of African- Americans in South Carolina serve in the military, but the economy is a very big concern."
Ornstein said that Iowa Democrats have more of an ideological tinge than their fellow party members in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Iowa holds its presidential caucuses Jan. 19, before the voting in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Kerry is currently running third or fourth in Iowa, depending on the poll.
Now Kerry is faced with another vote on Iraq-the $87 billion spending bill. In a statement on Tuesday, Kerry said, "Unless this proposal is changed to better protect taxpayer dollars and shares the burden and risk of transforming Iraq with the United Nations and the rest of the international community, then I will oppose it."
Smith said he did not think Kerry would hurt himself in New Hampshire if he voted for the $87 billion request. In fact, Smith speculated, a vote against the bill could backfire on Kerry.
"There is some risk of being labeled a flip-flopper and that he changed his vote for political purposes," Smith said. "Either way I am sure that Dean's campaign is prepared."
Sununu Announces Safe Act
WASHINGTON - New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu Wednesday unveiled two bills that would rewrite controversial parts of the USA Patriot Act of 2001. Civil liberty advocates called the bipartisan legislation a "wonderful start."
Sununu and several co-sponsors said at a press conference they wanted to repair parts of the Patriot Act that have the most potential for abuse by the government. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) said the Patriot Act, which Congress passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, eliminated too many checks on the executive branch.
Keeping the county's security tight could be accomplished without forsaking the rights of the public, Sununu said. "We can do it while protecting civil liberties," he said.
The White House has stood behind the Patriot Act, and Attorney General John Ashcroft has embarked on a nationwide campaign to defend it.
One of the bills, the Patriot Oversight Restoration Act of 2003, would establish expiration dates for a number of provisions, including some government surveillance methods and so-called sneak and peak search warrants, which allow federal agents to search terrorism suspects' property without obtaining warrants.
The other bill, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003, or the SAFE Act, would re-establish rules eliminated by the Patriot Act that prescribed steps the government must take to gain access to business records. The SAFE Act would also limit "John Doe" roving wiretaps by requiring that targets be identified and "sneak and peak" search warrants by requiring notification of a search within seven days.
Sununu, who supported the Patriot Act as a House member in 2001, called the reforms "common sense."
"What we tried to do was sit down, put aside all the rhetoric and take a look at what the law really does," he said.
Civil liberties advocates such as Claire Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said there is more to be done.
"This is a recognition by some very powerful, conservative Republican members of Congress that this law is a problem," Ebel said, "that it is a threat to personal liberty, that it is a violation of constitutional protections, that it imperils the very society that Mr. Ashcroft purports to defend with this bill."
One aspect of the Patriot Act that gave the government access to library records concerned New Hampshire library workers, who objected to having to comply with the regulations, Ebel said. The SAFE Act would return to pre-Patriot Act standards and limit access to information such as library records by requiring the FBI to seek subpoenas by providing evidence that the person under investigation was a suspected terrorist or spy.
"I think is it an enormous credit to Sen. Sununu that he recognizes the danger in this bill, not just to Islamic Americans or Arab Americans, but to all Americans," Ebel said, "because there are no limits to the breadth and the depth of the investigatory tools that have been put in the hands of law enforcement á to investigate innocent American citizens."
The Patriot Act was handled too quickly and with too much secrecy, she said, and Congress should completely re-evaluate it.
"People are frightened," Ebel said. "They are angry.á They are up in arms that their individual constitutional rights could be abrogated á by a piece of legislation that they did not know was coming and they have no opportunity to react to."
Tobacco Regulation Bill Unlikely to Pass This Year
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - Every day, tobacco-related illnesses kill 28 Massachusetts residents; every year, 24,000 Massachusetts children become daily smokers, according to the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group.
Now, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) and other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee are spearheading a bill that would place cigarettes and other tobacco products under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration. Their proposal would allow the FDA to regulate the marketing of tobacco products to minors, strengthen health warnings on the dangerous effects of smoking and limit hazardous materials in cigarettes.
But prospects for enactment this year have dimmed in the wake of a dispute over just how much authority the FDA should acquire.
To ensure its passage, lawmakers had planned to link the bill with one that would provide financial relief to tobacco farmers by ending the government's 70-year-old tobacco subsidy. That measure, which is supported by senators from tobacco-growing states, would allow farmers to increase their tobacco production and compete on more even footing with foreign growers.
An unlikely coalition of interest groups-including anti-smoking advocates, tobacco growers and cigarette giant Philip Morris-have voiced support for tobacco regulation. But controversy over the specific language of the bill has stalled negotiations for months, making it unlikely that the bill will pass this year.
At issue is how much power the FDA should have to eliminate nicotine and other harmful ingredients from cigarettes. Manufacturers fear too much control could lead to a total ban on cigarettes.
Democrats, who say their goal is not to ban cigarettes, want a bill that would specifically allow the FDA to remove harmful ingredients from tobacco products. Republicans insist the current draft of the bill grants the FDA that authority, but Democrats and public health groups argue its "vague language" would provide loopholes for cigarette manufacturers to protest FDA decisions.
"It would severely restrict the authority of the FDA to require changes in tobacco products to make cigarettes less harmful and addictive," said Vince Willmore, spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "We want to make sure that the language is tight and clear."
Philip Morris officials worry that too much FDA control would be the death of cigarettes.
"We don't think the FDA should be able to ban cigarettes entirely," said Mark Berlind, legislative counsel to Altria Group Inc., the Philip Morris' parent company. "The regulatory system is not supposed to be about prohibition of a product, but about reducing its harm."
If harmful ingredients are removed, Mr. Berlind wants confirmation that the resulting product is still "recognizable as a cigarette."
Willmore said the public-health advocates have additional concerns with the bill. They are disturbed that it does not give the FDA authority to monitor the health impacts of new, allegedly safer cigarette products, he said. They also contend that the bill would weaken existing FDA rules restricting the marketing of tobacco to children.
"We want to see the FDA enforce requirements such as checking for IDs, banning vending machine sales of cigarettes and restricting magazines from advertising [cigarettes] in color," he said.
Last week, tobacco negotiations came to a halt after Sen. Kennedy rejected a "best and final offer" from Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the health committee. Sen. Kennedy said Sen. Gregg's bill provided the public with inadequate protection from unhealthy tobacco products.
"Unfortunately, the proposed legislation which Republicans put forth today falls far short of the strong FDA authority which is needed to effectively do the job," Sen. Kennedy said in a statement. "A weak bill is worse than no bill at all because it would give the public a false impression that their health was being protected."
Anti-smoking lobbyists agreed that the proposal "would result in weak legislation that does not protect the public health," according to a statement from the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "We have made concessions and proposed compromises in an attempt to resolve the outstanding issues, but this offer does not address the concerns that we have raised in any significant way."
Sen. Gregg said his proposal would give the FDA "significant new powers that will lead to a substantially strengthened public health policy."
He said it would grant the FDA greater authority over tobacco companies' advertising and promotion and require the FDA to monitor the effects of new tobacco products.
"After 10 years of making political statements and using children as political pawns rather than enacting true reform, I tried to make something work," Sen. Gregg said in a statement. "It is disappointing that yet again, the other side is going to walk away from [an]opportunity to pass legislation that will make a difference."
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), who helped design the bill and is working with both sides to save it, was optimistic negotiations would continue.
"I believe the sides will be able to come together because it's in everyone's best interest to do so," Sen. DeWine said in a statement. "We are not that far apart. There is no reason why we cannot get a deal."
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Sen. Kennedy, said the senator would be willing to negotiate another draft of the bill if there was some "significant movement" toward increasing the FDA's authority over tobacco.
So far, there has been no such movement, he said. "We have seen no more signs of negotiations. Based on current drafts, it is tough to imagine that we can get a bill done before the end of this year."
