Thanks for story on peace vigil

Thanks for the Aug. 19 front-page article on the Middle Township peace vigil. However, your reporter gave too much coverage to the one single person who stands a lone vigil across the street opposing our group when we are there twice a month.The peace vigil is one small way to get people to understand that the Iraq invasion caused the death of 2,650 Americans and countless Iraqis, and peace in that area of the world is not even on the horizon.We want our servicemen and women home in order to step up security on our own soil. Our country does not have the power to control the Middle East, nor is it our right to attempt to do so. The only way we can really help there is to foster peace negotiations among the warring nations. John and Betty Canderan, Cape May Court House - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 30, 2006

War disappeared

The war in Iraq is the war that went away. Television hardly covers it. The print media might give it a paragraph on page 3. The president and most Republicans are more interested in gay marriage, flag burning and stem cells. World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm -- I've been in one and lived through the others. Until they were over, they never went away. American history doesn't have any war that just went away. Maybe it's because wars just don't go away. Maybe the so-called war in Iraq is not a war at all. Just because President Bush calls it a war doesn't make it one. Maybe he calls it a war so he can hoodwink the American people into supporting huge expenditures and accepting the loss of thousands of American and Iraqi lives. Maybe it's an exercise in nation building. Or maybe it's retribution for a failed assassination attempt on former President George H.W. Bush. Maybe it's about oil. The Grand Old Party is now called the Grand Oil Party by some. If, in fact, we are not at war in Iraq but are there for another reason, why don't we just get out? If the war can go away, why can't we? Starting this November, make the people who created this fiasco go away. Walter Welsh, Somerdale - Published in the Courier Post, August 27, 2006

Iraq and US better before Bush

Maybe the writer of the Aug. 14 letter, “Don't ignore Bush's success,” should take some time to look at the facts before making her judgments. Of course, it is true that the United States has not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. It is also true that we invaded the terrorists, but only for a short period of time. That was when we were in Afghanistan, and the terrorists actually posed a threat to us. But then we invaded Iraq. Iraq was a country that posed no threat to U.S. troops or U.S. soil. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with the fight against terrorism. Life has certainly not returned to normal. What about the recent attacks that threatened both the United States and Britain? It appears the writer failed to think about the welfare and well-being of the Iraqi people. In many areas, the people of Iraq are worse off now than they were before the United States went in. President Bush may have shown strong leadership with the war on terror, but certainly not with the war in Iraq. I think it's time that U.S. citizens opened their eyes and realize that Bush and his policies have been more of a negative than a positive. Peter Usilton, Dennis Twp - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 26, 2006

Republicans twist high court ruling

Regarding the recent Supreme Court decision regarding wiretapping: The Republican party is typically twisting the issue into something it isn't. As I understand it, the court ruled that the federal government could not indiscriminately wiretap its citizens but must first get the approval of a judge. The amount of wiretapping under each scenario would be the same if every wiretap was legitimate. By changing the issue from wiretapping with court oversight to how the terrible judge is hurting the “war on terror” by forbidding indiscriminate wiretapping indicates to me that the Bush team is unwilling or unable to address the real issue — the balance of power through constitutional court oversight — or that they have something to hide. John Paulits, Brigantine - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 26, 2006

Stop blaming AARP and seniors

In his Aug. 15 column, “AARP plus all those boomers equals bust for U.S. Treasury,” James Hancock states that because of AARP's efforts to enroll millions of baby boomers, “the benefits of AARP membership appear to include bankrupting the country.” He further states that AARP's growing financial resources “promote programs the country can't afford.” He specifically targets Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Social Security. Perhaps the country could better afford these programs if government weren't doing the following: n Launching billions of dollars into space for little or no discernible benefit to mankind. n Giving or trying to give billions in huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. n Spending billions trying to be the world's policeman by getting involved in unwinable sectarian wars. n Preventing Medicare from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for the best possible prices. n Handing out millions or billions annually in political pork. One of Hancock's solutions for fixing Medicare “would require ceasing coverage for drugs or treatments that don't work or don't work well.” Who would decide this? On what basis? If someone needs a medication to manage a chronic condition for more than a couple of years does that mean it's not working? And he would have the government play God by “stopping expensive efforts to prolong life by a few months.” Terminally ill? Just let 'em die! Of course, it's easy for someone 50 years old, whose health care is covered at least in part, if not entirely, by the newspaper that pays his salary, to make such recommendations. I wonder if he will feel the same way 15 or 20 years from now. When Hancock becomes eligible for Social Security and Medicare, will he decline so as not to be part of “bankrupting the county”? Somehow I doubt it. Charles Myers, Ventnor - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 26, 2006

The economy is good? Only if you're wealthy

Productivity and profits are up, and unemployment is low, says President Bush. According to him, his tax cuts are working to bring our economy out of recession. Question is, working for whom?They're not working for people struggling to care for children on minimum wage. The Republican congressional majority killed the Democratic proposal for a modest raise to the minimum wage, despite the fact that its buying power is the lowest since the early 1970s, by including in the bill the elimination of estate taxes for millionaires and billionaires.Bush's tax cuts aren't working for seniors trying to make sense of the GOP's convoluted Medicare D.They're not working for soldiers returning from Iraq to reduced health care and no help from a bankruptcy law that refuses to recognize their service. They're not working for college students who are dropping out at an alarming rate because of 40 percent increases in tuition since Bush took office and because of higher interest rates on student loans. They're not working for the 46 million without health insurance. Evidently the economy is only going well when the Republicans want to talk tax cuts on estates and dividends that benefit the wealthy, subsidies for big business or increasing compensation for CEOs. Meanwhile, most working Americans are experiencing a lack of job opportunities, stagnant wages and vanishing benefits. We should start asking ourselves why we keep electing people who see only bad things happening when we try to improve the lot of those of us who aren't millionaires. Sally McInerney, Corbin City - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 25, 2006

Bush shows no diplomacy

From the beginning of this recent Middle East crisis between Israel and Hezbollah, President Bush said very little, except to say Israel had a right to defend itself against terrorism and that Israel should proceed cautiously so as not to harm the government of Lebanon. Bush pretty much stayed quiet during the whole event. Then, on the day the cease fire took effect, Bush had to announce that Hezbollah was the definite loser in this conflict, despite Hezbollah's proclamation that they defeated Israel.From what I saw, neither side won a victory. Both Israel and Hezbollah suffered death and destruction. I cannot for the life of me figure out why our president had to taunt either side. President Bush should have kept his mouth shut. Instead of trying to further peace, Bush only seemed to incite more hatred. Bush had to speak his “bring it on” talk once again. There really is no diplomacy in the Bush administration. President Bush is too busy telling other nations what they will and will not do, and what consequences they will face if they do not obey the United States. And we wonder why other people hate us? Karl Frank III, Mays Landing - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 24, 2006

Give US representatives permanent vacations

I hope U.S. Reps. Frank LoBiondo, R-2nd, and James Saxton, R-3rd, enjoy their August vacations, because in November we, the people, are going to try and make their vacations permanent.The two of them have done so little for so many, and so much for so few.The rich are richer and the poor have grown poorer — typical do-nothing Republican attitude toward the working people. They have given themselves a fat pay raise and taken the bread out of the poor people's mouths. Congratulations to them both. John Remy, Egg Harbor Twp - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 20, 2006

Forget Iraq, fight terrorists

America will never win the war in Iraq. We will never win the “war on terror.”And they are two distinctly different entities, no matter what this administration tells us. The radical Islamists are a movement without a country, but they are all the more dangerous because they are true believers. By definition, the fanatics are irrational; therefore, there is no way to deal with them. Why are we in Iraq? The murderers of Sept. 11 were Saudi Arabians. The Saudis play a double game — to prevent the radicals from attacking them, they pay them off, which demonstrates their loyalty to their religion. The administration may want us to believe the Saudis are on our side, but no Muslim would betray his religion by being our friend, except as a deception. Why is it that no Saudi prince has been killed by radicals? Because the Saudi royal family gives them money to buy arms to kill us. The philosophy of fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here is completly wrong-headed. We need to get out now. We also need to break our dependency on Mideast oil by aggresively developing alternative forms of fuel. We need to demand that our government and Big Oil stop using our brave soldiers as security guards for oil interests in the Mideast. Let the Iraqis battle over their differences without our interference. We need to secure our borders and ports. We need to use covert methods to deal with invasions and plots. We need to distance ourselves from this threat that can never be defeated. They will never stop. Mary Gibbin, Galloway Twp - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 19,2006

States' moves good, but US needs health fix

It seems that the trend in finding solutions for the health care crisis in America has picked up some steam. Massachusetts has passed a bill to provide universal health care for all citizens in that state, and now the state of Wisconsin is pursuing similar universal coverage initiatives. The Wisconsin plan is akin to car insurance for which everyone is required to purchase the coverage one way or another. The Wisconsin plan would mandate that all employees pay a minimum fee for each and every employer, currently somewhere in the $300-per-month range, to ensure that all employees in that state have coverage. There would be deductibles similar to conventional insurance coverage as well as co-pays. Employers and employees would share the cost. The efforts in these states are laudable; however, we need a national effort in order to fix the problem and to provide adequate coverage. Now let's get everyone to the table. It's the right thing to do. Chip Gerrity, President NJ IBEW, Heightstown - Published in the Daily Journal, August 17, 2006

Bush team has got to go

What is it with this administration? If you think stem-cell research is important, you are not a Christian. If you consider abortion free choice, you are not a Christian.If you believe gays have a right to live their lives instead of existing in a closet to please society, you are immoral.If you criticize, disagree or question, you are not American. If you consider the war a mistake, you are not American. If you consider the president a bad administrator, you are not American. Those of us who believe differently are also Americans, and true patriots, and will never relinquish our right to oppose. We have been accused of not supporting the troops, which is nonsense. Of course we support them, but also feel that they are being sacrificed for oil, dying while young without good purpose. We wish speedy retirement to the current administration, as they have worked too long and too hard for their own purposes, created the worst mess in our history and should leave before the world is dust. Lorraine Reitano, Hammonton - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 17, 2006

House bill was cynical ploy

Suddenly, our Republican House of Representatives became compassionate and decided to raise the minimum wage, the first time in nine years. Although members of Congress have received numerous raises above and beyond the cost of living, the average worker receives less in real wages than any time in the last 50 years, and many earn below poverty level.Were politicians so frightened by plummeting election-year polls that they conquered their aversion to increases? Still they couldn't help the poor without offering further help to the super-rich by reducing the estate tax, paid by fewer than 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans, but delivering billions of dollars to our tax coffers.This bill, supported by U.S. Reps. Frank LoBiondo, R-2nd, and James Saxton, R-3rd, with no chance of passing the Senate, was a cynical attempt to convince Americans that they care. Do they really think Americans are that stupid? Bettie Reina, Milmay - Published in the Atlantic City Press, Ausgust 15, 2006

Congress serves only itself

In the past decade, Congress has voted itself a raise seven times. In the same decade, it has repeatedly denied the working poor a raise in the minimum wage. The cost of living has skyrocketed. Who does Congress serve?The deficit is the most incredible it has ever been in the history of America. The argument has been that if you raise the minimum wage, jobs will be lost. Well, I wish that was the case with Congress.This is a national disgrace. Vote all of these bums out of office. They have long ago stopped serving the constituents they swore to serve. Lucy Morgano, Ventnor - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 15, 2006

People afraid of truth on Iraq

Regarding the Aug. 7 story, “In U.S., half say Iraq had WMDs”: It is interesting to see statistics translated into headlines. That Harris Poll interviewed 1,020 people. Does that truly reflect the thinking of the entire population? What is also intriguing is the same poll also revealed that people think we are less respected, less safe, and that Iraq will not have a stable democracy. No headlines there. The scary thing is the increase in the number of people who believe that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq despite all the information to the contrary. I imagine folks are clinging to the WMD excuse because admitting anything else would be to call this administration into question. And we do not question anymore, do we? If journalists question, they are unpatriotic; if citizens doubt the war effort, they don't support the troops; if you disagree with current policies, you are a left-wing liberal loser. I fear we have turned into a giant mushroom farm — kept in the dark and fed you know what. Susan Van Rossum, Cape May Court House - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 14, 2006

Impeach Bush

President Bush has no problem sending U.S. troops to Iraq, where more than 2,500 have died and thousands have been injured. That's not counting innocent civilians. It was obvious the congressional vote to override Bush's veto on funding was orchestrated to come up short of the votes needed. Bush had a hand-picked audience to give him a standing ovation when he vetoed the bill. The man is a blight on our country and should be impeached. His disregard for the Constitution should be enough grounds. They had a lot less on President Clinton, but the Republicans pushed for impeachment. Where are all those law-and-order officials now? Bob Parr, Pennsauken - Published in the Courier Post, August 12, 2006

Voice opinion

If you are as tired as I am of the nonsense perpetrated on this country by this administration, tired of the daily fear-mongering, tired of the war profiteering, tired of the tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and, especially, tired of the abuse of the chronically ill hoping for a cure for their disease through embryonic stem-cell research only to be shut down by an imperial president and a Congress unwilling to override his veto, you have one option here in South Jersey. You can elect representatives who are willing to override this nightmare administration. In the Courier-Post's circulation area, U.S. Reps. Frank LoBiondo, R-Ventnor, Jim Saxton, R-Mount Holly, and Chris Smith, R-Hamilton, Mercer County, all voted with Bush to sustain his veto. Looking at their voting records, it appears they are rubber stamps for Bush's incompetence. If we, voters, are not happy with the elected officials who work for us, we have the power to turn this country around in November. Roy Lehman, Woolwich - Published in the Courier Post, August 12, 2006

Wrong, again

The president has done an excellent job of selling his position on stem-cell research. Facts, research or science mean nothing to him. He wants everyone to just follow his lead. He'll try to win you over with sound bites and cynical displays of innocent children. There are already millions of people in this country who have buyer's remorse where this president is concerned, and the numbers grow every time he pulls a stunt like he did the day he vetoed money for stem-cell research. Those children Bush assembled around him the day he vetoed the stem-cell bill are examples of the very few born from embryos donated by people who had not used all of their own. However, few people give unwanted embryos to strangers. They leave them in storage where they further degrade until they must be destroyed. The stem cells the writer says are available are few in number and have been degraded and other sources are not plentiful enough. The stem cells that researchers want to use would otherwise be thrown out with medical waste. Let's see: choice between being used to help cure people suffering from debilitating disease or being thrown out with medical waste. Which makes more sense? I happen to believe God gave us brains and hearts, and the ability to use them to solve problems. Don't forget there was a time when the Catholic church was opposed to heart surgery because it believed it was against God's will for anyone to tamper with the heart. Bettie J. Reina, Buena Vista Twp - Published in the courier Post, August 12, 2006

Both ways

Bush has vetoed a bill that would have funded embryonic stem-cell research. He was also a part of a Republican effort to keep Terri Schiavo's body alive through continued artificial means. He would have us believe he thinks life is sacred. However, he intentionally deceived this nation in order to start an unnecessary war in Iraq, and he currently opposes a cease-fire in Lebanon. Apparently, life is sacred to him unless it is attached to a functioning human brain. Perhaps, anyone able to think for themselves is perceived as a threat and is, therefore, expendable. Jack Gillespy, Maple Shade - Published in the Courier Post, August 12, 2006

A new film can make amends

Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism was suspected due to his defense of his father, a well-known anti-Semite. Moreover, Gibson was the driving force behind the violent and bloody “The Passion of the Christ.” That movie reinforces the centuries-old libel that the Jews killed Jesus Christ, although modern scholarship and progressive theologians have disproved that charge. Gibson, a talented actor, is now giving the performance of his life — acting like he is not an anti-Semite. His self-serving apologies are insufficient; he needs to make amends for his outrageous behavior. Just as D.W. Griffith made the movie “Intolerance” as amends for his racist, pro-Ku Klux Klan film “Birth of a Nation,” Gibson could produce a movie that deals with the evil of anti-Semitism — so long as the movie isn't another “Lethal Weapon.” Daniel T Campbell, Somers Point - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 11, 2006

Minimum wage increase should have been okayed

While President Bush continually touts how his tax cuts are helping an economy that he says is always getting stronger, the Republican-controlledCongress turned down yet another attempt by Democrats to raise the federal minimum wage. The House refused to allow a vote by all members and the Senate voted along party lines against it. Congress should be aware that if the federal minimum wage from 1968 were adjusted for inflation, it would be worth $9.09 today -- 75 percent more than the current minimum of $5.15. Contrary to a 1998 study done by the Economic Policy Institute, which finds that unemployment and poverty rates dropped following the last increase in the federal minimum wage in 1997, the Republicans continue to insist"any increase in the minimum wage will result in loss of jobs." Other studies also have proven that theory false. Who would have imagined the Republicans were so concerned about losing jobs when the policies under Mr. Bush have facilitated the sending of middle-class manufacturing and tech-level jobs out of the country? They also do not appear to be much concerned when employers are hiring immigrant workers who are willing to work for less than Americans. Many people are struggling to survive on $5.15 per hour while members of Congress are receiving their automatic yearly cost-of-living increases, which protect them against inflation. Since the minimum wage was last increased in 1997, Congress' base pay has risen by $31,600 to $165,200 per year. Plus they receive taxpayer-paid family health benefits. Contrast that to the minimum annual wage of $10,700,well below the poverty line for a family of three. That amount is not enough to pay for housing, food and clothing for one person let alone transportation to work, health care, child care, recreation or anything else. The one party rule we now have in Washington is not working for most Americans. Mr. Bush has turned the largest surplus into the largest deficit while Congress raises the statutory debt limit a record fifth time to $9 trillion. Perhaps Mr. Bush forgets that, unlike him, we don't have rich relatives or Saudi friends to bail us out when the collection agency comes calling. Nick Reina, Milmay - Published in the Daily Journal, Aigust 10, 2006

Stem-cell research means life, not death

Some will say the end result of a fertilized egg is either a live human baby or a dead one. Not true. First, no baby is possible without implantation. If implanted, the fertilized egg becomes an embryo. Second, embryonic stem-cell research does not harvest embryos. To harvest an implanted egg is to perform an abortion. Stem cells obtained from an aborted embryo are less than optimal, so are not desired in the research. During the four- to five-day period preceding implantation, the fertilized egg, called a pre-embryo or blastocyte, may divide up to eight times, yielding 256 cells measuring one-tenth of a millimeter in size. Some of these become the embryonic stem cells (ESCs). ESCs develop by natural means, before implantation, and can be observed dividing in a petri dish at in vitro fertilization clinics where hopeful parents, unable to conceive under normal circumstances, donate sperm and eggs that may fertilize in a petri dish. In either case, the chances of implantation are less than a coin toss. From 400,000 frozen pre-embryos, to be discarded at IVF clinics, about 70 had already been harvested and developed into stem-cell lines approved by President George W. Bush on Aug. 9, 2001, for continued stem-cell research funding by the federal government. Five years later, the first veto of his presidency was to prohibit the Congressionally passed legislation to use more IVF pre-embryos for ESC research, rather than to discard them. Discarding IVF pre-embryos is parallel to the miscarriage of normal pre-embryos. Without implantation a pre-embryo does not become an embryo or a fetus, has no beating heart, no brain, thus no awareness of a conscious identity is possible to the pre-embryo. The veto was used as a bulwark to retain voters who are in accord with words that Mr. Tony Snow, the White House press spokesman, used to explain the veto: That Mr. Bush believes ESC research is murder. Of course, that statement was retracted, for it implies that IVF employees and their clients could be prosecuted for discarding the blastocytes. Discarded blastocytes may contain useful stem cells. The probability of useful stem cells in this case is considerably less than the 50 percent in the natural process. But these are scheduled for destruction. So unless donor parents give legal permission to allow the implantation of their fertilized eggs into surrogate mothers, the chances are zero for these blastocytes to ever become babies. Thus, there is no denial of life to unborn babies -- because only the implanted blastocyte has some chance to become a baby. It's a no-brainer: Destroy 400,000 blastocytes or allow embryonic stem-cell research to proceed, along with adult stem-cell research, to determine which of these two paths will be best suited for curing disease and treating the central nervous system traumas that are sustained by the living millions who may suffer from stroke, accident or combat wounds. Thus, to value life and to ease your mind, you or yours may be the beneficiaries of embryonic stem-cell research, without loss of a single baby. The veto will not stand. Dr. Charles A. Andrade holds a Ph.D. in engineering physics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He completed post-retirement studies in general biology specifically to understand the human reproduction aspects of embryonic stem-cell research. He was former head of theoretical aerodynamics at Chrysler Missile Division, visiting scientist at Cornell University and Senior Research Scientist at Martin Marietta, Orlando Division. He retired in 1999. Published in the Daily Herald, August 9, 2006

No defense for Ann Coulter

It is hard for me to believe anyone would be defending Ann Coulter, but since the writer of the July 30 letter, “In defense of Ann Coulter,” felt it necessary to do so, he should get his facts straight about her book.The most baseless statement he made was that the four women who lost their husbands Sept. 11 bashed President Bush and blamed him for 9-11. How about getting the facts straight? Those women were instrumental in the development of the 9-11 commission whose main purpose was to pinpoint flaws in our intelligence community and make recommendations to correct and improve our Department of Homeland Security so that such a tragedy would never happen again. Instead of Coulter attacking the character of the women, maybe she should be grateful to them for insisting that a 9-11 commission be established.It is morally wrong to use innocent people to further one's political agenda and resort to name-calling of those who do not agree. These kinds of tactics accomplish nothing. Anne Pancoast, Margate - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 6, 2006

War is stupid

U.S. role shameful. War is the dumbest thing in the world. Only arrogant and perverted people start wars. Unfortunately for America, our president is an incompetent simpleton devoid of common sense.Anybody in the world watching the devastation of Lebanon on television should be ashamed of America. Our Republican politicians refuse to obey our Constitution. Fearing a loss of power to Democrats in upcoming national elections, they rushed Israel into war ahead of schedule, turned loose neoconservative war-monger journalists, put all rabid ex-military civilian pundits on alert and threatened Iraq, Iran and Israel itself.Our government has been totally corrupted. America has been made helpless. The faces of children and grandmothers must save our sanity. Life must be sacred. Herb Stickle, Margate - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 6, 2006

Universal health care coverage would cost less

The numbers are truly astounding. According to a report by the Commonwealth fund, a nonpartisan organization that studies health care, more than 40 percent of non-elderly Americans with incomes that range from $20,000 to $40,000 were without health insurance for all or a significant part of 2005. That's nearly a 30 percent increase from the same tracking study done just a few years ago. Furthermore, many of these people, who had spent their entire life life savings, were giving up their basic necessities in order to feed their health care habit and were making desparate decisions between eating and filling prescriptions on a regular basis. This is unaccepable in America. At the same time, the ever rising cost of health care has made some employers, the mid-range employers who have traditionally provided health insurance coverage to their employees, wary of providing that coverage and eliminating the benefit. This drives more and more working men and women in America into the group of the 47 million uninsured. And it will get no better unless we do something about it. There is some good news. A study also found that the cost of not covering the 47 million uninsured actually was higher than the projected cost of covering all Americans with some sort of a basic health care policy. The dollars that would be saved by eliminating marketing and profit costs and the unnecessary paperwork, which is currently choking many parts of the system, could be rechanneled into universal health care. A universal health care program would eliminate the problem of those without health care coverage who today regularly seek primary physician care at emergency rooms and who seek health care when they are sicker and closer to acute illnesses than they might otherwise be. Chip Gerrity, President NJ IBEW Published in the Daily Journal, August 5, 2006

Lautenberg led on oil spill bill

U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg's role in drafting and passing recent legislation to protect the Delaware River and our nation's other waterways from oil spills should be commended, not questioned. The July 22 article, “Lautenberg celebrates passage of Delaware River Protection Act,” did not do justice to the New Jersey Democrat's tremendous efforts on this issue. Immediately after the Athos I oil spill in 2004, Lautenberg introduced aggressive legislation to phase out single-hull ships and give locals more input into oil-spill prevention. While it is true that U.S. Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-2nd, used his position to hold hearings and move legislation on oil-spill prevention, his proposal was too lenient on the oil industry. Lautenberg and LoBiondo, as members of the House-Senate committee that finalized the recent Coast Guard authorization bill, worked to craft a compromise of their respective proposals. The final product was not as aggressive as the original Lautenberg proposal, but significantly stronger than the House version. Throughout the process, Lautenberg reached out to the Delaware Riverkeeper and other interested parties to ensure that the legislation that finally passed would accomplish the goal of protecting our waterways. Lautenberg has led the pack in protecting our rivers from oil spills. Maya K. vanRossum, Delaware Riverkeeper, Washington Crossing, PA - Published in the Atlantic City Press August 4, 2006

Bush bowed to Right, condemned the sick

July 19 is a monumental day in our history. President Bush cast his first veto since taking office in January 2001. Bush might have chosen a better bill to veto, such as the one containing more than 6,000 items of pork, which will waste billions of taxpayer dollars. This veto tells us clearly that Bush pays more attention to a few religious, fundamentalist supporters than he does to 72 percent of the American people and more than 60 percent of Congress. He chooses to save the “life” of embryos that have a finite shelf life in cold storage and will eventually be discarded instead of allowing them to be used to possibly help those who are afflicted with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal-cord injuries and many other ailments. His veto condemns millions of Americans to lives filled with pain and early death. Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-2nd, voted with Bush, as he almost always does, against the measure. LoBiondo has voted with Bush for social program cuts, government interference in the Teri Schiavo case, exempting millions of workers from overtime pay and budget cuts to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Mine Safety and Health Administration and dike maintenance in the Gulf. The cuts to workplace safety and dike maintenance resulted in thousands of deaths and countless others uprooted from their homes. LoBiondo has clearly displayed time and again that his loyalty belongs to Bush and the Republican leaders in Congress. It is time to show him the same contempt he shows for us and vote for someone who better represents us in Washington. Like the Taco Bell commercial on TV, LoBiondo is “good to go.” Karen Padmore, Cape May Court House - Published in the Atlantic City Press, August 3, 2006