- tax cuts
- stem cell research.
- a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
- the Bush bankruptcy bill.
- efforts to undermine affirmative action in the courts.
- withdrawal from the Kyoto global warming pact and the International Criminal Court.
- the environment and Bush's "plans to drill in the Arctic Refuge and to weaken standards for power plant emissions."
- Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.
He cites the groups endorsing him: "AFL-CIO, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, the Human Rights Campaign."
He cites the people supporting him:
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer, John Lewis, State Treasurer Denise Nappier, Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez, state AFL-CIO President John Olsen.
He moves on to the war, explains his position and then acknowledges that many Democrats in Connecticut disagree with him:
Now I understand that many Democrats in Connecticut disagree with me and are very angry about the war. I don't think there is anything I can say to change your mind about whether we should have gone to war or when we should bring the troops home, and at this point I'm not going to insult you by trying.
What I will say is this: I not only respect your right to disagree or question the President, I value it. I was part of the anti-war movement in the late 1960s, so I don't need to be lectured by Ned Lamont about the place of dissent in our democracy.
He explains his much-maligned comment, "we undermine the President's credibility at our peril." He says:
I did not suggest that the President or anyone else -- including me -- should be immune from criticism...The point I was trying to make was about how we disagree. My concern was, and remains, that if opponents or supporters of the war go beyond disagreeing to exploiting the war for partisan political purposes, much like Republicans did to Max Cleland on homeland security, we could lose more than an election. We could put our mission in Iraq, the lives of thousands of American soldiers carrying it out, and our national security at risk. That is what I care about.
He begins to wind down with this:
That you can be compassionate in domestic policy and tough in foreign policy. That you can stand up for progressive values and still work with the other side to help people make a better life for themselves.
On his four recent newspaper endorsements:
Even though many of them disagree with my position on Iraq, they recognized that I have worked my heart out to solve problems and produce results for you, and that I am the candidate who Connecticut Democrats can count on to build a better future for our state.
His final words:
So let me close by saying this. If after hearing the truth about where I stand on Iraq, you still want to cast your vote solely on that one issue, then I respect your decision. But if you care about all the other issues facing us, and want to make real progress on them, then I ask once again for your trust and your vote on Tuesday.
And now it's up to the voters of Connecticut. The Chicago Tribune reports today a turnaround fis unlikely. What do you think? Is it over for Joe?
