A new Pew Hispanic Center survey is capturing headlines today:

A new poll released Thursday shows overwhelming support from Latinos for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain.

Obama's approval rating with registered Latino voters, the nationwide Pew Hispanic Center poll found, is at 66 percent versus 23 percent favoring McCain.

Obama's favorability among Latinos is slightly up from a Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May, which showed Obama with 62 percent of Latino voters nationwide, compared with 29 percent for McCain.

"He now appears to be even more popular than Hillary Clinton among Latinos," Lopez said.

Pew Hispanic Center's deputy director, Susan Minushkin, added that Obama is "enjoying broad-based support among Hispanics who don't see great differences by age, by gender, by education, by income."

And the icing on the cake?

In terms of the state of the country, 70 percent of Latino registered voters said the country is headed in the wrong direction. Fifty-five percent said the Democratic Party is "better attuned to the concerns of their community" compared to 5 percent for Republicans.

Thanks to Senate Guru for debunking the latest from Pat Roberts' negative attack ad machine:

What Bush-cover-up-artist Pat Roberts doesn't say in his misleading attack ad against former Congressman Jim Slattery is that, in Slattery's final year in Congress, he was in out of Washington D.C. and in Kansas much of the time running for Governor (which is precisely why the ad focuses only on Slattery's final year in Congress instead of the entirety of his twelve-year Congressional tenure - to mislead voters).

This is, of course, relevant to the 2008 Presidential race because the presumptive Republican nominee, John W. McCain, has missed an overwhelming 63% of his votes during the current Congress, the biggest voter skipper by a huge margin. So, I wonder when we can expect Roberts' formal endorsement of Obama for President.

Meanwhile, Slattery has released his third campaign ad - unlike Roberts, Slattery's ad doesn't mislead voters - highlighting the hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions that Roberts has taken from Big Oil while voting for huge tax breaks for Big Oil:

Finally! Somebody in the media called Pat Roberts out for promising to run a positive campaign on his record and then paying for a grossly misleading attack ad against his opponent!

Channel 49 News in Topeka reports:

According to a video on YouTube last August, Pat Roberts pledged to run a positive campaign based on his record.

But does his current ad against would-be Democratic candidate Jim Slattery hold up in the truth test?

"Senator Pat Roberts never stops working for Kansas. Community building...health care for more kids...Good paying jobs," the ad says.

The claims are pretty generic, anything that any good politician would want you to hear.

But listen to the second part. He actually goes after Democrat Jim Slattery even though Slattery hasn't won the party nomination yet.

"His opponent, Jim Slattery, for the past fourteen years, he was a Washington lobbyist," the ad says...

...We did some checking on our own and found out that Slattery was employed by a Washington DC law and lobbying firm working on some heavy duty cases as a lawyer and not as a lobbyist.

Pat Roberts is attacking his opponent because running on his own record would be disastrous. What would a Pat Roberts ad even look like?

Hi, I'm Pat Roberts, and I approve this message.

When it comes to protecting Big Oil, Big Drug, Big Deficit Spending and the Big Man himself - I'm your number one Senator.

And I've stood up against protecting our veterans, against affordable prescription drugs, against investing in renewable energy and against keeping our national debt under control.

And even though I've been in the news lately in favor of Boeing, Co - you had better believe I was doing everything I could to undermine our "Buy American" laws when it really counted.

Yeah...that sounds about right.

The Senate voted to override President Bush's Medicare veto today and Roberts finally did what was right (but also happened to be popular.) (FYI - look who didn't!)

But would Roberts have cast his vote the same way if he weren't up for reelection this year? Well, considering his dismal record on Medicare, probably not.

In honor of Pat Roberts' election year pandering, here's the low-down:

Roberts voted to cut health care services:

• Roberts voted to cut Medicaid funding by $14 billion. [Vote #58, 3/17/05]
• Roberts voted to take health insurance away from 2.7 million seniors. [Vote #459, 11/25/03; USA Today, 11/25/03; National Journal, 1/21/04; Wall Street Journal, 3/2/04]
• Roberts voted to cut health care to six million low-income seniors. [Vote #459, 11/25/03; CPBB Fact Sheet, www.cbpp.org, 12/11/03; CPBB, www.cbpp.org, 12/8/03; Center for American Progress Medicare Roundtable, www.centerforamericanprogress.org, 12/4/03]
• Roberts voted to reduce prescription drug coverage to rural seniors. [Vote #459, 11/25/03; Center for American Progress, "Medicare Prescription Drug Legislation: Concerns for Rural Beneficiaries," www.centerforamericanprogress.org, 11/14/03; Center For American Progress Roundtable, 12/4/03]

Roberts voted to make it more expensive for seniors to get health care and prescription drugs:

• Roberts cast deciding vote against prescription drug benefit plan for Medicare. [Vote #66, 4/3/01]
• Roberts opposed spending $194 billion for Medicare prescription drug program. [Vote #83, 3/25/03]
• Roberts voted against preventing loss of drug coverage for beneficiaries with cancer. [Vote #250, 6/26/03]
• Roberts voted in increase middle-class seniors' out-of-pocket expenses. [Vote #459, 11/25/03; Center for Economic and Policy Research, www.cepr.net, 12/4/03]

Roberts voted for increased restrictions in available treatment options:

• Roberts voted against allocating $12 billion for additional treatment for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, heart disease, alzheimers and diabetes. [Vote #253, 6/26/03]
• Roberts voted to restrict drug choices for seniors. [Vote #459, 11/25/03; The New Republic, 12/15/03]
• Roberts voted to give seniors less of a drug benefit than he receives as a senator. [Vote #459, 11/25/03; Center for American Progress Medicare Roundtable, www.centerforamericanprogress.org, 12/4/03]
• Roberts voted to restrict seniors' choice of doctors. [Vote #459, 11/25/03; Consumers Union, Analysis of Medicare Drug Plan, www.consumersunion.org, 11/25/03; CNN/USA/Gallup Poll, www.gallup.com, 6/03]

Roberts voted against allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare:

• Roberts voted against allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug manufacturers for lower drug prices under Medicare. [Vote #60, 3/17/05]
• Roberts voted for Medicare prescription drug bill that made it illegal for Medicare to bargin over price with drug companies, adding an additional $139 billion to corporate profits. [Vote #459, 11/25/03; In These Times, 1/5/04; New York Times, 2/3/04; The Hill, 11/19/03; NAACP Legislative Report Card, 2003-04]

Last year, Pat Roberts promised he would run a positive campaign "for the office" of U.S. Senator and not a negative campaign with personal attacks against his opponent.

On Friday, Donald Betts announced the formation of a Campaign Advisory Committee for “Betts for Congress”.

Wichita attorney and former Kansas Lt. Governor, Tom Docking, will chair the Committee with co-chairs retired Wichita businessman Denny Senseney and Rep. Melody McCray Miller.

Check out Sen. Betts in his own words as he pledges to fight for solutions to the issues that matter to Kansans:

The Senate got a second chance yesterday, finally passing a Medicare bill that will prevent a 10.6 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients. Republicans have been dragging their feet largely to protect private insurance companies. If the vote had failed, many Kansas physicians were planning to stop treating new Medicare clients, the very people who need help the most.

Senator John McCain was the only senator absent from the vote. (Even Ted Kennedy who is undergoing treatment for a brain tumor found time for the bill.)

However, McCain made it abundantly clear where he stands when he declared that he would have voted no on the measure, standing obediently by the Bush White House who has threatened to veto the measure.

McCain, unprompted, then brought up the Medicare vote today as an example of partisan gridlock.
Q: How would you have voted on the cloture vote?
A: “I would have voted against it.”
Q: You would have voted with your party then?
A: Sure.

Our very own Senator Pat Roberts actually voted to pass the bill. I guess that’s what happens when you’re in the middle of a close election… However, over the past twelve years, Roberts has made his position on helping senior citizens very clear- he has consistently voted against negotiating lower prescription drug prices and importing cheaper medications as recently as April of last year.

John McCain and Pat Roberts are one and the same. When it counts, they vote against Kansans, and for big insurance companies and their own bank accounts.

That is...when McCain bothers to show up.

A message from Chairman Larry Gates:

Dear Friends,

As many of you may already know, our dear friend and young Democratic activist, Jana Lynne Mackey, was taken from this world before her noble and inspiring work was completed.

Jana dedicated countless hours and an endless energy to volunteering for Democratic candidates, lobbying for affordable health care and women’s rights, and furthering the progressive issues that are near and dear to our hearts. She will be deeply missed.

Services for Jana Mackey will begin at 2:00 p.m., this Wednesday July 9th, at Liberty Hall in Lawrence. The family asks that, in lieu of flowers, memorial contributions be made to:

Jana Mackey Support for Public Advocacy Fund
c/o Dean of Law
Green Hall
1535 W. 15th St.
Lawrence, KS 66045

Our thoughts and prayers are with Jana's family, her many friends and her fellow Democrats.

Sincerely,

Larry Gates

To read more about Jana’s contributions to our lives, please visit the following: