2008: John Edwards readying bid
In 2004, I favored John Edwards for the Democratic 
presidential nomination for two reasons: I thought he had the best set of political skills to wield against Bush; and he was the first candidate for national office since Lyndon Johnson to make economic class the defining issue of his campaign.
Although he hasn't made an official announcement, it's no secret Edwards is running again.
He's got a lot of company. At least two Democrats -- Gov. Tom Vilsack
of Iowa and U.S. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana -- have announced plans to form exploratory committees (an exploratory committee is a formulation that permits you a graceful way out when your candidacy fails to spark the least interest). It's likely that Vilsack's real goal 
is the job of vice president, especially since he is barely a blip on the screen even in his native Iowa. And you would think Bayh is too shallow for the job until you remembered who currently sits in the president's Aeron chair.
The pundits have anointed Hillary Clinton as the front runner, in a replay of the scenario that succeeded in making Kerry the nominee in 2004. It looks to me as though Clinton peaked a year ago, and has lost ground since because of her too successful effort to blur
her position on every issue from Iraq through abortion to flag burning. Her obsessive triangulation is giving cynicism a bad name.
The media have been trying to light a fire under Barak Obama, admittedly the romantic lead in the fantasies of many Democrats of a sentimental bent -- that is, at least during the few minutes a day when the aren't dreaming of the Revenge of Al Gore, but no one has come up with a believable scenario in which Obama wins. My guess is that his Wesley-Clark-moment won't last until the Iowa caucus, let alone to November 2008.
The former vice president will clearly be the favorite among
many Dems if he decides to run, but it would be a shame to trade the New Gore, outspoken and fun, for the old Gore, the overly cautious, wooden, rhymes-with-Gore who blew the race in 2000.
It's hard to believe that Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean have given up on their ambitions (but it may occur to Dean that if he stays put at the DNC, he could be a kingmaker in his role as the national voice of the state parties), and it is unlikely we have seen the last of Rev. Al Sharpton, but it is
to be hoped that each of them has a kid around to ask pointed questions about their lack of clothes.
For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that Joe Biden is also considering applying for the job; actually, let's hope he does run because, other than Dean and Kerry, who may be sidelined, the Delaware senator is the only candidate who can be relied on to contribute his fair share of gaffs and embarrassments. Also look for boomlets for people like John Tester, Bill Richardson, Bob Casey, Chris Dodd, Eliot Spitzer, and Brian Schweitzer as members of the press attempt to cycle through two years of non-news without repeating themselves.
Even John "Whack-A-Mole" Kerry, apparently as completely untethered from reality as the man he tried to replace, is thinking of another try, despite coming in dead last in a poll two weeks ago that pitted America's 20 best-known politicians against each other in a likability contest (a poll conducted, by the way, before the flap over his momentary lapse into candor over the prospects in the workplace of the poor and the under-educated).
For what it's worth -- after all, Kerry probably couldn't have won a likability contest in his crib with only members of his family voting, but he still somehow wound up the Democratic nominee....anyway, for what it's worth, the top Dem was Senator Obama, followed by Lieberman, Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Gore. Kerry was even outpaced
by the Bay State's lame duck governor, Mitt Romney, who is being short listed for the Republican nomination. Romney was 13th on the likability ballot, not much ahead of number 15, George Bush, the person thought to be the least liked politician until Kerry beat all comers. To keep this all in perspective, one measure of how successful such polling may be in predicting future political outcomes can be taken from the fact that Obama came in second behind former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a man who has about as much chance of being president as Peewee Herman.
For his part, Edwards has been waiting for his moment. On Sunday last, he told CBS News, in the coy language of his cohort, that it was "safe to say I might very well" run for president, but recent moves by Vilsack, Bayh, Obama and Clinton will probably force him to jump in sooner than later.
After the Democrats lost in 2004, the Edwards family moved back to North Carolina. Elizabeth Edwards, his wife, had been diagnosed with breast cancer in the final days of the campaign, but after chemotherapy she is now free of the disease.
Last year, Edwards founded the Center for Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Law School. The organization focuses on one of his primary passions -- class disparity in America.
During the last year he has also logged thousands of miles traveling around the country, including visits to such early primary states as New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada, racking up points in heaven by pushing for an increase in the minimum wage and collecting terrestrial IOUs by stumping for Democratic candidates.
Edwards has blunted criticism about his lack of foreign-policy experience by working with former representative and vice-presidential candidate Jack Kemp as co-chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Russian-American Relations.
Clearly, although you wouldn't know it from the incessant handicapping on CNN and Faux, it is way, way, way too early to draw any conclusions about 2008, but John Edwards is positioned well to be one of the finalists in the next race for president. I still believe, as I did in 2004, that a John Edwards-Bill Richardson ticket would be almost impossible for the Republicans to beat. Let's hope somebody keeps Lindsay Graham out of the White House.
--
John Nichols on Candidate Edwards: Version 2.008 in The Nation (2006-12-28).
presidential nomination for two reasons: I thought he had the best set of political skills to wield against Bush; and he was the first candidate for national office since Lyndon Johnson to make economic class the defining issue of his campaign.Although he hasn't made an official announcement, it's no secret Edwards is running again.
He's got a lot of company. At least two Democrats -- Gov. Tom Vilsack
of Iowa and U.S. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana -- have announced plans to form exploratory committees (an exploratory committee is a formulation that permits you a graceful way out when your candidacy fails to spark the least interest). It's likely that Vilsack's real goal is the job of vice president, especially since he is barely a blip on the screen even in his native Iowa. And you would think Bayh is too shallow for the job until you remembered who currently sits in the president's Aeron chair.The pundits have anointed Hillary Clinton as the front runner, in a replay of the scenario that succeeded in making Kerry the nominee in 2004. It looks to me as though Clinton peaked a year ago, and has lost ground since because of her too successful effort to blur
her position on every issue from Iraq through abortion to flag burning. Her obsessive triangulation is giving cynicism a bad name.The media have been trying to light a fire under Barak Obama, admittedly the romantic lead in the fantasies of many Democrats of a sentimental bent -- that is, at least during the few minutes a day when the aren't dreaming of the Revenge of Al Gore, but no one has come up with a believable scenario in which Obama wins. My guess is that his Wesley-Clark-moment won't last until the Iowa caucus, let alone to November 2008.
The former vice president will clearly be the favorite among
many Dems if he decides to run, but it would be a shame to trade the New Gore, outspoken and fun, for the old Gore, the overly cautious, wooden, rhymes-with-Gore who blew the race in 2000.It's hard to believe that Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean have given up on their ambitions (but it may occur to Dean that if he stays put at the DNC, he could be a kingmaker in his role as the national voice of the state parties), and it is unlikely we have seen the last of Rev. Al Sharpton, but it is
to be hoped that each of them has a kid around to ask pointed questions about their lack of clothes.For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that Joe Biden is also considering applying for the job; actually, let's hope he does run because, other than Dean and Kerry, who may be sidelined, the Delaware senator is the only candidate who can be relied on to contribute his fair share of gaffs and embarrassments. Also look for boomlets for people like John Tester, Bill Richardson, Bob Casey, Chris Dodd, Eliot Spitzer, and Brian Schweitzer as members of the press attempt to cycle through two years of non-news without repeating themselves.
Even John "Whack-A-Mole" Kerry, apparently as completely untethered from reality as the man he tried to replace, is thinking of another try, despite coming in dead last in a poll two weeks ago that pitted America's 20 best-known politicians against each other in a likability contest (a poll conducted, by the way, before the flap over his momentary lapse into candor over the prospects in the workplace of the poor and the under-educated).
For what it's worth -- after all, Kerry probably couldn't have won a likability contest in his crib with only members of his family voting, but he still somehow wound up the Democratic nominee....anyway, for what it's worth, the top Dem was Senator Obama, followed by Lieberman, Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Gore. Kerry was even outpaced
by the Bay State's lame duck governor, Mitt Romney, who is being short listed for the Republican nomination. Romney was 13th on the likability ballot, not much ahead of number 15, George Bush, the person thought to be the least liked politician until Kerry beat all comers. To keep this all in perspective, one measure of how successful such polling may be in predicting future political outcomes can be taken from the fact that Obama came in second behind former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a man who has about as much chance of being president as Peewee Herman.For his part, Edwards has been waiting for his moment. On Sunday last, he told CBS News, in the coy language of his cohort, that it was "safe to say I might very well" run for president, but recent moves by Vilsack, Bayh, Obama and Clinton will probably force him to jump in sooner than later.
After the Democrats lost in 2004, the Edwards family moved back to North Carolina. Elizabeth Edwards, his wife, had been diagnosed with breast cancer in the final days of the campaign, but after chemotherapy she is now free of the disease.
Last year, Edwards founded the Center for Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Law School. The organization focuses on one of his primary passions -- class disparity in America.
During the last year he has also logged thousands of miles traveling around the country, including visits to such early primary states as New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada, racking up points in heaven by pushing for an increase in the minimum wage and collecting terrestrial IOUs by stumping for Democratic candidates.
Edwards has blunted criticism about his lack of foreign-policy experience by working with former representative and vice-presidential candidate Jack Kemp as co-chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Russian-American Relations.
Clearly, although you wouldn't know it from the incessant handicapping on CNN and Faux, it is way, way, way too early to draw any conclusions about 2008, but John Edwards is positioned well to be one of the finalists in the next race for president. I still believe, as I did in 2004, that a John Edwards-Bill Richardson ticket would be almost impossible for the Republicans to beat. Let's hope somebody keeps Lindsay Graham out of the White House.
--
John Nichols on Candidate Edwards: Version 2.008 in The Nation (2006-12-28).
Public Spaces: Cell Phones
It has become common in East Coast restaurants, especially in New York City, to delineate "No Cell Phone" sections when not prohibiting them altogether. 
In L.A., where civility at Starbucks and other venues is being obliterated in a cacophony of cell phone abuse, it is worth noting that at least one coffee house, Santa Monica's funky Velocity Cafe at 2127 Lincoln Boulevard, is taking a stand. Tent cards on the tables politely request that you "PLEASE TAKE PHONE CALLS OUTSIDE," a custom that used to be routine at Starbucks. If you're coming off the westbound 10, go left onto Lincoln; Velocity is on the east side of the street a couple of blocks south of Pico.
In L.A., where civility at Starbucks and other venues is being obliterated in a cacophony of cell phone abuse, it is worth noting that at least one coffee house, Santa Monica's funky Velocity Cafe at 2127 Lincoln Boulevard, is taking a stand. Tent cards on the tables politely request that you "PLEASE TAKE PHONE CALLS OUTSIDE," a custom that used to be routine at Starbucks. If you're coming off the westbound 10, go left onto Lincoln; Velocity is on the east side of the street a couple of blocks south of Pico.
Howard Zinn talks about the uses of history
Democracy Now broadcast a thoughtful lecture by the historian Howard Zinn on "The Uses of History and the War on Terrorism." Prof. Zinn wrote the classic "A People's History of the United States," required reading for any person who wishes to understand America.
Among other things, Zinn argues that, "If the
American people really knew history, if they learned history, if the educational institutions did their job, if the press did its job in giving people historical perspective," then they would understand when they are being lied to by their government and, presumably, do something about it.
This pretty much lets us off the hook. The American failure is institutional. Blame the schools. Blame the press. It's not our fault.
What is our responsibility -- yours and mine -- for the carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan? Whether or not the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Time mag, et al, fell down on the job, there were plenty of sources, even at the earliest stage of the "War on Terror," from which to learn the truth. The blinkered "I didn't know" defense quite rightly didn't work for the Germans, and it doesn't justify the complacency or explain away the ignorance of Americans.
You can't really blame the schools, whose reading lists have helped to make "A People's History of the United States" a publishing phenomenon. And if Hermann Goering, the proto-Republican operative, was right, all the blame can't be laid at the feet of the press, either; it has to be shared by the better than eighty percent of Americans who raised a mighty cheer when it was proposed to payback the incineration of innocent Americans at the World Trade Center by blowing to smithereens superior numbers of innocent Afghanis.
If the "I didn't know" excuse won't fly on Afghanistan, think how many fewer grounds there are for clinging to it on Iraq. We knew -- you knew -- where we were headed in the aftermath of 911. The people's representatives who cravenly voted for war -- and who will now advance the cause of peace by legislating huge increases in military spending -- knew. And many in the criminal enterprise that is our current government also knew, even as they cynically retailed the WMDs.
The first worthies interviewed on 60 Minutes the Sunday after the recent election were not Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Charles Schumer or Rahm Emanuel or Howard Dean. Not Sherrod Brown or John Tester or Amy Klobuchar or Jim Webb or Bob Casey or Ben Cardin or Sheldon Whitehouse.
No, the first politicians to come before NBC's mics were John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, the two strongest proponents of peace through war. If that doesn't give you some idea that the fix is in, your obtuseness is willful; you don't want to know.
But a year from now, when the troops are still dying and Iraq is mired deeper in civil war, or two years from now when Hilary Clinton or some other Democrat holds out bloody hands in a plea for your vote, you will not be able claim you didn't know.
It was already clear, before the dust kicked up by 2006 election had time to settle, that the corporate elite is not prepared to give up the empire.
You know what is coming.
More war.
More bloodshed.
In our name.
If we do nothing, let's at least be honest, and admit that we knew.
-------------
Howard Zinn
Democracy Now
A People's History of the United States
Among other things, Zinn argues that, "If the
American people really knew history, if they learned history, if the educational institutions did their job, if the press did its job in giving people historical perspective," then they would understand when they are being lied to by their government and, presumably, do something about it.This pretty much lets us off the hook. The American failure is institutional. Blame the schools. Blame the press. It's not our fault.
What is our responsibility -- yours and mine -- for the carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan? Whether or not the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Time mag, et al, fell down on the job, there were plenty of sources, even at the earliest stage of the "War on Terror," from which to learn the truth. The blinkered "I didn't know" defense quite rightly didn't work for the Germans, and it doesn't justify the complacency or explain away the ignorance of Americans.
You can't really blame the schools, whose reading lists have helped to make "A People's History of the United States" a publishing phenomenon. And if Hermann Goering, the proto-Republican operative, was right, all the blame can't be laid at the feet of the press, either; it has to be shared by the better than eighty percent of Americans who raised a mighty cheer when it was proposed to payback the incineration of innocent Americans at the World Trade Center by blowing to smithereens superior numbers of innocent Afghanis.
If the "I didn't know" excuse won't fly on Afghanistan, think how many fewer grounds there are for clinging to it on Iraq. We knew -- you knew -- where we were headed in the aftermath of 911. The people's representatives who cravenly voted for war -- and who will now advance the cause of peace by legislating huge increases in military spending -- knew. And many in the criminal enterprise that is our current government also knew, even as they cynically retailed the WMDs.
The first worthies interviewed on 60 Minutes the Sunday after the recent election were not Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Charles Schumer or Rahm Emanuel or Howard Dean. Not Sherrod Brown or John Tester or Amy Klobuchar or Jim Webb or Bob Casey or Ben Cardin or Sheldon Whitehouse.
No, the first politicians to come before NBC's mics were John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, the two strongest proponents of peace through war. If that doesn't give you some idea that the fix is in, your obtuseness is willful; you don't want to know.
But a year from now, when the troops are still dying and Iraq is mired deeper in civil war, or two years from now when Hilary Clinton or some other Democrat holds out bloody hands in a plea for your vote, you will not be able claim you didn't know.
It was already clear, before the dust kicked up by 2006 election had time to settle, that the corporate elite is not prepared to give up the empire.
You know what is coming.
More war.
More bloodshed.
In our name.
If we do nothing, let's at least be honest, and admit that we knew.
-------------
Howard Zinn
Democracy Now
A People's History of the United States
Can of Worms: Outdoor Smoking Ban
As you already know, Santa Monica has passed an outside smoking ban. Turns out, it may not be the first, plus Belmont's is even more extreme:
"Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else. The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone." (Dana Yates, "Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking", San Mateo County Daily Journal, Nov. 15).
"Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else. The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone." (Dana Yates, "Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking", San Mateo County Daily Journal, Nov. 15).
The Plan: McGovern to meet with Congress on war
This week, 60 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a 62-member group led by Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, will listen to former Democratic senator and presidential nominee George McGovern outline his strategy for extracting U.S. troops from Iraq by June (see Iraq, McGovern and Me: Now It's Your Move by Gary Gordon, ImpracticalProposals 2006-11-06).
If Democrats don't take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won't be in power very long, McGovern told reporters before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, according to the Associated Press.
"I think the Democratic leadership is wise enough to know that if they're going to follow the message that election sent, they're going to have to take steps to bring the war to a conclusion," he said.
McGovern's plan — outlined in a new book, "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" by McGovern and scholar William Polk — calls for the United States to remove hired mercenaries from the region, push for the removal of British troops and establish a temporary transitional force, similar to police, made up of Muslims from the region.
"Never let the new class of Democrats forget that they're there in considerable part because of the war the American public has now turned against," McGovern said. "That's going to have to be something that they have to explore with Republicans and with the White House." An excerpt from McGovern's book is here.
If Democrats don't take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won't be in power very long, McGovern told reporters before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, according to the Associated Press.
"I think the Democratic leadership is wise enough to know that if they're going to follow the message that election sent, they're going to have to take steps to bring the war to a conclusion," he said.
McGovern's plan — outlined in a new book, "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" by McGovern and scholar William Polk — calls for the United States to remove hired mercenaries from the region, push for the removal of British troops and establish a temporary transitional force, similar to police, made up of Muslims from the region.
"Never let the new class of Democrats forget that they're there in considerable part because of the war the American public has now turned against," McGovern said. "That's going to have to be something that they have to explore with Republicans and with the White House." An excerpt from McGovern's book is here.
Joe Lieberman for Secretary of Defense
It's not over 'til it's over.
Maybe majority leader Harry Reid shouldn't measure the curtains in his new office just yet.
Whether he knows it or not, if he decides not to go ahead with the plan to name former CIA director Robert Gates to the job of defense secretary, the president has one more rabbit in his hat. In one move, Bush can take back the Senate and put the Democrats in a box on the war. How? Appoint Joe Lieberman.
Would Lieberman do it? Sure he would. In a house full of egos, Lieberman's is the one that sucks the air out of the room. "Senator," Bush says, "you're the only man in the world who can bring everyone together on Iraq. Peace with Honor, Joe. Only you can do it."
With Joe at the DOD, a nominal Democrat is now responsible for the war. And the appointment can be cited as proof that Bush was serious when, with as straight a face as he can manage, he announced at his press conference yesterday that a new era of bipartisanship has arrived.
Best of all from the White House point of view, Connecticut's Republican governor M. Jodi Rell gets to appoint his replacement until a special election can be held, up to two years from now.
Welcome to Republican control of the Senate.
Maybe majority leader Harry Reid shouldn't measure the curtains in his new office just yet.
Whether he knows it or not, if he decides not to go ahead with the plan to name former CIA director Robert Gates to the job of defense secretary, the president has one more rabbit in his hat. In one move, Bush can take back the Senate and put the Democrats in a box on the war. How? Appoint Joe Lieberman.
Would Lieberman do it? Sure he would. In a house full of egos, Lieberman's is the one that sucks the air out of the room. "Senator," Bush says, "you're the only man in the world who can bring everyone together on Iraq. Peace with Honor, Joe. Only you can do it."
With Joe at the DOD, a nominal Democrat is now responsible for the war. And the appointment can be cited as proof that Bush was serious when, with as straight a face as he can manage, he announced at his press conference yesterday that a new era of bipartisanship has arrived.
Best of all from the White House point of view, Connecticut's Republican governor M. Jodi Rell gets to appoint his replacement until a special election can be held, up to two years from now.
Welcome to Republican control of the Senate.
Resource: FedSpending.org
This "free, searchable database of federal government spending" from OMB Watch, "a nonprofit research and advocacy organization dedicated to promoting government accountability," is drawn "largely from two sources: the Federal Procurement Data System, which contains information about federal contracts; and the Federal Assistance Award Data System, which contains information about federal financial assistance such as grants, loans, insurance, and direct subsidies like Social Security." Includes a handy glossary. <http://www.fedspending.org/>
Iraq, McGovern, and Me: Now It’s Your Move
By Gary Gordon
Last Sunday I watched the most moral, sensible, reasonable hour and forty-five minutes of TV I’ve seen in, well, maybe decades.
So what?
The thing is, it was former Senator George McGovern and a guy named William Polk talking about their plan to get the U.S. out of Iraq while at the same time doing the right thing for the Iraqi people.
I’m not sure that I’ve heard anything as sensible since I heard McGovern in front of the California delegation in Chicago in 1968 declare that he supported withdrawal from Vietnam — a position Hubert Humphrey and the majority of establishment Democrats could not bring themselves to embrace.
The TV show was on BookTV, on a fairly civilized network called C-SPAN2. It’s 48 hours of programming about non-fiction books every weekend. Imagine, as John Lennon might sing, 48 hours of programming every weekend featuring authors; authors interviewed, speaking at bookstores, universities, book festivals, on panels conversing with and debating other authors — all very civil, no wrestlers, shouting heads, sans O’Reilly. And, get this, no commercial interruptions. So, last Sunday, McGovern & Polk, moderated by the distinguished John Brademas, for 105 minutes.
As a disclaimer, before I proceed with an endorsement of McGovern’s & Polk’s plan and urge you to support it and use it as litmus test by which to measure Democrats and others who vie for your vote and support in 2008, I should mention two things: I gave my political heart to McGovern in 1971 as I worked for him in Georgia and Illinois, and I have been an opponent of Bush, his military misadventures, and his wholesale destruction of the American revolution and the American way of life since 1999. It boggles my mind (as it may yours) that so many people are only beginning to grasp that elections are referendums as well as contests for power and that so many people are finally coming around to the notion that 2006 ought to be a referendum on the wars as if 2002 and 2004 were too early to really frame the discussion. In the words of my people, “Oy!”
Be that as it may, 2006 is certainly shaping up as that referendum, even though my friend John, whom I agree with, declares flatly that the war is a side-show.
Side-show?
Yes.
The problems in this country are so great as to require the economic equivalent of the Marshall Plan, the philosophical and legislative muscle of the New Deal, and
the vision of many of the founding fathers, Paine, and the unsung revolutionaries combined with Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, the trust-busting inclinations of Teddy R., the visions of Debs, FDR and JFK (jawboning the steel industry, ignoring his generals and top intelligence and military advisers in the Cuban Missile Crisis) and LBJ’s Great Society, plus a dash of early Nader (the Highway 61 Revisited years), MLK and the other great souls who found that by mixing the small c christian values with the Enlightenment with American values, attitudes and resources you could work to create a society that would define greatness not by size or world domination but by a legal and judicial system and political system that was inclusive, democratic, oriented to justice, the dignity of the individual and the clear concept of society, especially anti-European, with its royalty and vulgar, brutal class systems, and especially anti-theocratic.
Note: I have few illusions about American ideals and the American revolution, realize almost everyone and everything mentioned in the paragraph above has it flaws, hypocrisies, buts and “did you knows?” — for further insight, read Gary Nash’s “The Unknown American Revolution” — but I still think justice, democracy, inclusiveness, and individual dignity are pretty good ideas.
Now, short of some as-yet uninvented Star Trek technology, how do we get there from here? How do we heal? How do we roll back the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush years and get back (and forward) to a vision that can incorporate the best of Debs, FDR, LBJ and McGovern? How do we get on a path that picks up where Frank Church et al left off, reining in the CIA and the multinational corporations? How do we end what Marvin Harris called the Permanent War Economy and implement what was politely known a couple of decades ago as Conversion. And how do we do this in time so that the religious fanatics and warmongers in our own leadership and those around the world, and the impacts of Global Warming don’t succeed in irrevocably dooming civilization?
We start with the side-show.
The side-show must be ended so full attention to re-building America can begin.
And how do we end the side-show?
McGovern and Polk have a simple, eloquent, cost-effective, moral and diplomatically ideal plan, published in their book Out of Iraq and summarized in a recent issue of Harper’s <read an excerpt>.
The highpoints of the plan are these:
Additionally, they insist the United States must offer condolences to Iraq. This significant gesture is non- negotiable.
The cost of this plan? Around $12 billion… or, at the current $250 million-a-day cost of the war, about seven weeks cost.
A further note: both Polk and McGovern readily acknowledge that this will be difficult and bloody. It is a plan for what America should do. It is not a plan for what Iraqis should do. There will be violence. People will kill each other. Their plan does not make every Iraqi nice. It does not require everyone behave. It does explicitly state that the major cause of the insurgency, the presence of the American military, will be removed and that over time this will lead to a decrease in violence. As both McGovern and Polk (who has studied the history of insurgency and guerilla warfare) said, bloodbaths predicted rarely occur; historically the withdrawal of the occupiers is the beginning of a return to order.
Now, as to criticisms that will be made, left, right and center, of this plan. Well, the right-wing criticisms are as predictable as they are self-righteous, ignorant, wrong-headed, pathetic, evil and dangerous. ‘Nuff said. As for centrists (Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman etc.), they will argue timetable, they will argue details—they will study and argue and bluster and recount their own self-serving histories -- such are the actions of American Tories. As for the left, they might argue that this plan doesn’t address the larger issues (as they see it) of the American war machine, troops in over 140 countries, Israel & Hamas, capitalism, and a host of other worthwhile issues that this plan is not designed to address.
So, what is our plan? You and me? The ones who are against the war, want us out of Iraq, but also believe there is a moral obligation to unbreak some of what was broken.
My humble proposal is this: we, you and me, should endorse this plan. Unequivocally. Without hesitation. Entirely. Not piecemeal. Not qualified. Not “I kind of like it but…” To use the flip of Bush’s line in the sand, with the Ken Kesey spin, “you’re either on the bus or you’re off the bus.”
Further.
We should start insisting that every single Democrat in congress, all the representatives and all the senators, propose this plan as legislation and pass it.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, that the Democrats take the House and Senate. Let’s imagine they endorse and pass into law the McGovern-Polk plan. Let’s suppose Bush doesn’t sign it, or flails about, or tortures syntax, or flails about some more. I like the scenario.
Of course the reality is that this plan won’t satisfy some readers. Some Democrats, even if they take the House and/or Senate, won’t support this.
Then what do we do? Well, then it becomes the litmus test. That is, if you really care about the war, either as the number one issue, or as the side-show that must be dealt with before we can move forward.
See, it’s not enough to be against Bush. It’s not enough to declare a war immoral. It’s not enough to support Democrats (and as we will learn, boys and girls, someday the notion that they are the solution will have to go the way of Santa Claus—but that’s another column) — it’s not enough. You have to have a plan.
Now there is one.
The McGovern-Polk Plan.
Moral, reasonable, sensible.
And timely.
And you have to get the plan implemented.
Your move.
Visit Gary Gordon: <http://www.garygordonproductions.com/>
Get Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now by George McGovern, William R. Polk
Read an excerpt of the book.
Last Sunday I watched the most moral, sensible, reasonable hour and forty-five minutes of TV I’ve seen in, well, maybe decades.
So what?
The thing is, it was former Senator George McGovern and a guy named William Polk talking about their plan to get the U.S. out of Iraq while at the same time doing the right thing for the Iraqi people.
I’m not sure that I’ve heard anything as sensible since I heard McGovern in front of the California delegation in Chicago in 1968 declare that he supported withdrawal from Vietnam — a position Hubert Humphrey and the majority of establishment Democrats could not bring themselves to embrace.
The TV show was on BookTV, on a fairly civilized network called C-SPAN2. It’s 48 hours of programming about non-fiction books every weekend. Imagine, as John Lennon might sing, 48 hours of programming every weekend featuring authors; authors interviewed, speaking at bookstores, universities, book festivals, on panels conversing with and debating other authors — all very civil, no wrestlers, shouting heads, sans O’Reilly. And, get this, no commercial interruptions. So, last Sunday, McGovern & Polk, moderated by the distinguished John Brademas, for 105 minutes.
As a disclaimer, before I proceed with an endorsement of McGovern’s & Polk’s plan and urge you to support it and use it as litmus test by which to measure Democrats and others who vie for your vote and support in 2008, I should mention two things: I gave my political heart to McGovern in 1971 as I worked for him in Georgia and Illinois, and I have been an opponent of Bush, his military misadventures, and his wholesale destruction of the American revolution and the American way of life since 1999. It boggles my mind (as it may yours) that so many people are only beginning to grasp that elections are referendums as well as contests for power and that so many people are finally coming around to the notion that 2006 ought to be a referendum on the wars as if 2002 and 2004 were too early to really frame the discussion. In the words of my people, “Oy!”
Be that as it may, 2006 is certainly shaping up as that referendum, even though my friend John, whom I agree with, declares flatly that the war is a side-show.
Side-show?
Yes.
The problems in this country are so great as to require the economic equivalent of the Marshall Plan, the philosophical and legislative muscle of the New Deal, and
the vision of many of the founding fathers, Paine, and the unsung revolutionaries combined with Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, the trust-busting inclinations of Teddy R., the visions of Debs, FDR and JFK (jawboning the steel industry, ignoring his generals and top intelligence and military advisers in the Cuban Missile Crisis) and LBJ’s Great Society, plus a dash of early Nader (the Highway 61 Revisited years), MLK and the other great souls who found that by mixing the small c christian values with the Enlightenment with American values, attitudes and resources you could work to create a society that would define greatness not by size or world domination but by a legal and judicial system and political system that was inclusive, democratic, oriented to justice, the dignity of the individual and the clear concept of society, especially anti-European, with its royalty and vulgar, brutal class systems, and especially anti-theocratic.Note: I have few illusions about American ideals and the American revolution, realize almost everyone and everything mentioned in the paragraph above has it flaws, hypocrisies, buts and “did you knows?” — for further insight, read Gary Nash’s “The Unknown American Revolution” — but I still think justice, democracy, inclusiveness, and individual dignity are pretty good ideas.
Now, short of some as-yet uninvented Star Trek technology, how do we get there from here? How do we heal? How do we roll back the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush years and get back (and forward) to a vision that can incorporate the best of Debs, FDR, LBJ and McGovern? How do we get on a path that picks up where Frank Church et al left off, reining in the CIA and the multinational corporations? How do we end what Marvin Harris called the Permanent War Economy and implement what was politely known a couple of decades ago as Conversion. And how do we do this in time so that the religious fanatics and warmongers in our own leadership and those around the world, and the impacts of Global Warming don’t succeed in irrevocably dooming civilization?
We start with the side-show.
The side-show must be ended so full attention to re-building America can begin.
And how do we end the side-show?
McGovern and Polk have a simple, eloquent, cost-effective, moral and diplomatically ideal plan, published in their book Out of Iraq and summarized in a recent issue of Harper’s <read an excerpt>.
The highpoints of the plan are these:
* Withdraw American military forces and private mercenaries within 6 months, beginning in December
* Terminate all post-war oil contracts and return the Iraqi oil industry to Iraqis
* Adopt and implement an economic plan that would:1. Rebuild Iraqi infrastructure,
2. Build hospitals and schools,
3. Close U.S. prisons in Iraq and release P.O.W.s,
4. Eliminate U.S. bases,
5. Provide financial assistance to create a national reconstruction corps,
6. Provide for an independent audit of all funds spent on the war,
7. Fund reparations to Iraqi civilians,
8. Fully fund veterans’ services in the U.S.,
9. Rebuild Babylon, and
10. Finance the creation of a national Iraqi police force (instead of an Army).
Additionally, they insist the United States must offer condolences to Iraq. This significant gesture is non- negotiable.
The cost of this plan? Around $12 billion… or, at the current $250 million-a-day cost of the war, about seven weeks cost.
A further note: both Polk and McGovern readily acknowledge that this will be difficult and bloody. It is a plan for what America should do. It is not a plan for what Iraqis should do. There will be violence. People will kill each other. Their plan does not make every Iraqi nice. It does not require everyone behave. It does explicitly state that the major cause of the insurgency, the presence of the American military, will be removed and that over time this will lead to a decrease in violence. As both McGovern and Polk (who has studied the history of insurgency and guerilla warfare) said, bloodbaths predicted rarely occur; historically the withdrawal of the occupiers is the beginning of a return to order.
Now, as to criticisms that will be made, left, right and center, of this plan. Well, the right-wing criticisms are as predictable as they are self-righteous, ignorant, wrong-headed, pathetic, evil and dangerous. ‘Nuff said. As for centrists (Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman etc.), they will argue timetable, they will argue details—they will study and argue and bluster and recount their own self-serving histories -- such are the actions of American Tories. As for the left, they might argue that this plan doesn’t address the larger issues (as they see it) of the American war machine, troops in over 140 countries, Israel & Hamas, capitalism, and a host of other worthwhile issues that this plan is not designed to address.
So, what is our plan? You and me? The ones who are against the war, want us out of Iraq, but also believe there is a moral obligation to unbreak some of what was broken.
My humble proposal is this: we, you and me, should endorse this plan. Unequivocally. Without hesitation. Entirely. Not piecemeal. Not qualified. Not “I kind of like it but…” To use the flip of Bush’s line in the sand, with the Ken Kesey spin, “you’re either on the bus or you’re off the bus.”
Further.
We should start insisting that every single Democrat in congress, all the representatives and all the senators, propose this plan as legislation and pass it.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, that the Democrats take the House and Senate. Let’s imagine they endorse and pass into law the McGovern-Polk plan. Let’s suppose Bush doesn’t sign it, or flails about, or tortures syntax, or flails about some more. I like the scenario.
Of course the reality is that this plan won’t satisfy some readers. Some Democrats, even if they take the House and/or Senate, won’t support this.
Then what do we do? Well, then it becomes the litmus test. That is, if you really care about the war, either as the number one issue, or as the side-show that must be dealt with before we can move forward.
See, it’s not enough to be against Bush. It’s not enough to declare a war immoral. It’s not enough to support Democrats (and as we will learn, boys and girls, someday the notion that they are the solution will have to go the way of Santa Claus—but that’s another column) — it’s not enough. You have to have a plan.
Now there is one.
The McGovern-Polk Plan.
Moral, reasonable, sensible.
And timely.
And you have to get the plan implemented.
Your move.
Visit Gary Gordon: <http://www.garygordonproductions.com/>
Get Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now by George McGovern, William R. Polk
Read an excerpt of the book.
When you vote...: Iraq
When you vote, please keep in mind the 103 American soldiers who died in Iraq in October, the bloodiest month in a year and a half, and the third worst casualty count of the war, three and a half years after Bush declared, "Mission accomplished."
2006: Santa Monica city council candidates and ballot measures
The Santa Monica City Council needs fresh blood -- badly. Bullet voting for Terry O'Day introduces the possibility that, if the tallies of the three incumbents seeking reelection are not increased by the voters who select him, he will overcome the advantage of incumbency and come in ahead of one of them. “I will use my experience as a Planning Commissioner, environmental leader and independent small business owner to find workable and sustainable solutions to traffic congestion, crime and homelessness,” O’Day wrote in his candidate statement. A seasoned progressive, O’Day considered running on the SMRR slate, but decided he'd have a better chance of working with the city's warring factions if he stayed independent.
If you want to fully exercise your franchise, two other independent challengers meriting support are Jonathan Mann, a Green Party member and perennial candidate for council, and Linda Armstrong, who ran last time on a “women and children first” platform and wants to require businesses citywide making more than $5 million to pay a living wage.
Measure W - No
Measure is the right name for this. It's a measure of the depth of cynicism among Santa Monica's political class. Placed on the ballot by current Santa Monica city council members, it's an effort to undermine a stronger anti-corruption law passed by the voters six years ago that the politicos have been unable to undo in the courts.
Measure Y - Yes
Measure Y will make personal marijuana use by adults the lowest law enforcement priority for the Santa Monica Police Department, so the cops can focus their time and resources on fighting violent crime, instead of wasting effort arresting and locking up nonviolent pot smokers. Under Measure Y, public use, sale and use by minors remain illegal, as does driving under the influence of pot. If the initiative passes, Santa Monica will join cities such as Oakland and Seattle in taking an important step toward ending the costly, dangerous and useless national "War On Drugs."
If you want to fully exercise your franchise, two other independent challengers meriting support are Jonathan Mann, a Green Party member and perennial candidate for council, and Linda Armstrong, who ran last time on a “women and children first” platform and wants to require businesses citywide making more than $5 million to pay a living wage.
Measure W - No
Measure is the right name for this. It's a measure of the depth of cynicism among Santa Monica's political class. Placed on the ballot by current Santa Monica city council members, it's an effort to undermine a stronger anti-corruption law passed by the voters six years ago that the politicos have been unable to undo in the courts.
Measure Y - Yes
Measure Y will make personal marijuana use by adults the lowest law enforcement priority for the Santa Monica Police Department, so the cops can focus their time and resources on fighting violent crime, instead of wasting effort arresting and locking up nonviolent pot smokers. Under Measure Y, public use, sale and use by minors remain illegal, as does driving under the influence of pot. If the initiative passes, Santa Monica will join cities such as Oakland and Seattle in taking an important step toward ending the costly, dangerous and useless national "War On Drugs."
2006: Protect Your Vote
YES!, a "national, non-profit, ad-free magazine that supports people's active engagement in building a just and sustainable world," has published "12 ways you can protect your own vote and the fairness of the system."
Also, True Majority has prepared an "Election Preparedness Kit," a 3-step plan aimed specifically at election fraud.
Also, True Majority has prepared an "Election Preparedness Kit," a 3-step plan aimed specifically at election fraud.
2006: In California, it's the year to vote third party
Tuesday's election gives progressives a unique opportunity to give a boost to third parties, especially Peace & Freedom and the Greens.
Perhaps because she is neither as smug nor as arrogant in her affect as Joe
Lieberman, Diane Feinstein doesn't inspire the same degree of liberal loathing as the odiferous Connecticut senator,
even though California's senior senator has supported the war, is as insensitive to civil liberties as George Bush's favorite Democrat, and, if anything, is more reliably pro-business. Since Feinstein is no danger of defeat at the hands of the GOP's sacrificial lamb, Democrats are freed to cast a vote for Peace and Freedom's Marsha Feinland and help the venerable party of the left stay on the ballot.
The Green and Peace & Freedom candidates are as qualified as their opponents, in many cases considerably more so,
so there is no reason not to give them support. Feinland, for example, is not simply an anti-war candidate. She has outlined progressive positions on issues as varied the minimum wage, universal health care, labor laws, the death penalty, the "war" on drugs, education, the environment, electoral reform, among other topics. The bottom line, however, is that a vote for Feinland is a vote for keeping the Peace and Freedom Party on future ballots where it may be needed (the Green Party doesn't face the same risk, because a sufficient number of voters have registered Green).
Phil Angelides, who as the state's treasurer shifted California's pension dollars from the stock market to community investments
and who is a strong proponent shareholder activism, would normally be a natural choice for voters who favor universal health care, public campaign financing, and strong environmental laws. The Governator, on the other hand, vetoed universal health care and almost every environmental bill that he could lay his hands on, the good press he's been getting on Global Warming notwithstanding. He also helped defend the unjust, counter-productive and expensive "three strikes" law when it looked like the voters might reform it in the last round of ballot measures two years ago, and has no compunctions against executing people. Arnold has raised more money from special interests than any governor in history; even his allies don't 
trust him to have a solid position on anything: he is the very model of the packaged candidate -- when the new "conservative" Schwartzenegger was a political disaster in 2004, he reached into the wardrobe department for the "moderate" costume he wore originally to win his office from Gray Davis. It seemed for a while that the real Schwartzenegger had emerged in 2003-4, but it's become clear since he has no principles whatsoever.
However, with the polls showing that Angelides is about to be crushed like a Dixie Cup at Gold's Gym, progressives should consider giving their vote for governor to Peace & Freedom's Janice Jordan. Angelides has run such a disastrous campaign against the incumbent -- for most of it, his
principal argument was that he should get your vote because the Republican governor had been seen from time to time in the company of the Republican president -- that you were left to wonder how smart his decisions as chief executive would be. Too bad, because there was a case to be made against Schwartzenegger and Angelides had a strong record from which to make it.
Although, like most reasonable people, Janice Jordan opposes the war, as a candidate for state office she has sensibly not made foreign policy a focus of her campaign. Instead, she has outlined programs to advance health care, public safety, small business, wages, low cost housing, public ownership of utilities, and the arts, among others. Take a look at her website for more details.
Also worth considering is the Green's Peter Camejo, whose biannual runs for office on a sensible reform platform is turning him into the Norman Thomas of the 21st Century
(okay, I admit that comparison is a wee bit over the top). Someday, perhaps in the lifetime of someone not yet born, Camejo's calls for reigning in the corporations, for labor rights and a living wage, for fair elections, campaign finance reform and run-offs in state-wide elections, for a just criminal justice 
system and an end to "three strikes" and the death penalty, for women's rights and reproductive freedom, for a guaranteed quality education for everyone (including equal access to resources such as books, school facilities that work, and great teachers who are paid enough to stay in the profession), for a more rational approach to drug addiction, for universal health care, and so on, will be as commonplace as Thomas' once-radical call for Social Security.
The race for State Treasurer is another chance to boost the third parties. As Attorney General, the Democrat aspirant, Bill Lockyer, scurried to the head of the lynch mob that descended on the capital, faggots ablaze, to execute Stanley
"Tookie" Williams, which is enough for me, but in his role as AG, he also actively failed to take on predatory lending, a big problem in California; and he accepted contributions from companies that, as the state's top cop, he was supposed to regulate. By contrast, long-time Oakland community activist Gerald Sanders (Peace & Freedom) and Mehul Thakker (Green) 
have each put forward thoughtful, progressive ideas on how the state should handle its finances, including tax reform, moving the state's deposits away from corporate banks, investing in renewable energy and otherwise using the state's cache of cash to benefit the environment, the schools, and the state's low-income communities, although Sanders, especially, has a little trouble staying focused on the issues at hand. (You can see and hear Thakker in a video on YouTube.)
Cruz Bustamante's political career would have been more fun to watch if we hadn't also had to endure it. Termed out of the Lt. Governor's chair, where fecklessness is a job qualification, he is running for
Insurance Commissioner as the candidate from Weight Watchers. While it's clear he's taking a lot of pride in having slimmed down, the other sources of his self-esteem are a mystery. You'd have thought that his pathetic run for governor in the election that rewarded us der Ahnold would have put a capper on his career in Sacramento, but now he wants a job where, ethically challenged and lazy, he can really do some harm.
In this race, at first he accepted contributions from the
insurance industry he is promising to oversee, then turned them back when it looked like enough voters might be offended by this lapse in judgment to force upon him the need to look for real work. Plus, there is no evidence he has -- you should pardon the expression -- the stomach for the job. His 
Republican opponent, businessman Steve Poizner, will be even less inclined than the feeble Cruz to fight for consumers, leaving voters with a choice between the Green's Larry Cafiero (who earned the coveted endorsement of the San Francisco League of Young Voters' aptly titled "Pissed Off Voter Guide") and Peace & Freedom's Tom Condit, either of whom is preferable to the hacks served up by the major parties.
In a few congressional districts, Green and Peace & Freedom candidates would be the best choices by far.
In the far west's 36th CD, Peace & Freedom's Jim Smith,
a labor activist, is waging strong but, alas, futile campaign in the Beach Cities against militarist Jane Harman. Although the right-wing Democrat is wildly out of sync with her district -- she supports every iteration of war and all restrictions on civil liberties (she backed Bush on torture, for pete's sake), as the richest member of Congress (her wealth comes from military contracts, natch), the steely Harman is nearly impossible to challenge. Still, any vote against her will be rewarded in heaven.
Meanwhile, in the 30th, on the west side of L.A. County where I live, Peace & Freedom's Adele Cannon,
a veteran campaigner for radical causes, is running against Henry Waxman, outraged at the Democratic congressman for voting for the war and the Patriot Act. Waxman is not nearly as liberal as his reputation, or the politics of his constituents, would lead you to believe. He gets good marks for standing up to the Republicans on the easy issue of corruption, but he has been terrible on the mysteriously difficult-for-Dems matter of U.S. predatoriness in Iraq and (soon) Iran. Send Waxman a message: Give your vote to the feisty Cannon.
The only reason to consider Harman a bigger problem than Howard Berman is that she is infinitely more powerful inside the House (although Nancy Pelosi has promised to depose her from her seat on the intelligence committee should the minority leader become Speaker). The race against Berman is more important than either the Harman or Waxman races, however, because the challenger, Byron De Lear, could actually win! Berman also represents a liberal
district -- the 28th covers San Fernando, Pacoima, Arleta, Panorama City, Van Nuys, and North Hollywood. The Valley congressman is the only California Democrat who still supports the war, but if he were as dovish as Ghandi he still should be kicked out for being anti civil liberties, anti corporate accountability, and anti anything that gets in the way of an imperialist foreign policy. De Lear...Now! De Lear...Now! De Lear...Now! Consult the list of towns in the 28th, call your friends who live there and tell them to vote.
In the 29th, covering Glendale and vicinity, another dedicated peace activist,
Peace & Freedom's Linda Llamas, and the Green Party's Bill Paparian , a progressive lawyer and former mayor of Pasadena, are spotlighting the dismal record 
of Democratic incumbent Adam Schiff (no similarity to his namesake on early episodes of Law and Order) rivaling Berman's on civil liberties, foreign policy and the war. Give Schiff a passadena and vote for Llamas or Paparian.
On the Assembly level, Green Ricardo Costa, in the sprawling 44th, centered on Pasadena but extending from La Canada to Duarte, and, in the 53rd running along the beach from Venice to Torrance, Peace & Freedom's Karl Abrams are seasoned activists who would bolster the progressive agenda in Sacramento.
Historically, third parties have been mechanisms for advancing new or initially unpopular political ideas, provided a brake on the excesses of the major parties, and held out the possibility of political change. Rather than vote for defective Democrats because the Republicans have offered someone who may be even worse, this year liberals get a chance to cast votes for third party candidates with clear consciences. The Dems have managed to come up with candidates in some races that are so bad it literally doesn't matter who is victorious. In no contest mentioned here will a third party vote throw the election to a Republican. Nor will any harm come from voting third party in the rare instances where a Green or Peace & Freedom candidate might win: De Lear, for example, has promised to vote with the Democrats to organize the House should the party gain a majority; besides, control of the legislature will be useless anyway, if it is dependent on the likes of Howard Berman.
The Green's Camejo has a TV ad budget of about $7,000, barely coffee money for his bigger rivals, to get a little cable time in Sacramento, the Bay Area and L.A. The gubernatorial hopeful suggests that many Democrats would like to vote Green, but don't want to waste their vote. "This time," Camejo says, "the Democratic candidate is not going to win, so you're free to vote for whoever you want. In fact, a vote for the Democrat will send no message. But a vote for the Green Party...this would be a powerful message." The same argument could be made by the Peace & Freedom Party, if it had $7,000, and a vote for Peace & Freedom for governor and senator is more than a vote against the war; it's also a vote for the long-term viability of alternative politics.
Perhaps because she is neither as smug nor as arrogant in her affect as Joe
Lieberman, Diane Feinstein doesn't inspire the same degree of liberal loathing as the odiferous Connecticut senator, even though California's senior senator has supported the war, is as insensitive to civil liberties as George Bush's favorite Democrat, and, if anything, is more reliably pro-business. Since Feinstein is no danger of defeat at the hands of the GOP's sacrificial lamb, Democrats are freed to cast a vote for Peace and Freedom's Marsha Feinland and help the venerable party of the left stay on the ballot.The Green and Peace & Freedom candidates are as qualified as their opponents, in many cases considerably more so,
so there is no reason not to give them support. Feinland, for example, is not simply an anti-war candidate. She has outlined progressive positions on issues as varied the minimum wage, universal health care, labor laws, the death penalty, the "war" on drugs, education, the environment, electoral reform, among other topics. The bottom line, however, is that a vote for Feinland is a vote for keeping the Peace and Freedom Party on future ballots where it may be needed (the Green Party doesn't face the same risk, because a sufficient number of voters have registered Green).Phil Angelides, who as the state's treasurer shifted California's pension dollars from the stock market to community investments
and who is a strong proponent shareholder activism, would normally be a natural choice for voters who favor universal health care, public campaign financing, and strong environmental laws. The Governator, on the other hand, vetoed universal health care and almost every environmental bill that he could lay his hands on, the good press he's been getting on Global Warming notwithstanding. He also helped defend the unjust, counter-productive and expensive "three strikes" law when it looked like the voters might reform it in the last round of ballot measures two years ago, and has no compunctions against executing people. Arnold has raised more money from special interests than any governor in history; even his allies don't trust him to have a solid position on anything: he is the very model of the packaged candidate -- when the new "conservative" Schwartzenegger was a political disaster in 2004, he reached into the wardrobe department for the "moderate" costume he wore originally to win his office from Gray Davis. It seemed for a while that the real Schwartzenegger had emerged in 2003-4, but it's become clear since he has no principles whatsoever.However, with the polls showing that Angelides is about to be crushed like a Dixie Cup at Gold's Gym, progressives should consider giving their vote for governor to Peace & Freedom's Janice Jordan. Angelides has run such a disastrous campaign against the incumbent -- for most of it, his
principal argument was that he should get your vote because the Republican governor had been seen from time to time in the company of the Republican president -- that you were left to wonder how smart his decisions as chief executive would be. Too bad, because there was a case to be made against Schwartzenegger and Angelides had a strong record from which to make it.Although, like most reasonable people, Janice Jordan opposes the war, as a candidate for state office she has sensibly not made foreign policy a focus of her campaign. Instead, she has outlined programs to advance health care, public safety, small business, wages, low cost housing, public ownership of utilities, and the arts, among others. Take a look at her website for more details.
Also worth considering is the Green's Peter Camejo, whose biannual runs for office on a sensible reform platform is turning him into the Norman Thomas of the 21st Century
(okay, I admit that comparison is a wee bit over the top). Someday, perhaps in the lifetime of someone not yet born, Camejo's calls for reigning in the corporations, for labor rights and a living wage, for fair elections, campaign finance reform and run-offs in state-wide elections, for a just criminal justice system and an end to "three strikes" and the death penalty, for women's rights and reproductive freedom, for a guaranteed quality education for everyone (including equal access to resources such as books, school facilities that work, and great teachers who are paid enough to stay in the profession), for a more rational approach to drug addiction, for universal health care, and so on, will be as commonplace as Thomas' once-radical call for Social Security.The race for State Treasurer is another chance to boost the third parties. As Attorney General, the Democrat aspirant, Bill Lockyer, scurried to the head of the lynch mob that descended on the capital, faggots ablaze, to execute Stanley
"Tookie" Williams, which is enough for me, but in his role as AG, he also actively failed to take on predatory lending, a big problem in California; and he accepted contributions from companies that, as the state's top cop, he was supposed to regulate. By contrast, long-time Oakland community activist Gerald Sanders (Peace & Freedom) and Mehul Thakker (Green) have each put forward thoughtful, progressive ideas on how the state should handle its finances, including tax reform, moving the state's deposits away from corporate banks, investing in renewable energy and otherwise using the state's cache of cash to benefit the environment, the schools, and the state's low-income communities, although Sanders, especially, has a little trouble staying focused on the issues at hand. (You can see and hear Thakker in a video on YouTube.)Cruz Bustamante's political career would have been more fun to watch if we hadn't also had to endure it. Termed out of the Lt. Governor's chair, where fecklessness is a job qualification, he is running for
Insurance Commissioner as the candidate from Weight Watchers. While it's clear he's taking a lot of pride in having slimmed down, the other sources of his self-esteem are a mystery. You'd have thought that his pathetic run for governor in the election that rewarded us der Ahnold would have put a capper on his career in Sacramento, but now he wants a job where, ethically challenged and lazy, he can really do some harm.In this race, at first he accepted contributions from the
insurance industry he is promising to oversee, then turned them back when it looked like enough voters might be offended by this lapse in judgment to force upon him the need to look for real work. Plus, there is no evidence he has -- you should pardon the expression -- the stomach for the job. His Republican opponent, businessman Steve Poizner, will be even less inclined than the feeble Cruz to fight for consumers, leaving voters with a choice between the Green's Larry Cafiero (who earned the coveted endorsement of the San Francisco League of Young Voters' aptly titled "Pissed Off Voter Guide") and Peace & Freedom's Tom Condit, either of whom is preferable to the hacks served up by the major parties.In a few congressional districts, Green and Peace & Freedom candidates would be the best choices by far.
In the far west's 36th CD, Peace & Freedom's Jim Smith,
a labor activist, is waging strong but, alas, futile campaign in the Beach Cities against militarist Jane Harman. Although the right-wing Democrat is wildly out of sync with her district -- she supports every iteration of war and all restrictions on civil liberties (she backed Bush on torture, for pete's sake), as the richest member of Congress (her wealth comes from military contracts, natch), the steely Harman is nearly impossible to challenge. Still, any vote against her will be rewarded in heaven.Meanwhile, in the 30th, on the west side of L.A. County where I live, Peace & Freedom's Adele Cannon,
a veteran campaigner for radical causes, is running against Henry Waxman, outraged at the Democratic congressman for voting for the war and the Patriot Act. Waxman is not nearly as liberal as his reputation, or the politics of his constituents, would lead you to believe. He gets good marks for standing up to the Republicans on the easy issue of corruption, but he has been terrible on the mysteriously difficult-for-Dems matter of U.S. predatoriness in Iraq and (soon) Iran. Send Waxman a message: Give your vote to the feisty Cannon.The only reason to consider Harman a bigger problem than Howard Berman is that she is infinitely more powerful inside the House (although Nancy Pelosi has promised to depose her from her seat on the intelligence committee should the minority leader become Speaker). The race against Berman is more important than either the Harman or Waxman races, however, because the challenger, Byron De Lear, could actually win! Berman also represents a liberal
district -- the 28th covers San Fernando, Pacoima, Arleta, Panorama City, Van Nuys, and North Hollywood. The Valley congressman is the only California Democrat who still supports the war, but if he were as dovish as Ghandi he still should be kicked out for being anti civil liberties, anti corporate accountability, and anti anything that gets in the way of an imperialist foreign policy. De Lear...Now! De Lear...Now! De Lear...Now! Consult the list of towns in the 28th, call your friends who live there and tell them to vote.In the 29th, covering Glendale and vicinity, another dedicated peace activist,
Peace & Freedom's Linda Llamas, and the Green Party's Bill Paparian , a progressive lawyer and former mayor of Pasadena, are spotlighting the dismal record of Democratic incumbent Adam Schiff (no similarity to his namesake on early episodes of Law and Order) rivaling Berman's on civil liberties, foreign policy and the war. Give Schiff a passadena and vote for Llamas or Paparian.On the Assembly level, Green Ricardo Costa, in the sprawling 44th, centered on Pasadena but extending from La Canada to Duarte, and, in the 53rd running along the beach from Venice to Torrance, Peace & Freedom's Karl Abrams are seasoned activists who would bolster the progressive agenda in Sacramento.
Historically, third parties have been mechanisms for advancing new or initially unpopular political ideas, provided a brake on the excesses of the major parties, and held out the possibility of political change. Rather than vote for defective Democrats because the Republicans have offered someone who may be even worse, this year liberals get a chance to cast votes for third party candidates with clear consciences. The Dems have managed to come up with candidates in some races that are so bad it literally doesn't matter who is victorious. In no contest mentioned here will a third party vote throw the election to a Republican. Nor will any harm come from voting third party in the rare instances where a Green or Peace & Freedom candidate might win: De Lear, for example, has promised to vote with the Democrats to organize the House should the party gain a majority; besides, control of the legislature will be useless anyway, if it is dependent on the likes of Howard Berman.
The Green's Camejo has a TV ad budget of about $7,000, barely coffee money for his bigger rivals, to get a little cable time in Sacramento, the Bay Area and L.A. The gubernatorial hopeful suggests that many Democrats would like to vote Green, but don't want to waste their vote. "This time," Camejo says, "the Democratic candidate is not going to win, so you're free to vote for whoever you want. In fact, a vote for the Democrat will send no message. But a vote for the Green Party...this would be a powerful message." The same argument could be made by the Peace & Freedom Party, if it had $7,000, and a vote for Peace & Freedom for governor and senator is more than a vote against the war; it's also a vote for the long-term viability of alternative politics.
The War Is Over...
Global warming has been checked. The flora and fauna of land and sea are safe and sound.
No one is retiring to bed hungry; their education, their health care, their jobs, their retirement, their quality of life...all secured.
The Congress is once again in the compassionate hands of Democrats.
George, Laura and Barney have been dispatched back to Crawford.
The Governator has returned to L.A. where he belongs. Welcome home, Arnold; we missed you.
So little is left to achieve that yesterday progressives had surplus political energy -- and surplus political capital -- to expend in a street rally on behalf of an aggressively partisan political candidate who came under the fire of an equally aggressive political attack launched by erstwhile opponents via a medium almost no one watches.
The irony is that the cable television assault ads knocking Santa Monica councilmember Kevin McKeown almost certainly will boost his candidacy. This is probably contrary to the intended outcome, but you never know. Since he among the possible victors next Tuesday is the one who offers the least threat to the fortunes of the hotels, you almost wonder if they aren't attempting to engineer his reelection deliberately by mugging him.
Think of how much worse off the hotels would be if they had to overcome a more subtle political opponent with skill and clout and the will to give them a real fight. Even in the leadership vacuum of Santa Monica, however, his political skills are such that his councilmates -- who having served so long with him presumably know him best -- hold McKeown in such low esteem they took the almost unheard-of step of denying him an all-but-pro-forma turn as mayor.
No one is retiring to bed hungry; their education, their health care, their jobs, their retirement, their quality of life...all secured.
The Congress is once again in the compassionate hands of Democrats.
George, Laura and Barney have been dispatched back to Crawford.
The Governator has returned to L.A. where he belongs. Welcome home, Arnold; we missed you.
So little is left to achieve that yesterday progressives had surplus political energy -- and surplus political capital -- to expend in a street rally on behalf of an aggressively partisan political candidate who came under the fire of an equally aggressive political attack launched by erstwhile opponents via a medium almost no one watches.
The irony is that the cable television assault ads knocking Santa Monica councilmember Kevin McKeown almost certainly will boost his candidacy. This is probably contrary to the intended outcome, but you never know. Since he among the possible victors next Tuesday is the one who offers the least threat to the fortunes of the hotels, you almost wonder if they aren't attempting to engineer his reelection deliberately by mugging him.
Think of how much worse off the hotels would be if they had to overcome a more subtle political opponent with skill and clout and the will to give them a real fight. Even in the leadership vacuum of Santa Monica, however, his political skills are such that his councilmates -- who having served so long with him presumably know him best -- hold McKeown in such low esteem they took the almost unheard-of step of denying him an all-but-pro-forma turn as mayor.
Political Philosophy: Religion in the Public Sphere by Jurgen Habermas
"Religious traditions and communities of faith have gained a new, hitherto unexpected political importance since the epoch making change of 1989–90. Needless to say, what initially spring to mind are the variants of religious fundamentalism that we face not only in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Southeast Asia, and in the Indian subcontinent. They often lock into national and ethnic conflicts, and today also form the seedbed for the decentralized form of terrorism that operates globally and is directed against the perceived insults and injuries caused by a superior Western civilization. There are other symptoms, too.
"For example, in Iran the protest against a corrupt regime set in place and supported by the West has given rise to a veritable rule of priests that serves other movements as a model to follow. In several Muslim countries, and in Israel as well, religious family law is either an alternative or a substitute for secular civil law. And in Afghanistan (and soon in Iraq), the application of a more or less liberal constitution must be limited by its compatibility with the Sharia. Likewise, religious conflicts are squeezing their way into the international arena. The hopes associated with the political agenda of multiple modernities are fueled by the cultural self-confidence of those world religions that to this very day unmistakably shape the physiognomy of the major civilizations. And on the Western side of the fence, the perception of international relations has changed in light of the fears of a ‘clash of civilizations’—‘the axis of evil’ is merely one prominent example of this. Even Western intellectuals, to date self-critical in this regard, are starting to go on the offensive in their response to the image of Occidentalism that the others have of the West....
"Rawls’s concept of public reason has met with resolute critics. The objections were leveled not at his liberal premises per se, but against an overly narrow, supposedly secularist definition of the political role of religion in the liberal frame. This is not to play down the fact that eventually the dissent also touches the real substance of the liberal state. What interests me (here) is what line gets drawn to claims that reach beyond a liberal constitution. Arguments for a more generously dimensioned political role for religion that are incompatible with the secular nature of the state should not be confused with justifiable objections to a secularist understanding of democracy and the rule of law.
"The principle of separation of church and state demands that the institution of the state operate with strict impartiality vis-a-vis religious communities; parliaments, courts, and the administration must not violate the prescription not to privilege one side at the cost of another. But this principle is to be distinguished from the laicist demand that the state should defer from adopting any political stance which would support or constrain religion per se, even if this affects all religious communities equally. That would amount to an overly narrow interpretation of the separation of state and church.20 At the same time, the rejection of secularism must not succumb to leaving the door wide open for revisions that would undermine the principle itself. The toleration of religious justifications within the legislative process is, as we shall see, a case in point. That said, Rawls’s liberal position has tended to direct his critics’ attention less to the impartiality of state institutions than to the ethics of citizenship."
Download the entire essay (pdf): <http://www.law.nyu.edu/>
"For example, in Iran the protest against a corrupt regime set in place and supported by the West has given rise to a veritable rule of priests that serves other movements as a model to follow. In several Muslim countries, and in Israel as well, religious family law is either an alternative or a substitute for secular civil law. And in Afghanistan (and soon in Iraq), the application of a more or less liberal constitution must be limited by its compatibility with the Sharia. Likewise, religious conflicts are squeezing their way into the international arena. The hopes associated with the political agenda of multiple modernities are fueled by the cultural self-confidence of those world religions that to this very day unmistakably shape the physiognomy of the major civilizations. And on the Western side of the fence, the perception of international relations has changed in light of the fears of a ‘clash of civilizations’—‘the axis of evil’ is merely one prominent example of this. Even Western intellectuals, to date self-critical in this regard, are starting to go on the offensive in their response to the image of Occidentalism that the others have of the West....
"Rawls’s concept of public reason has met with resolute critics. The objections were leveled not at his liberal premises per se, but against an overly narrow, supposedly secularist definition of the political role of religion in the liberal frame. This is not to play down the fact that eventually the dissent also touches the real substance of the liberal state. What interests me (here) is what line gets drawn to claims that reach beyond a liberal constitution. Arguments for a more generously dimensioned political role for religion that are incompatible with the secular nature of the state should not be confused with justifiable objections to a secularist understanding of democracy and the rule of law.
"The principle of separation of church and state demands that the institution of the state operate with strict impartiality vis-a-vis religious communities; parliaments, courts, and the administration must not violate the prescription not to privilege one side at the cost of another. But this principle is to be distinguished from the laicist demand that the state should defer from adopting any political stance which would support or constrain religion per se, even if this affects all religious communities equally. That would amount to an overly narrow interpretation of the separation of state and church.20 At the same time, the rejection of secularism must not succumb to leaving the door wide open for revisions that would undermine the principle itself. The toleration of religious justifications within the legislative process is, as we shall see, a case in point. That said, Rawls’s liberal position has tended to direct his critics’ attention less to the impartiality of state institutions than to the ethics of citizenship."
Download the entire essay (pdf): <http://www.law.nyu.edu/>
The Props: Election 2006 Blog and Hot Topics
"This website features information about the measures on the ballot in the November 2006 election in California...regularly updated through the remainder of the election cycle, and afterward, with to-the-minute details about polls, endorsements, campaign finance data, and news about each proposition....
"These pages are maintained by the Institute of Governmental Studies Library. The Institute of Governmental Studies is an interdisciplinary organized research unit (ORU) at the University of California at Berkeley that promotes research, training, educational activities, and public service in the areas of American and California politics and public policy.
"The Institute of Governmental Studies Library is one of 11 affiliated libraries on campus. The IGS Library is one the nation’s premier libraries of non-trade and ephemeral materials on
American public affairs and policy. The core of the collection is comprised of pamphlets and unbound reports from a broad spectrum of public interest organizations, research institutes and government agencies...a strong reference collection of monographs and journals on American political science and public administration...has served the research and public service mission of the Institute of Governmental Studies for over 70 years...and has evolved into a large specialized library serving not only Institute scholars but the University community and the general public." -- from the website. <http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/election2006/>
"These pages are maintained by the Institute of Governmental Studies Library. The Institute of Governmental Studies is an interdisciplinary organized research unit (ORU) at the University of California at Berkeley that promotes research, training, educational activities, and public service in the areas of American and California politics and public policy.
"The Institute of Governmental Studies Library is one of 11 affiliated libraries on campus. The IGS Library is one the nation’s premier libraries of non-trade and ephemeral materials on
American public affairs and policy. The core of the collection is comprised of pamphlets and unbound reports from a broad spectrum of public interest organizations, research institutes and government agencies...a strong reference collection of monographs and journals on American political science and public administration...has served the research and public service mission of the Institute of Governmental Studies for over 70 years...and has evolved into a large specialized library serving not only Institute scholars but the University community and the general public." -- from the website. <http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/election2006/>
Municipal Wireless: State of the Market
The MuniWireless State-of-the-Market Report predicts that $3 billion will be spent in the United States from 2006 to 2010 by cities and counties installing wi-fi. This year alone, $235 million will be spent, an increase over the previous forecast of $177 million. Many communities — especially those installing county-wide services — will use it for economic development, digital inclusion and public safety communication.
When you vote...: The GOP's failure to protect the environment.
When you vote, please keep in mind that the Natural Resources Defense Council tallied "more than 300 Crimes against Nature" by the Bush administration and its allies in Congress, 
during just the first five years!; that the Wilderness Society denounced the Bush Administration record on public lands as "irresponsible"; that, as Mother Jones has demonstrated, "no president has gone after the nation's environmental laws with the same fury as George W. Bush -- and none has been so adept at staying under the radar."
For an ongoing update on the Republican majority's environmental misdeeds, add BushGreenwatch <http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/> to your daily bookmarks.
during just the first five years!; that the Wilderness Society denounced the Bush Administration record on public lands as "irresponsible"; that, as Mother Jones has demonstrated, "no president has gone after the nation's environmental laws with the same fury as George W. Bush -- and none has been so adept at staying under the radar." For an ongoing update on the Republican majority's environmental misdeeds, add BushGreenwatch <http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/> to your daily bookmarks.
Print: The L.A.Times stumbles into the future
"The Manhattan Project," LA Observed's Kevin Roderick comments, is not da bomb. The Los Angeles Times' soul-searching won't do much to change the fishwrap's grim prospects. Roderick argues the current staff is ill-equipped to pilot the hulking old-media ship down 
new-media channels; editor Dean Baquet is out of touch -- he came up at the NYTimes and isn't trained for the kind of street-level journo we need in L.A.; besides, he should already know what his readers want -- that's his yob!, for pete's sake; mission-hunting by committee is useless; publicly announcing the group therapy sessions was dumb -- articles in the press make it sound like the project was dreamed up by The Onion; and naming it after the 60-year-old effort to build Little Boy makes the paper look even more ridiculous than usual.
Kevin Roderick: LA Observed (several stories, scroll around).
Mack Reed's advice to the LAT: LAVoice.Org.
new-media channels; editor Dean Baquet is out of touch -- he came up at the NYTimes and isn't trained for the kind of street-level journo we need in L.A.; besides, he should already know what his readers want -- that's his yob!, for pete's sake; mission-hunting by committee is useless; publicly announcing the group therapy sessions was dumb -- articles in the press make it sound like the project was dreamed up by The Onion; and naming it after the 60-year-old effort to build Little Boy makes the paper look even more ridiculous than usual.Kevin Roderick: LA Observed (several stories, scroll around).
Mack Reed's advice to the LAT: LAVoice.Org.
Political Philosophy: "Federalism" and "Citizenship" considered anew in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The new entry on Federalism in the always informative Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an excellent backgrounder for the intensifying debates about both our own dysfunctional democracy and the prospects for a stable Shia-Sunni-Kurd state in Iraq. Also, useful -- in light of efforts by the Right to exploit concerns about immigration -- is the chapter on Citizenship.
Margin of Victory: Races in the balance
Here's the action arm of True Majority's take on the races where your contribution of time or money might make a difference:
Patty Wetterling vs. Mark Kennedy, MN-6, eastern and southern Twin Cities suburbs
Child advocate Patty Wetterling is taking her concern for families, education and healthcare to a new level, by vying to replace departing Republican incumbent Mark Kennedy. In a state that is also energized by exciting Governor and Senate races, this house race is a leader on lists to switch parties. The Republican nominee, State Senator Michelle Bachmann, is far more conservative than this suburban Twin Cities district and Wetterling enjoys name recognition in over 90% of the district.
Missouri: Claire McCaskill vs. Jim Talent
State Auditor Claire McCaskill is taking on freshman Senator Jim Talent in a state that has lost its patience with the direction of the country and the unending nature of the Iraq war. Both candidates have been elected statewide, but one is attached to an unpopular president and nitty gritty issues for Missourians like social security privatization and medicare cuts. McCaskill's job will be to hang those policies about Talent's neck, along with a few unpopular votes he has taken as well. Statewide issues will play into the race as well, like the popular stem cell research referendum which is splitting Republicans apart in Missouri.
Montana: Jon Tester vs. Conrad Burns
Populist ... Organic Farmer ... State Senate President who knows Montanans ... Jon Tester is the candidate to beat in the race for US Senator. Incumbent Conrad Burns is making a misstatement a week and still can't really explain where all that Jack Abramoff money went. With the strong wind of a blow out primary at his back, Tester is ready to put this Senate seat in the Democratic column.
Ohio: Sherrod Brown vs. Mike DeWine
Ohio Republicans have taken a beating in the last two years, with a wildly unpopular Governor, a pension scandal and a number of leadership Republicans, including Bob Ney, being associated nationally with scandal. Therefore, a challenge to normally safe incumbent Mike DeWine is a lot closer than usual. U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown, a star progressive who has carried TrueMajority causes in the House of Representatives for 14 years, is challenging DeWine and the party he belongs to. Brown has recently seen some very encouraging polls. Now all that is required is a consistent, well-funded campaign.
Pennsylvania: Bob Casey, Jr. vs. Rick Santorum
Sen. Rick Santorum is being challenged by a statewide-elected candidate whose name has huge curb appeal, State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. Casey has consistently had a lead in all polls, and usually by wide margins. The administration lost this state in the last election and has built up no good will since. However, Santorum may be the most vulnerable Senate incumbent in the country, but he is a resourceful politician and has a fundraising advantage, so the race could be tight on election night.
Rhode Island: Sheldon Whitehouse vs. Republican nominee
Former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse is the Democratic candidate and will come out swinging for the election. This state has only elected two Republicans to the Senate in the modern era and they are Lincoln Chafee and his father, so the general discontent with the Republican party this year does not bode well for Chafee.
Tennessee: Harold Ford vs. Bob Corker
When Sen. Bill Frist announced he was stepping down after two terms, beltway folks were surprised to hear Rep. Harold Ford declare his intentions to run. But since then, he has done a masterful job of clearing the Democratic field, leaving all the airtime in the primary for Republican candidates to beat up on each other. Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker easily beat his opponents in the primary, but the stinging attacks still ring in voters ears. Corker would be favored, but Ford is putting together a good campaign and uniting the Democratic Party behind him. The numbers still have with one in the high potential for change category.
Gabrielle Giffords vs. Republican candidate, AZ-08, Tucson
Former state legislator Gabrielle Giffords will be facing an extremely conservative opponent in the race to take back the seat emptied by retiring internationalist Jim Kolbe. The seat, which runs along the Arizona/Mexico border, will be one of the hottest challenges in the country. Giffords legislative career has a long record of supporting women's rights, healthcare access and affordability and protection of the environment and open spaces. Her opponent is a poster boy for the Minuteman movement on the Arizona border and will run a campaign of fear-mongering and racist divisiveness. Moving this seat back to the Democratic column will be a victory for us all.
Ed Perlmutter, CO-7, northern Denver suburbs
Ed Perlmutter, education and alternative energy supporter, has come out of the Democratic primary as the nominee for this open seat. A lifelong resident of the Denver-suburbs district, Perlmutter represents the best chance to take this seat back. The retiring Congressman won the seat four years ago by 102 votes. Now it is time for a Democrat to represent the district which went for Kerry two years ago.
Joe Courtney vs. Rob Simmons, CT-2, New London
In one of the most Democratic seats in the country represented by a Republican, the voters of eastern Connecticut are ready for a change. Joe Courtney, a former state senator, is taking the challenge. The incumbent's votes for drilling in the Artic Refuge and support of the war in Iraq certainly give voters pause, as well as continued questions about campaign money from Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham. Connecticut is a hot-bed of change this year, and this seat should lead the way.
Diane Farrell vs. Christopher Shays, CT-4, Stamford, Bridgeport
Diane Farrell, Wesport Selectwoman, is taking on Chris Shays, one of the most wishy-washy members of Congress. Farrell's strong desire to get us out of Iraq and her concern for the social safety net that means so much to all Americans makes her a great match for this Democratic leaning district. Voters in this New York suburban district are tired of representation that votes for the leadership of the party that is undercutting all they believe in and they will have a great alternative in Diane Farrell this November.
John Cranley vs. Steve Chabot, OH-1, Western Cincinnati and suburbs
John Cranley is taking on incumbent Republican Steve Chabot, who seems to have spent more time globe-trotting on lobbyists' dimes than representing his constituents while they dealt with the real problems at home of health care, jobs and gas prices. Cranley's efforts locally in alternative energy sources, affordable public transportation and clean air are the kinds of ideas voters are ready for in Washington and this western Cincinnati seat looks like one of the most likely to flip.
Zack Space vs. TBA, OH-18, east and south central, Zanesville
Zack Space won the nomination to take on the scandal-ridden Bob Ney, but now Ney has stepped down and the opponent remains unclear. Space, however, remains an excellent candidate. His deep roots in the community and sense of service stem from his grandfather's service in World War I after emigrating from Greece make his a great candidate to represent the wide-ranging district that runs through the eastern center of Ohio. Space actively campaigned for support of election reform while a primary candidate and will take that message all the way to Washington DC, with voters' support.
Mary Jo Kilroy vs. Deborah Pryce, OH-15, Central: western Columbus and suburbs
Mary Jo Kilroy has been representing parts of this western Columbus district in various capacities for many years, bringing her progressive vision to issues like alternative energy local transportation and electoral reform. Now she is taking on Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, who likes to refer to herself as a moderate while voting for big oil and gas, tax cuts for millionaires and supports George Bush's \"stay the course\" vision for Iraq. When will voters have enough of this type of two-faced representation? In November, when they send Mary Jo Kilroy's new passion and new ideas to the House of Representatives.
Lois Murphy vs. Jim Gerlach, PA-6, parts of Montgomery, Berks and Chester counties
If you are looking for one of the top seats to change parties in 2006, this one is it. Pennsylvania is pretty darn tired of the Bush administration and the direction of the country, as made clear by the polling numbers in the US Senate race. Lois Murphy, attorney and mother of two, is taking on the sophomore Congressman Jim Gerlach, who is running like crazy away from the current leadership of his party. He can run, but he can't hide from all those votes supporting the war in Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy, funding of nuclear weapons. Muphy is pressing hard and voters will give the Bush administration a vote on its performance on November, the outcome is looking bleak.
Joe Sestak vs. Curt Weldon, PA-7, Philadelphia's Delaware suburbs
Joe Sestak, recently retired from a 31 year career in the Navy, is taking on Curt Weldon, a strong supporter of the war and an advocate of ballistic missile defense, an untested, ineffective weapon system that costs us $10 billion a year! Vice Admiral Sestak, a Harvard PhD, will bring a breadth of leadership and educational experience to Congress that will help us take our foreign policy in a new direction. He opposes the Iraq War, calling it \"unnecessary\" and a \"tragic misadventure.\" In this district which gave Kerry a win in the last election, there are winds of change blowing and Joe Sestak and our nation's foreign policy will be the beneficiaries.
Patrick Murphy vs. Mike Fitzpatrick, PA-8, northern Philadelphia suburbs
Patrick Murphy's knowledge of the situation in Iraq comes from his own tour of duty there. As a JAG officer, he was able to experience both the reactions of Iraqis to our occupation there and the demands being put on our soldiers. Murphy's plan for Iraq includes bringing home the National Guard ASAP and a new plan for Iraq. His opponent, freshman member Mike Fitzpatrick, has been receiving funds hand over fist from Republican leadership PACs and will be flooding the airwaves in this northern Philadelphia suburban district with the administration's messages. Murphy's mission will be to make that connection between the administration, which lost the last election in this district, with the member who now serves them in Congress, and help voters make a change.
Tammy Duckworth vs. Peter Roskam, IL-6, Chicago north and west sides
In the Chicago suburbs open seat vacated by Henry Hyde, the Democratic candidate, Tammy Duckworth is an Iraq vet who lost three limbs during her tour of duty there. As the seat trends more Democratic, voters are hungry for someone who is ready to grapple with the larger issues of the day. Duckworth brings integrity and intelligence to the important issues our country is facing in foreign policy. Her strong internationalist influence and unwavering support of veterans' issues are the messages that war-weary voters are ready to hear. Her opponent, a one-time Tom DeLay staffer, has an awful lot to run from, Duckworth stands on her experience and stamina.
Brad Ellsworth vs. John Hostettler, IN-08, Evansville, Terre Haute
Brad Ellsworth, the telegenic sheriff in the Evansville and Terre Haute district, is running against John Hostettler, the Congressman who was stopped at his regional airport because he had a loaded gun in his carry-on. His excuse, "I forgot it was in there." Ellworth, by contrast has been well aware of the laws of the land, having served as police officer for over 25 years. He is running to bring better paying jobs and job security, better trade agreements and stronger education for the workforce we will rely on in the next generation.
Baron Hill vs. Mark Sodrel, IN-09, New Albany, Bloomington
Baron Hill, long owner of this southern Indiana seat, is up for a rematch against trucking company owner, Congressman Mike Sodrel, who beat him in the last election. However, tolerance for the direction of the country has declined markedly in the district and Hill's rematch is considered one of the best pick-ups in the country.
Bruce Braley vs. Mike Whalen, IA-1, Dubuque, Davenport
In an open seat freed up by Congressman Jim Nussle running for Governor, Democratic nominee Bruce Braley is ready to put this seat in the Democratic column. His strong connection to the community and strong support for TrueMajority values, including support of the Common Sense Budget Act, make this race a top priority for TrueMajority ACTION PAC. Our support of Braley in the primary helped him across the line and we will be there with him on election night to ring in victory.
John Yarmouth vs. Anne Northup, KY-3, Louisville
John Yarmouth is taking on an incumbent considered one of the most vulnerable year after year. In this Louisville-based Democratic district, Yarmouth's profile as an anti-war activist and journalist will inspire Democrats to come out to the polls in November and bring representation to the district that it deserves.
Ken Lucas vs. Geoff Davis, KY-4, Northeast, Cincinnati suburbs
Former Congressman Ken Lucas thought retirement would be easy in 2004. But when he saw the direction of the country and the direction of his replacement, freshman Republican Geoff Davis, Lucas realized he would have to get back in the ring. His long dedication to the district propelled him quickly into a strong challenger position and a strong campaign will bring him back to the House of Representatives as part of the majority party.
Linda Stender vs. Mike Ferguson, NJ-7, North Central, parts of Woodbridge and Union
State Assemblywoman and ex-Fanwood Mayor Linda Stender is taking on six-year incumbent Mike Ferguson. Stender's strong progressive credentials make her a great partner for TrueMajority once in Congress. She will strongly advocate for an exit strategy from Iraq and puts children and seniors ahead of tax cuts for the wealthy. Her opponent ran strongly on his attachment to President Bush two years ago. Wonder what his platform will be this time?
Jill Derby vs. Jim Gibbons, NV-2
Jill Derby has made the red to blue list and has posted some good fundraising numbers. With Gibbons running for governor, a number of Republicans have signed up for the race (including his wife), but Derby is alone on the Democratic side. She is third generation Nevadan and landmarks in the district bear the Derby name.
Patricia Madrid vs. Heather Wilson, NM-1
Democratic challenger Patricia Madrid, Attorney General, is running a strong race against one of the most hawkish Republicans in Congress. Madrid is taking her on over the airwaves, bad planning for the war in Iraq, bad follow-up for the injured vets coming home. Emphasizing the issues that always play well in this Albuquerque-based district, social security, job security, Madrid has put the incumbent in the position of needing to a lot of explaining. Now she just needs to get those Democratic voters to the polls.
Mike Arcuri vs. Ray Meier, NY-24, Utica
The retirement of moderate Republican Sherwood Boehlert opens up a strong pick-up opportunity for Democrats in the Utica area. Oneida County Attorney Mike Arcuri has won four elections in the District since 1993, so has long been identified as an public servant and strong Democratic candidate. His opponent, a state legislator, it far more conservative than the middle of the road Congressman Boehlert. Arcuri has quickly garnered support from unions and grassroots activists who are excited to see this seat change hands.
Heath Shuler vs. Charles Taylor, NC-11, Asheville
Heath Shuler, former NFL quarterback, is taking on ethics-challenged Republican incumbent Charles Taylor in this Asheville-based district. Reports of savings and loan impropriety, campaign fund discrepancies and even vote-changing have long plagued Taylor, but he has always had enough money to buy his way back. However, it seems that this year. With unions, education advocates and environmentalists on Shuler's side, this can be the year for change, as some polls here have indicated.
Nick Lampson vs. write-in candidate, TX-22, southeast Houston and suburbs
Now that Tom DeLay has been permanently removed from this race, the election has ended up with a ballot including Democratic ex-Congressman Nick Lampson, an Independent candidate, and a write-in line for the Republican candidate. DeLay long ago gave away Republican voters from this district because he had such a lock on it. Now a new measurement will be taken and Nick Lampson, who previously represented up to one third of the voters now in the district, with be taking the lead in winning back seats for Democrats. Even with the complications of a concurrent special election to fill the remaining time in DeLay's term, this seat is considered the most likely to change hands in November.
Darcy Burner vs. Dave Reichert, WA-8, Seattle's King county
Darcy Burner, Microsoft executive, computer programmer and community activist, has signed up to take on freshman Dave Reichert. He ran on a law and order platform in the election using his sheriff credentials, but the district's reaction to the Iraq War has undermined their tolerance for his leadership. Kerry won this district by 3 points. Now it is Burner's job to get those voters to the polls in November to make real change.
Ron Klein vs. Clay Shaw, FL-22
In the race of the big dollars, attorney Ron Klein is doing all he can to bring to light the weak representation constituents have been receiving from Republican Clay Shaw for the last 26 years. But in this east coast Florida district that includes parts of West Palm Beach and Ft. Lauderdale, Shaw has a $4.2 million war chest he is using to convince voters that they need to keep him in office because of his seniority. Of course, that argument will be hollow when his party no longer controls the Capitol. Klein's message on the importance of social security and adequate healthcare are what voters really want to hear and will send them to the polls in November to ensure Clay Shaw's retirement plan.
Patricia Madrid vs. Heather Wilson, NM-1
Democratic challenger Patricia Madrid, Attorney General, is running a strong race against one of the most hawkish Republicans in Congress. Madrid is taking her on over the airwaves, bad planning for the war in Iraq, bad follow-up for the injured vets coming home. Emphasizing the issues that always play well in this Albuquerque-based district, social security, job security, Madrid has put the incumbent in the position of needing to a lot of explaining. Now she just needs to get those Democratic voters to the polls.
Here's the link to True Majority Action's 2006 wish list.
Patty Wetterling vs. Mark Kennedy, MN-6, eastern and southern Twin Cities suburbsChild advocate Patty Wetterling is taking her concern for families, education and healthcare to a new level, by vying to replace departing Republican incumbent Mark Kennedy. In a state that is also energized by exciting Governor and Senate races, this house race is a leader on lists to switch parties. The Republican nominee, State Senator Michelle Bachmann, is far more conservative than this suburban Twin Cities district and Wetterling enjoys name recognition in over 90% of the district.
Missouri: Claire McCaskill vs. Jim TalentState Auditor Claire McCaskill is taking on freshman Senator Jim Talent in a state that has lost its patience with the direction of the country and the unending nature of the Iraq war. Both candidates have been elected statewide, but one is attached to an unpopular president and nitty gritty issues for Missourians like social security privatization and medicare cuts. McCaskill's job will be to hang those policies about Talent's neck, along with a few unpopular votes he has taken as well. Statewide issues will play into the race as well, like the popular stem cell research referendum which is splitting Republicans apart in Missouri.
Montana: Jon Tester vs. Conrad BurnsPopulist ... Organic Farmer ... State Senate President who knows Montanans ... Jon Tester is the candidate to beat in the race for US Senator. Incumbent Conrad Burns is making a misstatement a week and still can't really explain where all that Jack Abramoff money went. With the strong wind of a blow out primary at his back, Tester is ready to put this Senate seat in the Democratic column.
Ohio: Sherrod Brown vs. Mike DeWineOhio Republicans have taken a beating in the last two years, with a wildly unpopular Governor, a pension scandal and a number of leadership Republicans, including Bob Ney, being associated nationally with scandal. Therefore, a challenge to normally safe incumbent Mike DeWine is a lot closer than usual. U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown, a star progressive who has carried TrueMajority causes in the House of Representatives for 14 years, is challenging DeWine and the party he belongs to. Brown has recently seen some very encouraging polls. Now all that is required is a consistent, well-funded campaign.
Pennsylvania: Bob Casey, Jr. vs. Rick Santorum Sen. Rick Santorum is being challenged by a statewide-elected candidate whose name has huge curb appeal, State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. Casey has consistently had a lead in all polls, and usually by wide margins. The administration lost this state in the last election and has built up no good will since. However, Santorum may be the most vulnerable Senate incumbent in the country, but he is a resourceful politician and has a fundraising advantage, so the race could be tight on election night.
Rhode Island: Sheldon Whitehouse vs. Republican nominee Former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse is the Democratic candidate and will come out swinging for the election. This state has only elected two Republicans to the Senate in the modern era and they are Lincoln Chafee and his father, so the general discontent with the Republican party this year does not bode well for Chafee.
Tennessee: Harold Ford vs. Bob CorkerWhen Sen. Bill Frist announced he was stepping down after two terms, beltway folks were surprised to hear Rep. Harold Ford declare his intentions to run. But since then, he has done a masterful job of clearing the Democratic field, leaving all the airtime in the primary for Republican candidates to beat up on each other. Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker easily beat his opponents in the primary, but the stinging attacks still ring in voters ears. Corker would be favored, but Ford is putting together a good campaign and uniting the Democratic Party behind him. The numbers still have with one in the high potential for change category.
Gabrielle Giffords vs. Republican candidate, AZ-08, Tucson Former state legislator Gabrielle Giffords will be facing an extremely conservative opponent in the race to take back the seat emptied by retiring internationalist Jim Kolbe. The seat, which runs along the Arizona/Mexico border, will be one of the hottest challenges in the country. Giffords legislative career has a long record of supporting women's rights, healthcare access and affordability and protection of the environment and open spaces. Her opponent is a poster boy for the Minuteman movement on the Arizona border and will run a campaign of fear-mongering and racist divisiveness. Moving this seat back to the Democratic column will be a victory for us all.
Ed Perlmutter, CO-7, northern Denver suburbs Ed Perlmutter, education and alternative energy supporter, has come out of the Democratic primary as the nominee for this open seat. A lifelong resident of the Denver-suburbs district, Perlmutter represents the best chance to take this seat back. The retiring Congressman won the seat four years ago by 102 votes. Now it is time for a Democrat to represent the district which went for Kerry two years ago.
Joe Courtney vs. Rob Simmons, CT-2, New LondonIn one of the most Democratic seats in the country represented by a Republican, the voters of eastern Connecticut are ready for a change. Joe Courtney, a former state senator, is taking the challenge. The incumbent's votes for drilling in the Artic Refuge and support of the war in Iraq certainly give voters pause, as well as continued questions about campaign money from Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham. Connecticut is a hot-bed of change this year, and this seat should lead the way.
Diane Farrell vs. Christopher Shays, CT-4, Stamford, BridgeportDiane Farrell, Wesport Selectwoman, is taking on Chris Shays, one of the most wishy-washy members of Congress. Farrell's strong desire to get us out of Iraq and her concern for the social safety net that means so much to all Americans makes her a great match for this Democratic leaning district. Voters in this New York suburban district are tired of representation that votes for the leadership of the party that is undercutting all they believe in and they will have a great alternative in Diane Farrell this November.
John Cranley vs. Steve Chabot, OH-1, Western Cincinnati and suburbsJohn Cranley is taking on incumbent Republican Steve Chabot, who seems to have spent more time globe-trotting on lobbyists' dimes than representing his constituents while they dealt with the real problems at home of health care, jobs and gas prices. Cranley's efforts locally in alternative energy sources, affordable public transportation and clean air are the kinds of ideas voters are ready for in Washington and this western Cincinnati seat looks like one of the most likely to flip.
Zack Space vs. TBA, OH-18, east and south central, Zanesville Zack Space won the nomination to take on the scandal-ridden Bob Ney, but now Ney has stepped down and the opponent remains unclear. Space, however, remains an excellent candidate. His deep roots in the community and sense of service stem from his grandfather's service in World War I after emigrating from Greece make his a great candidate to represent the wide-ranging district that runs through the eastern center of Ohio. Space actively campaigned for support of election reform while a primary candidate and will take that message all the way to Washington DC, with voters' support.
Mary Jo Kilroy vs. Deborah Pryce, OH-15, Central: western Columbus and suburbs Mary Jo Kilroy has been representing parts of this western Columbus district in various capacities for many years, bringing her progressive vision to issues like alternative energy local transportation and electoral reform. Now she is taking on Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, who likes to refer to herself as a moderate while voting for big oil and gas, tax cuts for millionaires and supports George Bush's \"stay the course\" vision for Iraq. When will voters have enough of this type of two-faced representation? In November, when they send Mary Jo Kilroy's new passion and new ideas to the House of Representatives.
Lois Murphy vs. Jim Gerlach, PA-6, parts of Montgomery, Berks and Chester countiesIf you are looking for one of the top seats to change parties in 2006, this one is it. Pennsylvania is pretty darn tired of the Bush administration and the direction of the country, as made clear by the polling numbers in the US Senate race. Lois Murphy, attorney and mother of two, is taking on the sophomore Congressman Jim Gerlach, who is running like crazy away from the current leadership of his party. He can run, but he can't hide from all those votes supporting the war in Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy, funding of nuclear weapons. Muphy is pressing hard and voters will give the Bush administration a vote on its performance on November, the outcome is looking bleak.
Joe Sestak vs. Curt Weldon, PA-7, Philadelphia's Delaware suburbs Joe Sestak, recently retired from a 31 year career in the Navy, is taking on Curt Weldon, a strong supporter of the war and an advocate of ballistic missile defense, an untested, ineffective weapon system that costs us $10 billion a year! Vice Admiral Sestak, a Harvard PhD, will bring a breadth of leadership and educational experience to Congress that will help us take our foreign policy in a new direction. He opposes the Iraq War, calling it \"unnecessary\" and a \"tragic misadventure.\" In this district which gave Kerry a win in the last election, there are winds of change blowing and Joe Sestak and our nation's foreign policy will be the beneficiaries.
Patrick Murphy vs. Mike Fitzpatrick, PA-8, northern Philadelphia suburbsPatrick Murphy's knowledge of the situation in Iraq comes from his own tour of duty there. As a JAG officer, he was able to experience both the reactions of Iraqis to our occupation there and the demands being put on our soldiers. Murphy's plan for Iraq includes bringing home the National Guard ASAP and a new plan for Iraq. His opponent, freshman member Mike Fitzpatrick, has been receiving funds hand over fist from Republican leadership PACs and will be flooding the airwaves in this northern Philadelphia suburban district with the administration's messages. Murphy's mission will be to make that connection between the administration, which lost the last election in this district, with the member who now serves them in Congress, and help voters make a change.
Tammy Duckworth vs. Peter Roskam, IL-6, Chicago north and west sidesIn the Chicago suburbs open seat vacated by Henry Hyde, the Democratic candidate, Tammy Duckworth is an Iraq vet who lost three limbs during her tour of duty there. As the seat trends more Democratic, voters are hungry for someone who is ready to grapple with the larger issues of the day. Duckworth brings integrity and intelligence to the important issues our country is facing in foreign policy. Her strong internationalist influence and unwavering support of veterans' issues are the messages that war-weary voters are ready to hear. Her opponent, a one-time Tom DeLay staffer, has an awful lot to run from, Duckworth stands on her experience and stamina.
Brad Ellsworth vs. John Hostettler, IN-08, Evansville, Terre HauteBrad Ellsworth, the telegenic sheriff in the Evansville and Terre Haute district, is running against John Hostettler, the Congressman who was stopped at his regional airport because he had a loaded gun in his carry-on. His excuse, "I forgot it was in there." Ellworth, by contrast has been well aware of the laws of the land, having served as police officer for over 25 years. He is running to bring better paying jobs and job security, better trade agreements and stronger education for the workforce we will rely on in the next generation.
Baron Hill vs. Mark Sodrel, IN-09, New Albany, BloomingtonBaron Hill, long owner of this southern Indiana seat, is up for a rematch against trucking company owner, Congressman Mike Sodrel, who beat him in the last election. However, tolerance for the direction of the country has declined markedly in the district and Hill's rematch is considered one of the best pick-ups in the country.
Bruce Braley vs. Mike Whalen, IA-1, Dubuque, DavenportIn an open seat freed up by Congressman Jim Nussle running for Governor, Democratic nominee Bruce Braley is ready to put this seat in the Democratic column. His strong connection to the community and strong support for TrueMajority values, including support of the Common Sense Budget Act, make this race a top priority for TrueMajority ACTION PAC. Our support of Braley in the primary helped him across the line and we will be there with him on election night to ring in victory.
John Yarmouth vs. Anne Northup, KY-3, LouisvilleJohn Yarmouth is taking on an incumbent considered one of the most vulnerable year after year. In this Louisville-based Democratic district, Yarmouth's profile as an anti-war activist and journalist will inspire Democrats to come out to the polls in November and bring representation to the district that it deserves.
Ken Lucas vs. Geoff Davis, KY-4, Northeast, Cincinnati suburbsFormer Congressman Ken Lucas thought retirement would be easy in 2004. But when he saw the direction of the country and the direction of his replacement, freshman Republican Geoff Davis, Lucas realized he would have to get back in the ring. His long dedication to the district propelled him quickly into a strong challenger position and a strong campaign will bring him back to the House of Representatives as part of the majority party.
Linda Stender vs. Mike Ferguson, NJ-7, North Central, parts of Woodbridge and UnionState Assemblywoman and ex-Fanwood Mayor Linda Stender is taking on six-year incumbent Mike Ferguson. Stender's strong progressive credentials make her a great partner for TrueMajority once in Congress. She will strongly advocate for an exit strategy from Iraq and puts children and seniors ahead of tax cuts for the wealthy. Her opponent ran strongly on his attachment to President Bush two years ago. Wonder what his platform will be this time?
Jill Derby vs. Jim Gibbons, NV-2Jill Derby has made the red to blue list and has posted some good fundraising numbers. With Gibbons running for governor, a number of Republicans have signed up for the race (including his wife), but Derby is alone on the Democratic side. She is third generation Nevadan and landmarks in the district bear the Derby name.
Patricia Madrid vs. Heather Wilson, NM-1Democratic challenger Patricia Madrid, Attorney General, is running a strong race against one of the most hawkish Republicans in Congress. Madrid is taking her on over the airwaves, bad planning for the war in Iraq, bad follow-up for the injured vets coming home. Emphasizing the issues that always play well in this Albuquerque-based district, social security, job security, Madrid has put the incumbent in the position of needing to a lot of explaining. Now she just needs to get those Democratic voters to the polls.
Mike Arcuri vs. Ray Meier, NY-24, UticaThe retirement of moderate Republican Sherwood Boehlert opens up a strong pick-up opportunity for Democrats in the Utica area. Oneida County Attorney Mike Arcuri has won four elections in the District since 1993, so has long been identified as an public servant and strong Democratic candidate. His opponent, a state legislator, it far more conservative than the middle of the road Congressman Boehlert. Arcuri has quickly garnered support from unions and grassroots activists who are excited to see this seat change hands.
Heath Shuler vs. Charles Taylor, NC-11, AshevilleHeath Shuler, former NFL quarterback, is taking on ethics-challenged Republican incumbent Charles Taylor in this Asheville-based district. Reports of savings and loan impropriety, campaign fund discrepancies and even vote-changing have long plagued Taylor, but he has always had enough money to buy his way back. However, it seems that this year. With unions, education advocates and environmentalists on Shuler's side, this can be the year for change, as some polls here have indicated.
Nick Lampson vs. write-in candidate, TX-22, southeast Houston and suburbsNow that Tom DeLay has been permanently removed from this race, the election has ended up with a ballot including Democratic ex-Congressman Nick Lampson, an Independent candidate, and a write-in line for the Republican candidate. DeLay long ago gave away Republican voters from this district because he had such a lock on it. Now a new measurement will be taken and Nick Lampson, who previously represented up to one third of the voters now in the district, with be taking the lead in winning back seats for Democrats. Even with the complications of a concurrent special election to fill the remaining time in DeLay's term, this seat is considered the most likely to change hands in November.
Darcy Burner vs. Dave Reichert, WA-8, Seattle's King countyDarcy Burner, Microsoft executive, computer programmer and community activist, has signed up to take on freshman Dave Reichert. He ran on a law and order platform in the election using his sheriff credentials, but the district's reaction to the Iraq War has undermined their tolerance for his leadership. Kerry won this district by 3 points. Now it is Burner's job to get those voters to the polls in November to make real change.
Ron Klein vs. Clay Shaw, FL-22In the race of the big dollars, attorney Ron Klein is doing all he can to bring to light the weak representation constituents have been receiving from Republican Clay Shaw for the last 26 years. But in this east coast Florida district that includes parts of West Palm Beach and Ft. Lauderdale, Shaw has a $4.2 million war chest he is using to convince voters that they need to keep him in office because of his seniority. Of course, that argument will be hollow when his party no longer controls the Capitol. Klein's message on the importance of social security and adequate healthcare are what voters really want to hear and will send them to the polls in November to ensure Clay Shaw's retirement plan.
Patricia Madrid vs. Heather Wilson, NM-1Democratic challenger Patricia Madrid, Attorney General, is running a strong race against one of the most hawkish Republicans in Congress. Madrid is taking her on over the airwaves, bad planning for the war in Iraq, bad follow-up for the injured vets coming home. Emphasizing the issues that always play well in this Albuquerque-based district, social security, job security, Madrid has put the incumbent in the position of needing to a lot of explaining. Now she just needs to get those Democratic voters to the polls.
Here's the link to True Majority Action's 2006 wish list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
