Yesterday, chatter started early in the morning with Mike Allen's Playbook that "highly placed Democratic operatives" were convinced the House is gone come November. This was repeated throughout the MSM during the day and evening. The "operatives" were never named.
In a few hours, the GDP numbers for second quarter are due to come out, and they're expected to be devastating. This on top of bad housing and consumables numbers earlier this week. So much for "recovery summer." Bad for the home team.
If the House is gone, what will the GOP do once John Boehner is Majority Leader? Will they try to fix the economy? Nope. Will they extend Tier 5 benefits? No. Will they actually try to make government smaller, as the teabag candidates are promising? Not a chance. What they'll do is to launch all sorts of investigations to punish Democrats, find new tax programs to soak the middle class while giving dollars on top of more dollars to the rich, and will work to stop anything of worth that the Senate or Administration might attempt to do. Finally, they'll endeavor to do anything they can to eviscerate even more of the Constitution than the Bushies had time to get to.
Ugly.
Therefore, this is the time to get up and organize. Yes you. The people who don't knock doors and make phone calls - we need you. Make it a point to call one person a day: or just 7 a week. Friends, family members, neighbors, your kids' friends' parents - tell them how important it is to not let the House go down. (And to vote for the correct Senate candidate, too.) You think that so little an effort won't matter, but it will. It's grassroots, and it will make a difference. Remind them that this economy is the FAULT of the Republicans, and doing the same thing and expecting the same result is the definition of both stupidity and insanity. Convince them to make that one phone call a day.
If we don't do this, not only will we lose the House, but we'll deserve to lose the House.
Before joining DCW in the spring of 2008, I used to send a morning email to about 600 people, which was passed to more people than that. I had started that in 2000. A lot of you reading this have been reading me for a decade. Over that time, I've asked you to contribute to various charities, to get out and vote, to get your kids registered, to join with local organizations and work to get people elected. Some pleas were heeded, and some fell flat. But if I can't get you to make a few phone calls, and you stay home on election day along with everyone else, then the teabaggers win.
I know you're discouraged. I know you're disappointed. Angry. Recently impoverished. Scared.
Get up, get out, and do it anyway.
Need a phone list, a local contact, a script, more information? Drop an email to the demconwatch email address in the left side bar. Put in your phone number if you want me to call you.
This is the little blonde girl saying: please, PLEASE, help me save my world. The stakes are too high to stay silent. And yes, we can.
Congress has gone home. To your neighborhood. What these boys and girls are supposed to be doing is visiting with you, the voter. All the reps and Senators have websites. These sites will either list the public activities they'll be attending, or give you contact information for their local offices which you could call for information or to set up a meeting.
Some people interact with Congress on a regular basis. You know if you're one of these people: when you call, the staffers either sigh in a way that indicates "I cannot believe it's you, again" or ask after your family, all of whom they know by name. We can't all be like that. You actually can develop a personal relationship with your elected officials. My mom for many years had an interactive relationship with a Senator who will remain nameless, but his initials were Bob Torricelli. He had a position on one issue that, um, resonated with her. He'd have a speaking engagement where there was audience participation, and she'd be there. Everywhere he went. They were on a first name basis. For years. There's art.
But on a more normal basis, they will all be out and around, and if you want them to know what you think, you should consider going to an event, calling, and/or stopping by the office. This is true whether you have an elected official you love, or one you are actively working to replace. While the public events will likely not be as rude and contentious as they were last summer, and might not involve forging flooded roadways to get there, they will likely still be interesting and potentially worthwhile.
Elected officials only get re-elected if they have the support of their constituencies, or at least that's what's supposed to happen. They can only vote your opinion if you let them know what it is. Even Rick "Spawn of Satan" Santorum was known to change votes based on his constituency input. Sure, not always, but on occasion. Point is, you say nothing, and they don't know how the populace feels beyond what polls tell them. And national polls may well not reflect local sentiment.
Ben Qualye, son of Dan Qualye, is running for the House in Arizona. It was just a matter of time since he misspoke. I thought it would be a spelling error. But no, it turns out he said this about himself:
As a preface, I want to tell you a little about myself. First off, I’m a tall drink of water who is easy on the eyes. Plus, my moral compass is so broken I can barely find the parking lot. Long story short, on a scale of 1-to-10, I’m awesome.
At night and on the weekends, I frequent the same places that you do. I’m at the bars, the clubs, the pool parties and the free health clinic (actually I’ve never been there, but dare to dream). Basically, I’m F’n everywhere.
Of course, he's running on a "family values" platform.
You may be wondering where he wrote that little tidbit about himself. Turns out he's been posting for the past years to an Arizona sex web site currently called "The Dirty". You can see his posts here.
I found out about it on the MSNBC web site, which wrote this:
This came out just days after Quayle sent a campaign mailer showing his wife and two young girls, with the words, "We are going to raise our family here." He and his wife have no children; the girls were his nieces. Campaign rival Vernon Parker accused Quayle of "renting a family."
"Good way to start the campaign," Leno cracked on the "Tonight Show."
Former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), who served 18 terms in Congress and rose to become chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee before losing election in 1994 and spending time in prison on corruption charges, has died, the Associated Press said. He was 82. - Politico
You may remember him from the House Post Office charges. Those charges, however, were dropped, and his actual conviction was for mail fraud, not the selling stamps issue. What you might not remember is that the lead prosecuter was Eric Holder. Rostenkowski was sentenced to 17 months, served 15, and then was pardoned by President Clinton, who wrote in one of his books that Rostenkowski had done a lot in public life and paid for his crimes. Rostenkowski's seat was won by Michael Flanagan, who was beaten two years later by Rod "Hair" Blagojevich, currently awaiting a determination of his own guilt or innocence. The jury is out for the 11th day.
What I remember most from the 1994 election was a TV interview with a woman-on-the-street who said she'd be voting for him. "He may be a crook," she said, "but he's our crook."
On Friday afternoon, I received a call from Matt, on behalf of himself and Oreo. They had known that my house was under construction, and that I'd be at the hospital this week with a family member, and hadn't been all that concerned when I was unable to post. But when Charlie was indicted on 13 charges, and I didn't have something up on the 7 charges missed, they feared the worst, and wanted to make sure I was still alive.
My only comment on the Rangel indictment is as a native New Yorker. I accept bribery, corruption, pay to play, unpaid taxes, and all the rest as part of the system: people do these things, these things are wrong, and there should be a price to pay, although there often isn't. So it goes. But Charlie has four, count them FOUR rent controlled apartments. For that, he should have to give up all four, be prevented from ever getting one again, and do serious jail time. Rent controlled apartments in Manhattan are really, REALLY tough to get, and he personally cheated 3 constituent families, and that, I cannot abide. If you have never lived in Manhattan, you can't really understand.
Nothing is stopping him. Charlie's birthday is in June, but the gala fete celebrating his 80th will be held on 11 August, with Aretha Franklin performing, and tickets running from $200 to $2500, proceeds to the Rangel "Victory Fund." He's polling at 39%, which would generally be considered endangered, but that's against 4 challengers, and it was the first poll out after the indictment. Most voters in his district have never voted for anyone but Charlie Rangel. Ever in their voting lives.
In all likelihood, he may be reprimanded, he may be censured, but it's likely he won't be ousted. And that he'll be re-elected. And so long as he gives up the four apartments, I don't care. In fact, if he raffled them off as a campaign stunt, that might be the thing that raises his poll numbers. He'll then resign in January, pick a successor, and things will return to normal. I feel that way about Maxine Waters, also. She's going to go to trial over financial improprieties: she's likely guilty, too.
But this is 2010, and the problem is less the people, and more the process and the system that makes these things so easy for elected officials. On the other hand, I'd like to see Ben Nelson ousted from the Senate for his voting record and his soon-to-be vote against Elena Kagan. This to me is the REAL crime. Charlie and Maxine and a bunch of other pols (including Blago, who will be sharing a cell with his predecessor if he doesn't jump bail and take off for a country with no extradition treaty) are guilty of pay to play. It goes on in many forms at all levels of government. Until the system is changed so that this cannot happen, people will do it. It hurts a few people, and benefits others. But someone like Ben Nelson, who can single-handedly ruin things like health care, climate change, unemployment and other safety net benefits, etc., is hurting millions of people, and really needs to be stopped.
Would I have said this in 2008? Nope. But the country has become so polarized that I'm willing to accept some corruption on both sides if we can hold a voting majority, as opposed to a numerical majority, and get important legislation passed without trouble. If we can get things on the right track, with people back to work, the economy humming, and Main Street trumping Wall Street, then will be the time to look at the system and fix it.
Charlie Rangel is going to trial in front of the House Ethics Committee. The public organizational meeting will be next week, when the full charges will be announced. Politico is reporting that this occurred because House Democrats, Republicans and Charlie himself, couldn't cut an acceptable deal. Who knows? Politico is a Republican site.
The snark part is that if I was going to compile the charges list, I don't know whether I'd start with the four rent-controlled apartments, the parking tickets, payments to his son for the non-website, the bribes, the virtual extortion normally called pay-to-play, or the unpaid Caribbean taxes because, as Charlie said "I can't read Spanish." If you are new to DCW, or haven't kept up, type "Rangel" into the "Tags" link, and you can read all 29 posts. By way of trivia - the last House member to be tried on ethics violations was Jim Traficant in 2002. He got out of jail a few months ago, and his petitions were denied last month, so he won't be on the November ballot as an Independent running for an Ohio seat.
The serious part: The MSM will all be talking about how this can cost Democrats the House. I disagree. I believe that a public trial of Charlie Rangel is important, and a positive step. There is no doubt that the Republicans are more guilty of more crimes than the Democrats. (If you don't know the list, you really haven't been paying attention.) There is a huge difference between ***A*** crook, and institutional crime. Look at William "Cash" Jefferson, currently serving 13 years. That didn't bring down the party: the guy was guilty, and the proof was the 90 grand in his freezer. Ousting individual crooks strengthens the honour of the party. Also, a fair and open trial of Charlie Rangel allows the House Ethics Committee and potentially (please, PLEASE) the Senate Ethics Committee to go after the whole lot of crooks: start with Ensign, run through the rest of the C Street boys, and work up to Shrub and the Prince of Darkness for treason and crimes against humanity.
And hey! wait! what if this was the beginning of the end of pay to play and the overreaching hammer of lobbyists. Sorry -- it's early, I'm tired -- but still, a girl can dream.
I'm glad Charlie is finally going on trial. But even if he is convicted, I wouldn't worry about him. First, he's 80 and he's got so many places to live that just picking an abode outside of DC will take some time. Then, he could vacation in the Caribbean since he finally paid the back taxes. Plus, he's welcome in Jamaica where he won the "Order of Jamaica" last year. Not to mention, he could be the Mayor Curley of our time, and get re-elected even from jail! (No, the House won't jail him, although they legally can.) And yes, it wouldn't surprise me if he were convicted by the House and then won this November over Powell IV. A lot of possibility of full circle things there....it would really be funny if he won but the House refused to seat him, and then he sued, and won another term while the court dithered....wait, that was Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Back in the '60's. You have to admit there is a "full circle"-ism to this whole thing!
Off to meet my electrician, as today is "electrical rough-in day". Have a great Friday.
Jane Harman served in the House of Representatives from 1992 to 1999, but didn't run in 1998 (thus her term ended in January of 1999). She ran for her old seat in 2000, and has been there ever since. She was challenged in 2006, and survived, winning the primary 62.5% to 37.5%.
The same woman who challenged Harman in 2006 is challenging her again. And for the same reasons. Marcy Winograd shares many of the social ideals that Harman does, but goes a little further: Winograd is a progressive in areas where Harman is not. If you've never heard of Marcy Winograd, you can read about her on the website.
The major issues, aside from Winograd taking no corporate contributions, actually relate to George Bush, warrantless wiretapping, and the possibility that Harman colluded with foreign agents. The charges against Harman are rather serious, although they rarely get press.
A sample of something "minor" from Winograd's website:
Before Congress votes on another $33 billion supplemental war appropriation, Congressional Candidate Marcy Winograd (CA-36) challenges her opponent Jane Harman to immediately divest of up to $8.3 million worth of investments in military contracting firms and return over $60,000 in campaign contributions from military contractors.
Colluding with the defense industry has never been a problem for any elected official. Harman's biggest problems relate to Harman working with the Bush administration to keep the NY Times from publishing material on warrantless wiretapping, while having a public posture that she was against the idea. It's possible that, as one of the Democrats on the Intelligence committee with access to all sorts of information, she secretly supported the Bushies.
Rep. Jane Harman , a California Democrat long involved in intelligence issues, was overheard on a 2005 National Security Agency wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
In return, the Israeli agent pledged to help lobby for Harman to become chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Two former senior national security officials, one who has read a transcript of the wiretap and a second who was briefed on its contents, said Harman agreed during the conversation to “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference.” Their accounts were confirmed by a third source with knowledge of the wiretapped conversation and subsequent events.
In the end, Harman didn't get the committee chair she wanted, but what she did with the NSA is still unknown.
Even though she voted for TARP, the stimulus and health care reform, Harman is not a progressive, she's normally a blue dog on non-social issues. She also probably colluded with the neo-con Bushies. But is that enough to cost her the primary election?
Harman has about $500,000 cash on hand to less than $65,000 for Winograd. Until this year, that would really have been the be all and end all, but this is the year of the unexpected. Over on Act Blue, Harman has raised $60 (no, I'm not missing any zeroes) to Winograd's $80,000. This is the year that those contributors might all be making calls, canvassing, and truly getting out the vote. It's also California: a state incredibly hard hit by the implosion of the housing market, the recession, and economic problems directly related to state funding of programs. Will Democrats in the 36th want a rep in Congress who will be a fiscal conservative, or someone who will fight for Federal programs which could help them? Does anyone care about Harman's hawkishness? Will the voters in this district succumb to "incumbent fever"?
We'll see on June 8th. By the way, whichever woman wins will likely carry in November as this is a reliably Democratic district, and neither of the Republicans vying in that primary is a top tier challenger.
It was an incredible day. The rain wouldn't stop. It finally did in late afternoon, but mostly, it was periods of downpour interspersed with a lot of dank.
Under the heading of "all politics is local" I spent the day at my polling place, one of the larger polling places in Chester County. Because of the rain, everyone set up inside, and voters had to run a gauntlet of campaign and committee people. Until afternoon, there were normally more of us than the number of voters. When the polls opened at 7 a.m., there were 7 voters ready to vote. Two were "regular voters" and 5 were those of us who would be there all day.
The most interesting thing to me was the number of people who showed up and were undecided about one of more races. Normally on primary day, people are ONLY voting because they have a preference. I spoke with many people who didn't know if they'd go Specter or Sestak in the lobby, putting off going into the polls until they spoke with the various representatives. I'd never seen this in my life.
While the official numbers aren't posted yet, the preliminary count was different in many races than what the outcomes were across the board. Sestak won with a much higher percentage (about 70%) than he did statewide. Joe Hoeffel came within a hair of beating Dan Onorato in the gubernatorial race. The question I got most on that race was: "How sure are you that Onorato wins?" My answer was "100%." The next question was, and I kid you not, "Should I vote my conscience?" And I would answer in the affirmative. As for Doug Pike, he won both my district, and all of Chester County, 2:1. It's interesting when you are as connected to a precinct as I am that when I look at his totals for the precinct, I can account for most of the voters. By name. That is, although Democrats hold a registration advantage in my precinct, turnout was low, about 350 Democratic voters. I was able to say hello to about 250 of them by name. Doug's unofficial vote total was 233.
We received all sorts of information throughout the day via text and email. In one precinct, turnout was higher for the 2010 primary than for the 2009 general. I'm going to look at the numbers overall about that: if there is a similar trend, it means the progressives really came out.
Amoungst others, Jim Gerlach stopped by. I was wearing a white sweater covered with stickers and buttons. The look he gave me could have leveled a small city. My next door neighbor, who is a consultant to the Gerlach campaign, introduced me and said he'd be trying to convert me by November. Jim asked if that might work, and I said it hadn't the last four cycles, but my neighbor WAS relentless in his attempts.
I have one last comment on the Pike-Trivedi race. I always tell you that politics isn't personal, and when one makes it that way, there is an inherent loss of objectivity. Doug won Chester 2:1, Manan took Montco 53%-47%, and ran up huge numbers in Berks County (70%). Lehigh was a non-issue because there are only a couple hundred voters there. I never looked at the race objectively, I was engaged here in Chester County. When I looked at the Sestak-Specter race, I always said that Joe would win: even though I canvassed, phone banked and signed for Sestak, it was never personal. He was, to my mind, the better candidate, with a far higher potential for success against Toomey, not to mention what a primary win would do for progressives nationally. With Doug, it was personal: I took him canvassing, spent time with him and the staff, and could never see the race from the outside. So I apologize for my lack of objectivity in that race: but it was impossible for me to separate the race from the objectivity I try to hold my race frames to. As I've said, I'll certainly support Manan in the general: it is incredibly heartwarming (albeit bittesweet) that he ran a true grassroots campaign: no money, little staff, fewer endorsements, no TV, but a lot of national support from MoveOn and Orange-to-Blue. I had friends who tireless canvassed for him in Montco, and I know that their efforts made a huge difference in that county. (Hi Dan!)
DCW has always maintained a policy of not endorsing in primaries. The post below is not a DCW endorsement, rather, it is how I, as an individual, will be marking my primary ballot two weeks from today.
Overview
The current registration in Pennsylvania is as follows:
Democrat - 51% Republican - 37% Other Party/Non-Aligned - 12%
One might think this makes Democratic wins a done deal, but this is Pennsylvania, and it's not a given. This is especially true as Republicans who registered as Democrats in 2008 to vote in the Democratic primary have started moving back. Since 2008, 33,696 Democrats changed to Republican, while 28,874 Republicans switched their party affiliation to Democratic. In addition, since the 2008 election, 26,758 voters have changed from the Democratic Party (15,849) and the Republican Party (10,909) to either no affiliation or a third party, exclusive of "Libertarian". The Libertarians picked up 1,392 voters from both parties since 2008.
Thus, in looking at the candidates, I have considered not only the individuals, but also their probabilities of winning in the general.
Senate
My pick is Joe Sestak. My first reason is that he's a Democrat. He's always been a Democrat. He's going to stay a Democrat. His issues dovetail with my issues, and I agree with him on the overwhelming majority of positions. Joe will bring needed energy and vitality to the Pennsylvania Senate delegation, and there will finally be a responsive constituent office, unlike those headed by Arlen Specter and Bob Casey. Further, Arlen cannot win against Pat Toomey. It's not possible. In the same way that primary voters warm to Sestak once they know about him, so will general election voters.
I support Sestak in sum toto. I would have voted for him in his previous Congressional races had I lived a mile away, and thus over the line into his district.
In addition, Joe Sestak can win the general, Arlen Specter cannot. Many people have shown me polls indicating something different, but I don't pay attention to polls, especially those so far out from the election. I look at win probabilities based on money, organization and the candidate himself/herself. Joe's organization is superb, enthused, and since last summer boots-on-the-ground. I'm convinced that the DSCC will come through with whatever funds are necessary to counter any outside monies collected by Toomey thanks to the FEC vs Citizens United SCOTUS travesty decision.
House: CD-6
My pick is Doug Pike. In the interest of full disclosure, I know Doug. And as I've said before, both Doug and Manan Trivedi are good men, and either would be a terrific replacement for Jim Gerlach. Their positions are very similar except in two areas: Doug supports Obama's position in Afghanistan, Manan wants all the troops out now. In addition, Manan is a big supporter of single payer while Doug prefers an incremental approach to health care change. Doug has pledged to turn down the Congressional insurance package until every American has coverage.
I am a huge single payer advocate, but I am cognizant that the issue is currently dead on the national stage, and am cognizant that to get to where we need to be, we will need to move slowly and steadily in that direction. (I do NOT, however, feel that way about single payer on the state level: rather I believe that to be the path to success.)
Doug's organization is terrific, and is larger and better structured than Manan's. Part of Manan's organization is dependent on the local Democratic organization, and that has never, EVER worked for a candidate in the past. In addition, Doug is much better funded than Manan. Manan has the vocal support of many local progressives, but that has not translated into either dollars nor boots on the ground.
Most importantly, Doug's greatest strength as a Congressman would be that he thinks first, and then gives an opinion. I am certain that this will translate into someone who truly considers legislation before he votes on it. In addition, Doug writes: while all of Congress depends on staff in many ways, Doug will sign off on things before he agrees to sponsor or co-sponsor legislation. Further, he is truly interested in what people (read: constituents) have to say, and will temper certain positions based on what is best for the district.
Manan is whip smart and has a very firm set of beliefs. I am not convinced that he would put the wants of constituents ahead of his personal positions, meaning if elected, his could easily be a one-term tenure.
I have felt this way for a long time, and what I'm about to write is recent, and thus has no bearing on where I stand on this race. Still, it speaks to Doug's inherent decency. A lot of candidates depend on their personal story: but Doug leaves something out when talking about his history. Someone he loved very much had breast cancer, and he went through EVERYTHING with her, over a period of years. When he found out that my mother has treatable cancer, but is refusing treatment, he offered not just support, but assistance. Even willing to go up and talk to her if it would do any good. Sadly, it wouldn't do any good, but it is a rare person who would be so kind. That is, I know Doug, and Doug and I are "friendly" but not friends to the level where something like that effort would generally be offered. People like Doug don't come around every day.
A few days ago, I received my first mailer from the Joe Sestak campaign, and it's gorgeous. And brilliant. 8-1/2" x 14" on heavy card stock. Bigger than the standard mailer, 4-colour glossy. I have tried to pdf it so you could see it, but I've had scanner problems. On the back side is a lot of good information about Sestak with terrific pictures, and on the front side, three quotes from Arlen and a chart. The Sestak campaign was kind enough to send over a copy of the scorecard and it looks like this:
If you scroll to the bottom, you'll see the line "Specter voted 85% of the time with Republicans during other Administrations."
The chosen quotes?
"...I have surveyed public opinion polls...and have found that the prospects for winning the Republican primary are bleak...And therefore, I have decided to be a candidate for re-election in the Democratic Party." (Arlen Specter Press Conference, 4/28/2009
"I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that." (Arlen Specter on Meet the Press, May 3, 2009)
"...One guy [Sestak] was willing to lose his job [in Congress] for his principles, and one guy [Specter] wasn't." (Philadelphia Magazine, 11/25/09)
The idea of running AS a Democrat is obvious not only in the Sestak campaign, but also in the Onorato campaign. Why this is different, and what it all means, after the jump.
On Tuesday 14 September of this year, there will be a primary. On the ballot for the most densely populated of all US Congressional Districts will be two names: Charlie Rangel, and Adam Clayton Powell IV.
I bet you think I'm going to talk about how nice it is that someone is challenging Rangel because I've been so closely following his ethics issues. Well sure, that's amusing, but there more here. So much more. And kids, it's rich: like tapestry.
Let's talk Powells.
Start with Adam Clayton Powell, Sr. Born in 1865 to a white slave owner and his mother, a slave. Grew up to be a religious man.
Then, there is Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. A pastor like his dad, he was elected to the House in 1945. First black elected from New York. Ever. Second black from any Northern state post-reconstruction. He and William Johnson were the only blacks in the House (and none in the Senate) from 1945 through 1955. They were joined by one or two others, until black representation began to rise in the mid-to-late 1960's. Remember, the House and Senate dining rooms were segregated when Powell became a Congressman. Lynching for being black was legal. "N****r" was an acceptable term on the floor of the House.
Stand in awe for what these guys did, and hear the song "We Shall Overcome" in your head. Be impressed: it was certainly the marchers, those who died of bomb blasts and took the beatings....but it was also the quiet rebellion of men like Powell, a CONGRESSMAN working to change a segregated dining room at his workplace.
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr had a few, um, legal issues. It's a long story, but the Cliff Notes version is that the House refused to seat him. The kinds of "ethical" things he was charged with pale in comparison to the mastery of Charlie Rangel, and a bunch of younger pols. So, he sued. The Supremes eventually said the House had to seat him. Justice is slow, and in the interim he won ANOTHER election.
In the end, though, he lost a primary to Charlie Rangel in 1970, and gave up his seat for good in January of 1971. As you know, Charlie's been there ever since.
The district itself has been reapportioned a number of times, but only nudging north on the island of Manhattan. It started in Harlem, parts of which it still includes, but now also includes parts of Morningside Heights. Of note, this CD used to be predominantly black, and now is predominantly Hispanic.
Now, as for "Adam Clayton Powell IV" - there are two of them. You think I make this stuff up....Adam Clayton Powell Jr was married three times. With his second wife, he had a son Adam Clayton Powell III. He's not running for anything. Adam Clayton Powell III had a son named Adam Clayton IV. He's also not running for anything. Meanwhile, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr and his third wife Yvette Diago Powell, had a son Adam Clayton Powell Diago. There is a Hispanic naming tradition which I don't understand well enough to explain (although I'm sure if one of you does, it will be in the comments in a little bit). Adam Clayton Powell Diago (who is actually the uncle of the other Adam Clayton Powell IV) changed his name to Adam Clayton Powell, IV in 1980 and he IS the one running against Charlie Rangel.
The running Powell challenged Charlie in 1994 and lost by a landslide. In addition, he's been arrested for drunk driving, but got off when the jury settled on "driving while ability impaired" which in NY is a lot like a speeding ticket. Still - expect to see it again. Still, you're going to like ACP4, trust me. The Vieques arrest, the dedication to his district, the totality of him and richness of the family saga.
A race worth watching, and I know I'm sticking with it.
And oh, by the way - whichever one wins the primary wins the seat. If Rangel wins the primary, he may win the seat only to resign in January to be able to appoint his successor. The Powell-Rangel animose actually does go that deep.
In a parallel universe situation reminiscent of something that would come out of Babylon 5, Jerry Brown will be announcing that he's running for governor of California. Here's the weird thing: we noted in February of 2009, or 13 calendar months ago using the regular calendar, that he was running. I guess this is the "formal" thing. He's been being polled all along, and he's done well: last September, he was winning. In Republican polling a couple weeks ago, Brown was dead even with Meg Whitman. He'll do even better once he gets going.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a big fan of Jerry Brown. Met him back in 1976, and he's smarter and more impressive then his "Governor Moonbeam" press might indicate.
Moving across the country: it did not go unnoticed in Jessville that the House is going to slap Charlie Rangel's hands. It's called "formal admonishment", and will occur on Friday. It's offensive. They nailed him for misusing funds for a trip. That other Congressmen went on. That was approved. Is he guilty of that? Yeah, sure, and he'll give back some money. BUT...Charlie is REALLY guilty of serious misuse of funds: the housing in violation of New York City rent control laws, the tax problems with his Caribbean properties, the outright bribe money.....plus the parking tickets....(lots of links here). They nailed him for something minor to avoid having to deal with more legitimate and serious charges, and thus not have to censure him. Or worse.
And finally, people have been asking me how an earthquake in Chile that was 500 times worse than the one in Haiti could cause so much less damage and loss of life. I don't know why people ask me these things...but in case you were wondering, it's because they have a functional government in Chile. That means organization, response, infrastructure. Yes, it's also that the quake was much deeper and offshore and away from populated areas. But no matter what the disaster, the response matters. In Chile, people were allowed to "loot" grocery stores while waiting for aid, and the government will make payments to the stores. (No TVs, though....bravo to the Chileans to realize that finding food when you're hungry is very different from stealing.) Is the Chilean earthquake a terrible tragedy? Absolutely, but the recovery will be quicker and easier because of a functioning government.
Some days, "health care" is a moment: a speech, a vote, a heartbreaking story. Today, it is a series of anecdotes which, taken together, still lead to "crapshoot".
First, we have Nancy Pelosi on the Sunday shows saying that she'll have the votes in the House to pass health care. But, voting for the bill might cost several reps their seats. If, in fact, there were a bill, which there isn't. She seems confident that while there are major differences between the House and Senate, a compromise will be able to be reached. One that will seemingly need to pass the Senate via reconciliation.
Then, Barack Obama had a physical yesterday. He's in good health. Still having a bit of trouble with tobacco, but they told him to stay on the gum. A physical. Something so easy for those of us with health insurance, and such a pipe dream for those of us who don't. To the best of my knowledge (although I'm certainly willing to be wrong) there is no law that mandates a president must have a physical. IMAGINE the leadership had President Obama said that he would forgo any and all physicals for himself and his family until all families could have preventative care via a true health reform bill. Imagine the power of that. The commitment. The honour. Leading by example.
Meanwhile, we have the White House, via Nancy DeParle, saying the Obama administration wants a straight up or down vote. And indicating they'll help push it through that way.
Remember, this is the Senate that has 290 House bills already waiting for a vote. The one led by Harry Reid who split the jobs bill, pulled out the unemployment extension, passed the corporate part, and then allowed Jim Bunning to hold everyone hostage Friday night so that today 1.2 million Americans lose that part of the safety net. THAT Senate.
We all understand the need for health reform to pass, in some form, for political reasons. Believe it or not, even the Republicans want some form of health reform to pass. No, I'm not misspeaking: the difference is that most (NOT ALL) Democrats want some form of reform to pass which actually makes the situation better for actual Americans. The Republicans want something to pass which makes things worse.
In all of this, the thing I find most interesting is the idea that Pelosi believes that she can whip her members to get something passed that will cost them their livelihood. I wonder if she would be willing to give up her seat to pass health care. If she wouldn't, she'll never be able to convince someone else to. It is once again a matter of leadership. One of the things that could have been done a while back would have been for those Reps and Senators who believe in reform to opt out of government coverage (remember, they all have health care paid for by OUR tax dollars) until every American has the options they do. Again, incredibly powerful. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one person who has done that, but I just can't remember his name. If memory serves, he's a doctor from Wisconsin serving in the House.
(Please pass along to those you know in Michigan. - promoted by DocJess)
Fellow Democrats,
My name is Scott Withers and I am a Democratic Primary Candidate for the U.S. Congress in Michigan’s 5th District. I am challenging incumbent Dale Kildee, someone whose public service I respect, but I believe is out of touch with the dire needs of the residents of Mid-Michigan.
I grew up in the small Tuscola County city of Vassar. My grandfathers, father, stepfather, sister and many uncles, aunts and cousins do or did work in the UAW plants throughout mid-Michigan. I received my dual-bachelors degree in International Relations and Broadcast Journalism at Syracuse University. While in school, I interned for CNN at the United Nations and in the London bureau. After graduation, I worked as a producer/writer and on-air youth correspondent for CNN in Atlanta. Following my time at CNN, I worked in local tv news in Tennessee and eventually moved into Public Relations where I worked on communications plans for large aviation, tourism and chemical companies. When the economy crashed last summer, I like millions of Americans was laid off. The last six months has been trying. I have lived through the fear of home foreclosure. I understand living pay check to pay check (often not making it). I can relate to the millions of good people who barely pay their bills with unemployment. I am not rich and don’t have the desire to be. I live with my partner of 10 years, Lane, and our 3 dogs. I am running for Michigan’s 5th Congressional District seat to help instill hope, create new jobs and solve the home foreclosure problem.
Yesterday, the Chesco Dems held their nominating convention. Any local Democrat can attend, but only committeepeople, zone, regional and county elected officials can vote. 55% is required to win. The specific numbers differ by position. For example, everyone can vote for the senatorial and gubernatorial endorsements, but only those in CD6 can vote for that race, same with CD7 part of which is also part of Chesco. It was interesting, to say the least.
First off, no gubernatorial nor senatorial candidate received enough votes for an endorsement. For Governor, the votes were:
Onorato - 103
Hoeffel - 95
Wagner - 52
Williams - 1
Remember, the State Committee also failed to endorse due to a lack of majority.
The vote was 126 Sestak - 119 Specter on the Senate side. Interesting, to say the least, given that Specter won the State Committee endorsement, and the Chesco voters went 8 - 3 for Specter. While the votes are sealed, Andy Dinneman is a big Specter backer. Andy is a second term State Senator, holding a seat that was never Democratic before he captured it in a special election due to the death of his predecessor. And we'll get back to him.
The CD-7 vote was straightforward: 39 for Brian Lentz, with two votes for Gail Conner and one for Teresa Touey.
In the 6th District, Manan Trivedi carried 99 votes to Doug Pike's 40 and Brian Gordon's one. 77 were required. All of the people I spoke with voted for Trivedi for some version of "his personal story" "his background" "his ability to present a clear difference to Gerlach" and "his position on health care." It was a blow-out, especially since the Pike campaign was convinced it had 56 solid votes going in, which did not materialize.
As an aside, because of Andy Dinneman, some of the town committees held meetings where Manan spoke, and Doug and Brian were not allowed to speak, even though they, in some cases, showed up. This should not detract from Manan, the man and the candidate, just a little nod to local politics and peccadillos on the part of Andy.
The question becomes whether or not a man like Manan can win against Jim Gerlach. I contended previously that he could not based on organization and money. Predominantly money. But if each of the 99 people who voted for him, and their spouses and a few friends each, give the $2400 that they can for the primary, he could erase the financial deficit in a week.
Further, many people are excited about Manan Trivedi. He is pure Single Payer, he is completely opposed to any build-up in Afghanistan. What won the election for Obama in Pennsylvania was that he overcame the mistakes of the primary, and utilized excited volunteers. In 2008, that was a winning formula. In 2010 it's questionable, but in my eyes, this endorsement means a lot. Or rather, it will mean a lot if the committeepeople actually work for him: the phones, the canvasses, the lit drops, the voter drives, and the rest of GOTV. This is something that, organizationally, they never did before in history. But 2010 is an odd year.
It brings up the question of whether a true progressive can win in a mixed purple district like the PA 6th. I like Manan. I like Doug. There is no question that either would be a much better Congressman than Jim Gerlach. By the way, Steve Welch pulled out yesterday, meaning that Gerlach will not need to spend any money on the primary as the rest of his competitors present little challenge. He'll be primed and ready on 21 May for whichever Democrat challenges him.
The people who came out in Chesco yesterday were primarily progressives. all are activists. That they overrode the state endorsement of Arlen Specter, and rated Joe Hoeffel so highly is telling of that. The question is whether or not that can translate to the voters: the workers for whom 2008 was their first campaign and didn't even vote last year. The people who are so fed-up that they have changed their registration from Democrat to either "Independent" or "unaligned". Can force of personality and a compelling story win? It's possible we'll see....a week ago, I would have said that Pike had this primary sewn up, now I'm thinking it's 50/50.
One other thing to consider in the calculus is that a couple weeks ago, the 6th was the most likely district to be lost to redistricting. With the death of John Murtha, his district is in play for being redistricted out of existence. A consideration, too.
Former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), who served 18 terms in Congress and rose to become chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee before losing election in 1994 and spending time in prison on corruption charges, has died, the Associated Press said. He was 82. - Politico
My only comment on the Rangel indictment is as a native New Yorker. I accept bribery, corruption, pay to play, unpaid taxes, and all the rest as part of the system: people do these things, these things are wrong, and there should be a price to pay, although there often isn't. So it goes. But Charlie has four, count them FOUR rent controlled apartments. For that, he should have to give up all four, be prevented from ever getting one again, and do serious jail time. Rent controlled apartments in Manhattan are really, REALLY tough to get, and he personally cheated 3 constituent families, and that, I cannot abide. If you have never lived in Manhattan, you can't really understand. 
On Tuesday 14 September of this year, there will be a primary. On the ballot for the most densely populated of all US Congressional Districts will be two names: Charlie Rangel, and Adam Clayton Powell IV. 
