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.
I left my structurally failing house (details after the jump) last night to attend the candidate debate between the three men vying for the Democratic nomination to run against Jim Gerlach. These three men are a study in contrasts: not so much in terms of position as in personal demeanor.
The first to arrive was Manan Trivedi: he is the youngest of the three, very outgoing, whip-smart, and with the beam of a man who is expecting his first child in less than two months. We chatted briefly about his wife's pregnancy. Manan has a compelling back story: he served as a surgeon in Iraq, and was with the first team on the ground after the ground war started. He is still practicing as a doctor part-time while campaigning.
The second to arrive was Brian Gordon. Brian is the only one to hold elective office, he's currently a township commissioner. Of every politician I have ever spoken with in my life, Brian singularly has the most interesting ideas. Ever.
Almost immediately after Brian, Doug Pike arrived. Doug has the most experience of the three: he worked for Paul Tsongas, worked in health care as an administrator, and was a journalist for the bulk of his career. While all three are progressive, Doug's positions are the most closely aligned with President Obama's.
Instead of listening to the debate, I spoke before it started with many of the people who came to hear the candidates: with the exception of their staffs, the overwhelming majority of attendees had never met or heard any of the three candidates. A friend and I positioned ourselves in the lobby, and asked questions of the audience as they were leaving to get a sense of what they thought of the candidates.
Of interest to me were the people who heard something from a candidate, loved what they heard, but understood neither the proposal nor the ramifications. One woman left early: she had only come to hear the positions on health care, heard the candidates, and made her decision. She heard Manan say that he would support a public option, but he stood firmly behind Single Payer. She heard Doug say that he wanted a Public Option. She heard Brian say that the solution to health care involved each hospital joining into small local hospital groups, only providing services from their doctors, and thus cutting costs astronomically. She decided on supporting Brian. If you've been following the health care debate, you know that the idea Brian presented was for small co-ops, which lack buying power, and access to many specialists, and a lack of scale in purchase of drugs and durable medical equipment. It's also not his position: his position is that he likes a system of a National Health Service with an overlay of private insurance, similar to the British system.
Another man made his decision based on HOW THE CANDIDATES LOOKED. This has been a theme I've heard from attendees at other multiple candidate events. I don't understand it, but that's the way some people are: who "looks most" like a Congressman.
I received some emails from people I know who attended the debate asking what I knew about certain positions that weren't fleshed out in the debate. Mostly though, I received calls and emails asking one question: which of these men can actually win in November? It's a question to which I know the answer, and the answer pains me. The answer bothers me because it shows a major problem in American politics: most races are not a fair fight.
The 6th CD has an entrenched Congressman in Jim Gerlach. Although his politics have been truly horrid for the district, he is personable, good looking, s-m-o-o-t-h, answers constituent queries with maniacal speed, has a professional staff, and a ton of money. His votes have hurt the overwhelming majority of people who live in the district in terms of economics, education, and health care. He believes there should be no separation of Church and State, he wants government completely out of health care, doesn't want to spend money on education, is incredible pro-military and pro-gun, pro-business and anti-labour. His positions on "values" positions are for the most part terrible. I know people who keep voting for him, even though they are registered Democrats and normally vote Democratic, and who have had very bad experiences with his constituent services staff. That is, they're quick, but they always say "no". They vote for him because he's charismatic and (here's the part I hate most) "he looks like he belongs in Congress."
Therefore, whichever of Doug, Manan and Brian who wins the nomination will have to take on a political "machine". The positions will matter less than the abilities of staff to flexibly take on Gerlach's army, spend incredible amounts of money, be able to reach out to a very diverse district which skews old and do so in a post-phone bank world, and anticipate the moves of a campaign organization that is well-oiled and practiced.
I hate that the answer to "who can win against Gerlach?" comes down less to a question of the man and his positions, but the ability to fund a professional campaign filled with experienced staff, a strong field plan, and the money in the bank to implement. The ability to do these things will rest with the campaign, as the Democratic organizations in the counties covered by the district are not well-oiled enough to provide support beyond one lit drop for the primary, and one for the general. Any of the three Democratic contenders would be a better Congressman for CD 6 than Gerlach, but to get there, the c-a-m-p-a-i-g-n has to win.
I hesitate to write down the answer. Of the three candidates, two have, at best a 2% chance of winning against Gerlach, and that's being optimistic: they lack the cash and the staff, and it's late in the game to try and get them. I've reviewed the field plans, and they won't be enough. The third candidate has about a 50 - 50 chance of winning based on field plan, staff and money, but it would take a rallying around him of all supporters after the primary to carry that out. I want people to vote on issues and candidates, not campaigns and bank accounts. But I live here, and I want that seat. I know for certain that Doug Pike has the best shot at Gerlach's seat. More on issues to follow.
John Murtha passed away this afternoon at 77. He had represented the 12th CD in Pennsylvania since 1974, and was the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress. Today we remember the good about the Congressman: his objection to the Iraq war, the projects he brought to his district, the part of his voting record that excluded abortion and gun control. (We also ignore ABSCAM.)
You may read elsewhere that he was a "former" Marine. With great respect for all Marines, I remind you that there are no retired Marines, only Marines not currently on active duty.
The question is why did he die? He had laparoscopic gall bladder surgery a couple weeks ago, went home, and then re-entered the hospital last week due to unnamed complications and a massive infection. He was in ICU. The surgery itself is very common and has a low probability of complications. The likelihood is that the problems were related to his age, weight, and overall physical condition: all of these greatly increase the likelihood of complications from any medical procedure. This would have made it less possible for his body to fight off whatever infection felled him.
Tomorrow, we'll think about what happens to the seat, the special election, the effects on the ultimate redistricting of Pennsylvania: today, John "Jack" Murtha served his country and he will be missed.
Update: While DocJess will have more tomorrow, note that John Murtha's district was the only one in the country, yes, the only one, to vote for Kerry in'04 and McCain in '08.
The final results are in for the Illinois Senate race: as expected it will be Alex Giannoulias vs Mark Kirk. The gubernatorial race is not yet clear. On the Democratic side, both Pat Quinn and Dan Hynes have 50% of the vote, with Quinn up by about 7,200 votes with 99% of the precincts counted. There is also no clear winner on the GOP side.
In Florida, in the race to takeover the seat vacated by Box Wexler, on the Democratic side, Ted Deutch won with over 77% of the vote. He'll go up against Ed Lynch, who won with 42% on the Republican side.
Back with more in a little bit -- there's some snow to clear....
This morning, the third Democratic candidate for PA CD-6 is coming over to my house for bagels and coffee and to be interviewed. I had interviewed both Doug Pike and Manan Trivedi late last year with the intention of publishing in January. However, on the day I interviewed Manan, it became known that Brian Gordon would be entering the race and so I made the decision to delay. This will allow the voters to see the candidates compared and contrasted in one place. I believe it to be more fair.
Brian called me yesterday to double-check on timing. One of his staffers had asked me to change the time, and he was calling to see if I could push the time back as he was dropping one of his kids to school. That's no problem for me, and it was a good reminder that candidates and elected officials really do have "regular lives." He asked if he could email over his announcement, and I told him that it wouldn't affect my questions, since I was going to ask him the same things I had asked the other candidates. Boy, was I ever wrong about that.
I have posted the announcement after the jump, because you might want to take a look at it. In my entire life, I have never, EVER, seen an announcement speech from a Democrat anything like Brian Gordon's. EVER. NEVER.
It's not just that he's a blue dog (5th line in), or that he quotes a song, or talks about sin, or insinuates that the US would have direct control over the environmental or labour laws of a foreign country. No, it's this line:
Government is nothing more than the things we decide to do together.
If you are a long time reader, and you've been through one of my diatribes on ours being a country founded on the rule of law, the uniqueness of our electoral system, yada yada, you can only imagine what reading a line like that does to me. "Nothing more"????? As in "we decided to rob a bank together?" "We decided to invade a sovereign nation for no other reason than the leader threatened my dad?" Wait, scratch that, it actually happened.
Government can be a tool for good. It can bring out the best in people. It can be dedicated to public service and making America the best it can be. But "government" is also involved in process, and needs to be subservient to the rule of law. Does this mean that all SCOTUS decisions are good? Certainly not. All laws are just? Not so much. But our government: our laws, processes, actions, are evolutionary.
It's why blacks are now "whole people", instead of the 3/5 of a person negotiated as "the best possible outcome" against those Founding Fathers who were racists. It's why men AND women can vote. It's why 18 year olds can vote. Why Miranda exists. Why choice is legal.
Our government was designed so that people could NOT just "do something" - it's why we have three branches of government at the Federal level, and then state and local governments of various compositions, and finally all remaining rights given to the people.
Government is not people just deciding to do something, like throw a cook-out: it's what we work at, correct, improve, and strive for over time. Sometimes, it is what we bleed for. Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the first lunch counter sit in, in Greensboro, NC. 100,000 students took part over 1960. 3,000 were arrested, many more were spat upon and beaten. Government action often comes from commitment, planning and the implementation of hard action. And then, often glacially, it moves to a better place. By the way, I hope you will take the time and read this article on the sit-ins. I guarantee that you'll learn something you didn't know before, and it's worth remembering what our country used to be, and why it's better now.
If it pains you to read this, trust me when I say it hurt me to write it.
Remember the historic House vote on the health insurance bill? It was 220 to 215. 218 to win. Already we're down to 219, as Bob Wexler left in late December, and won't be replaced until April. Neil Abercrombie is leaving on 28 February. He was first elected to the House in 1990, and is leaving to run for Governor of Hawaii. His seat won't be filled until May. So, the date of the vote, which keeps getting pushed (remember when the drop dead date was the Thanksgiving recess?)
Then we have the abortion issue. There is a movement afoot to make the Stupak amendment even more heinous. Stupak and Cao won't vote for the final bill unless at least the current restrictions from the Stupak-Pitts bill are still in.
And that doesn't include the good guys. You remember them: the progressive Democrats in favour of a public option since they couldn't get Single Payer or at least a Medicare buy-in. In the ping-pong game, Anthony Weiner has said "NO" if the final bill is the Senate monstrosity. Further, if the Cadillac tax stays in, both Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva (co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus) have said the bill will fail in the House. Source here. There are options for payment, such as allowing the Cadillac tax to stay in, but exclude from it any benefits collectively bargained. That would pass political muster, but would still affect many small businesses and their employees.
So there's the math kids, and it's not pretty.
The question becomes one of political calculus. Is it better for House members to pass a bad bill, or to vote conscience and watch it go down? So here is today's poll question. It is not a question of what will happen, or what should happen. Instead, the question is: what would YOU do if you were a member of the House?
Last night, current CD-6 Congressman Jim Gerlach announced he was dropping out of the Pennsylvania Governor's race. The race hadn't been polled since October, when Jim was pulling at 10%, and Tom Corbett at over 50%. Corbett, in his position as State AG, has since indicted a swath of Republicans to match the Democratic crowd he indicted last year. It's all corruption, extortion, bribery, misuse of public funds: and they're all guilty and it is highly probable that a court will find them guilty although everyone deserves his day in court and is innocent until proven guilty under the American justice system.
Jim has sat pretty in a district specifically gerrymandered for him in 2001. This time, his reach far extended past his grasp. It won't change the gubernatorial primary on the GOP side, Corbett has always been a lock. The question is whether or not he'll get back into the CD-6 race.
Although WaPo says that he'll be re-entering the race, it's hard to see how that will last. First, he has no money: only $34,000 in the bank as of Q3. Second, there are already six Republicans running, including State House Rep Curt Schroeder, who was a victim of some of the corruption Corbett indicted several Republicans about, as well as Steve Welch, who is running at the behest of the national party. Third, Doug Pike is a much more difficult challenge for Jim than his three previous Democratic challengers. Doug hasn't won the Democratic primary, but he's ahead at this time. Finally, there is the personal issue. No one seemed to know about it when he ran before, but it came to light inadvertently last summer. It hasn't paid to use it, but I'm still holding it just in case he jumps into the CD-6 race. Suffice it to say that he has run on lots and lots of family values, and he seems to lack them. It's all in the divorce papers. For the divorce he's denied having. Sorry, no boys involved. Still, it would hurt him.
On the Democratic side, Doug Pike is the front runner with close to a million as of the end of Q3. Manan Trivedi had about $100k, and Brian Gordon has just announced and doesn't have a full committee yet, much less any money to speak of. We'll see what the Q4 numbers say.
I've met with Doug several times, and I've sat down with Manan for a couple hours. I am working on the formal interviews I accomplished with each. It is so difficult because both are good men, both are strong candidates, and there is little daylight between their positions on all but one issue. One, though, will be a much stronger and more electable candidate in the general. But the interview was undertaken to help Democrats make a primary decision. Holding to journalistic ethics in a race with personal ramifications is tougher then I would have thought it would be.
This will be an interesting year overall in Pennsylvania politics. Will John Murtha pay a price for his long-time ethics issues, or will the fact that he brings big money home consistently trump the problems? It looks like another Kanjorski-Barletta match-up in the 11th. Under the radar, Lois Herr is challenging Joe Pitts in the 16th. It's a quiet race, but she will be the most formidable challenge Joe has had in his seven terms. He is also a co-sponsor of the Stupak amendment (yes, that one)and the 16th is a changing district. With Joe Sestak running for Senate, Brian Lentz, a state rep, is stepping up, running against Pat Meehan. Look for that to be a true horse race. Herewith, my overalls, as always, Democrats in blue, IIE in red.
Wow! Go to sleep extra early, and wake up to a whole new Senate.
Look down the posts and the comments: Dorgan and Dodd, gone. 11 Democratic House members. Open Senate seats in Delaware, Illinois, North Dakota, Connecticut, Ohio, Kansas, Missouri, Florida, and that list could change today. And let's not forget the special election for Senate in Massachusetts coming up: contrary to everyone else's polls, Rasmussen has Scott Brown only 9 points behind Martha Coakley. If Massachusetts sends a Republican to the Senate, ALL bets are off for 2010. The last time that state sent a Republican to the Senate was in 1972, and that was Edward Brooke, who doesn't even count as a "Republican": first because that party was very different back then, and second because he was unique and wouldn't find a place in today's GOP.
Pretty obviously, we're going to have to update the House and Senate forecasts, which we're working on and hope to have up within a week. (It takes longer than you might think.)
And let's not forget the people dropping out of the gubernatorial races, like Bill Ritter. A lot of governors' mansions can easily change this year: two prime examples are Pennsylvania and Texas.
The big questions are:
Why?
Who's next? Or is the season of quitting over?
Which direction will the replacements go?
Obviously, some people, like Dodd, are quitting because the chances of winning are slim, and another party member would have a better shot at holding the seat. It may also be that some House members want to try for the Senate, or for governor, or, like Bob Wexler, left/are leaving for a job in public service which interests them more than government service. Others may just have had enough of a polarized DC.
As for who is next, the list is too long to poll, so use the comments for those candidates you think will be next on the drop-out list. Or if you think the bleeding is done.
The biggest question, to me, is whether the Democrats who replace the drop-outs will be moderates or progressive. Personally, I hope that they are progressive. ACTUAL liberals. People who will gladly join the House Progressive Caucus, run their states as governors of, by and for the people, not the banks, and Senators who are not beholden to the insurance industry.
If progressives run, at all levels, on Act Blue money, and other direct-donor monies, it would really change the calculus of legislation. Think how different the health care battle would have been had none of the elected reps been beholden to the special interests.
And let's not forget the Independents. I'm not talking about the right wing wackos here. I'm talking about people like Lincoln Chafee who is running for Governor of Rhode Island. Chafee, like his dad before him, is a good man. While a fiscal conservative, his social policies are liberal. Had he switched parties in 2006, he'd still be in the Senate, and that move was considered. He'll have money troubles this year, but if he can overcome them, it would place a good, reasonable, man in contention. IMAGINE if for the open seats Republicans run far right candidates, Democrats run mushy-centrists, and Independents swoop in and take seats and mansions. A couple cycles and we would end up more like Europe, dependent on coalitions. The calculus is different if the Democratic Party runs actual progressives, and they run as populists. People who say "the party has not moved far enough on issues that matter most on a daily basis to Main Street."
While most people see the economy getting better, I see an unemployment rate still at 10% next November, and more importantly, next summer. Any candidate that can run on "a chicken in every pot, a good job in every household" will have a much better shot at an open seat than anyone else. Certainly more than the "pull yourself up by the boot straps" tea-baggers, more than mixed-bag independents.
And that is how I believe we turn the quitting season into a major win in November; run actual Democrats on an actual Democratic platform. NO MUD. There is no better way to overcome the enthusiasm gap, no better way to get voters to the polls.
If we don't do it, we're left with people like Danny Bauder, who is the Executive Director of the Chester County Democratic Committee (Pennsylvania). Yesterday, Danny personally endorsed Arlen Specter as having always delivered for Pennsylvania. He endorsed someone that we've voted against, as a party, for decades. Forget about the idea that a local party with a contested race should say "we will support and work for whichever Democrat wins the primary", forget that this is a personal endorsement, most people won't catch that nuance. If we don't support actual Democrats, we end up supporting Democrats who are either moderate Republicans in current Democratic clothing, like Specter, or beholden tools like Baucus, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln and the rest.
Again, no mud. We win in November as Democrats. If we can BE Democrats.
The House has blown town for the holidays, have passed their part of the Defense Appropriations process. (And yes, we got it all, good and bad....)
When they return in January, there will be some changes.
First, Robert Wexler is officially gone. He is now president of the Center for Middle East Peace & Economic Cooperation. Their main headquarters are in DC, so he won't have to move. Whether he gives up the family home in Florida is anyone's guess.
Political upshot? Special election, and a vacant seat until then. The seat will likely remain in Democratic hands since Wexler carried the Florida 19th in 2008 with 66.2% of the vote, and Obama carried 65%.
Schedule: special primary on 2 February, general on 13 April. Likely winner: State Senator Ted Deutch, currently carrying not only Wexler's endorsement, but also those of Alcee Hastings, Ron Klein, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Florida AFL-CIO, The primary challenger is Ben Graber.
Another thing that will look different when the House reconvenes in January is the make-up of the blue dog caucus. You already know that 3 of the 4 retiring Democratic Congressmen, Dennis Moore, John Tanner and Bart Gordon, are blue dogs. You may remember that Tanner was one of the founders, and Moore previously held leadership positions within the caucus.
The caucus will be adding three members in January: Betsy Markey (CO), Scott Murphy (NY) and Kurt Schrader (OR). Note that all three are Freshman reps.
By Friday, Congress will pass the last of the 2010 Appropriations Bills. You probably heard last week that House and Senate conferees had theoretically come to terms on what was included in this last part: Defense.
The Appropriations Bills say what Congress will and will not fund. In general, there is virtually no transparency in what gets accomplished, and all sorts of things get stuck into the bills at the last minute. For example:
[T]he Commodity Futures Modernization Act that was slipped into an omnibus bill back in 2000. The text was only available for 24 hours and its inclusion in the omnibus was only known for 4 minutes before final consideration. The passage of the Act not only created the "Enron loophole" but a market of unregulated derivatives which contributed to near economic collapse in late 2008.
There are many progressives who are concerned about this last big bill of 2010 for dueling reasons. First, they want the House to slip into the Defense bill an increase to the debt ceiling along with additional funding for COBRA, unemployment, Medicaid and food stamps. Second, they are well aware that hidden in the bill is the extension to the Patriot Act. Finally, there's Afghanistan. President Obama can say "more troops" but it's up to Congress to fund those troops, and some would like that discussion to be transparent, separate, debated, and voted on so that constituents can see who stands where. And then, there will need to be both House and Senate votes. But, there is an out:
There is still a possibility that appropriators have to craft another continuing resolution to fund the Defense Department until the Senate can agree on a time to vote on the bill. The Pentagon is currently funded through a continuing resolution that expires Dec. 18.
If they don’t appoint official conferees, the way the House and Senate could take up the $636 billion defense bill with the additional legislation is by using the Senate version of the bill as a shell. Appropriators would strip out the contents of the Senate bill and fill in the negotiated defense bill as well as the additional provisions. By doing it that way, it ensures that the bill won’t be open to amendments in the Senate.
While the Senate did pass a bunch of appropriations bills last week, Defense was not included. That omnibus bill had been previously passed by the House, and was not amended in the Senate. Therefore, it's good to go to Obama for his signature.
The blackmail part of the Defense Appropriations Bill is that there is something for everybody. Honest. It's over a thousand pages and if someone listed out everything, and presented the list, every American would find something on it that he/she wants. And something else he/she abhors. I call it institutional blackmail because stuffing *#^& amendments into bills at the last second is a way that people in Congress cut deals. "Afghanistan is abhorrent to you, Congressman, and your constituents? Well, you're going to have to vote for it if you want food stamps in your U6 27% unemployed district." -OR- "Sure, I'll vote for the COBRA extension, but only if you vote for the Patriot Act extension."
It would be so much better if there were some system, some law, whereby amendments could only be attached to a bill if they in some way related to the bill. Better yet, more laws, more bills, with NO amendments. There would be so much more transparency. Imagine, if you will, straight up or down votes on each issue, at 50% plus 1 in each chamber.
The Defense Appropriations bill is usually the worst for this because it is often the last appropriations bill of the year, it's always huge, and it's therefore not only the last chance for a lot of things, but it is always rushed due to the fact that Congress wants to go home, and most people aren't paying enough attention. It's always worst when we are a country at war: whether you support a specific war or not, those are OUR KIDS and until they come home, we all want them to have body armor and food and everything else they need.
So it goes, another process issue to be considered.
By the way, I selected the graphic because of what it represents, which to me is a lot of how the debate over the Defense Appropriations Bill SHOULD come down every year. Lots of debate on the topic, lots of transparency, and the final commitment. It is a statue in DC's Judiciary Square, and there is a similar statue in the rose garden at the UN in NY. The latter was a gift from what was then the Soviet Union. The name of the statue is "Guns into Plowshares" and it is composed of guns collected during an amnesty gun buy-back program in DC.
As I write this, the snow hasn't yet started to fall. By the time this posts, theoretically, it will be snowing. First midlantic snow of the season. There's been a lot of hype about it, which is normally inversely proportional to the amount of snow that falls.
My afternoon is going to be spent reviewing some documents I've been provided. Tomorrow, I'll be interviewing Doug Pike, one of the two Democratic candidates for Congress from the 6th Congressional District in Pennsylvania. On Thursday, I'll be interviewing his competitor Manan Trivendi. The two men are a study in opposites in lots of ways, and I'll be interested to nail them down on their various positions on the issues that matter to voters.
The interviews will publish in several articles, here and in the Philadelphia Jewish Voice. The general information will be at DCW, and the Middle East interviews will be over at PJV, and all will be cross-linked.
Interviewing candidates is fun and not as hard as you think. Maybe YOU would like to interview candidates where you live, for publication here at DCW, and potentially in your local press. The trick to interviews is to be prepared. Read everything you can about the candidate ahead of time, have more questions ready than you can possibly ask within the time frame allotted, and BEFRIENDLYANDKIND. You're looking for information, even if the person you're interviewing holds beliefs completely counter to your own.
That's what I've got for now. Enjoy your afternoon, especially if you end up with the kind of snow that allows for snowmen and snow angels...
Think back to the race last year: sitting Congressman Vito Fossella gets drunk in DC, crosses the bridge into Virginia, blows a red light, blows twice the legal limit on a breathalyzer, gets hauled to jail, calls not his wife, not his chief of staff who lives walking distance away, but his mistress, mother of his other child...there you are, you're laughing....H/T to Matt for sending over info on the GOP primary contenders. It hasn't undone my current sadness, but it certainly has brought back good memories.
Sometimes House races are interesting because of the issues, or because of historical import - and sometimes they're inspiring for their "train wreck" content. Such was the case last year watching Vito! self-destruct. I think my favourite part was the fact that his wife, instead of standing by him in the blue suit, pearls and stoic impression just told him to not come home.
The first two GOP candidates have announced for NY-13, 2010. First is Michael Grimm:
A Marine Gulf War vet and ex-undercover FBI agent who helped take down mobsters, crooked pols and Wall Street fraudsters is teeing up a GOP run at Democratic Rep. Michael McMahon next year.
He's not a pol. There's no info yet on his politics, but my gut guesses that he'll be moderate on social issues, conservative on economic issues, but will run as a law and order candidate.
One candidate is environmental lawyer and ex-legislative aide Michael Allegretti, 31, who has raised nearly $200,000 -- and is facing tough questions about a Gambino mob family capo who worked for his family's business for almost two decades.
I want to be clear: I prefer organized crime to disorganized crime. I have never thought that the "old" mob was worse than some "legal business" practices. I accept that crime is a part of society. I don't LIKE crime, but it will always exist, and the old mob had rules and ways of doing business. But a lot of politics is about appearances, and it doesn't work well to have any association with crime if you are running for office. OK, let's be honest, once you're in, it's different (Shout out to Ted Stevens, et al) but running with mob ties against a Law and Order guy... the potential is there.
The most fascinating thing is that if this is the field, the GOP won't be able to bring the evangelical aspect into the race. It becomes secondary. And Staten Island isn't upstate NY (aka "Canada" to those of us born in the City) - teabaggers won't play as well that far downstate.
Since both candidates and the sitting Congressman are all named "Michael", it's going to take some work to come up with nicknames.
It's going to be a fun race! Will keep you posted.
By Friday, Congress will pass the last of the 2010 Appropriations Bills. You probably heard last week that House and Senate conferees had theoretically come to terms on what was included in this last part: Defense.
