GA-01: Saturate the Market for BIll Gillespie and Dump Jack Kingston

Goal ThermometerJack Kingston isn’t just the goofy wingnut who made Worser on Olbermann. He’s the chief propagandist for the Republican party, in charge of making up the language of divisive politics like “subpoenas are disruptive”, “liberal baloney”, and “Obama isn’t patriotic because he doesn’t wear a flag pin.” All that and he brags about being the most conservative member of Congress, and his voting record bears that out: he gets an F from themiddleclass.org, a C from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and a zero from the League of Conservation Voters; worse than Saxby Chambliss!

Much more here about how Kingston uses his goofy persona to hide a much darker side.

Here’s a real chance to get rid of Jack “flag pin” Kingston!

Bill Gillespie:

Here are still more reasons Bill Gillespie can beat Jack Kingston:

All the surrounding GA districts are already Democratic and GA-01 is traditionally, the biggest county is already blue, etc.


A publisher that blankets the district says:

Coastal Empire News, publishers of Savannah Daily News, The Business Report & Journal and Coastal Family Magazine, is endorsing Savannah’s Bill Gillespie (D) for Congress to represent the 1st Congressional District over incumbent Jack Kingston (R).

It is painful to no longer endorse our friend, Jack Kingston. Many of us know Jack and his family personally and cherish their friendship and their public service. Jack Kingston is a good man, personally, but he has never had a viable or credible Democratic opponent to truly consider.

All that and Bill can fly!


Jack Kingston:

  • used to have an advantage as an incumbent: not so much this year of high gas and low retirement, and people are sick of him embarrassing us on TV
  • has more money than Bill, but whenever he uses it he reminds people Bill is running
  • Jack’s main advantage is a lot of people still don’t know Bill is running

Let’s fix that!

TV and newspaper ads in GA-01 are among the cheapest in the country. $3,000 will saturate the market for the last 3 days.

Help oust Jack and elect Bill.

Or follow Jack’s advice, and get married and work longer hours.

By what margin will Bob Shamansky win?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

OH-16: Alliance for Retired Americans Endorses John Boccieri

Boccieri Banner

The Alliance for Retired Americans says John Boccieri is the best choice to succeed retiring Rep. Ralph Regula in the race for Ohio’s 16th Congressional District.

The organization, which has nearly 271,000 members in Ohio and represents over 3.5 million seniors across America, wrote in their endorsement that Boccieri’s “election to the House of Representatives will enhance the quality of life for older Americans.”

The Alliance cited:

“Boccieri’s leadership on issues such as fighting Social Security privatization and strengthening the Social Security and Medicare systems… In addition, our members can support your candidacy because of your belief in the need to provide more affordable health care for older Americans, to create a Medicare drug program that benefits seniors, not insurance and drug companies, as well as the need for stronger retirement and pension security, and quality long term and nursing home care.”

Boccieri thanked the group for its endorsement and reiterated his commitment to standing up for seniors.

“If you’ve worked hard, played by the rules, and given back to your community your entire life, you deserve your pension benefits, affordable health care, and financial security in retirement. That’s the dream that has made America strong, and that’s the promise that I will fight for in Congress.”

Boccieri has a strong record of supporting seniors in the state legislature and has committed to use his voice in Congress to address the plight of local retirees like those from Republic Technologies who have been denied much of their promised pension benefits.

In stark contrast, when Republic Technologies retirees invited State Sen. Kirk Schuring to an October 11 meeting about their pension struggles, Schuring never showed up. And this Tuesday, the editors of the Akron Beacon Journal noted that Schuring has expressed “willingness to consider privatizing a portion of Social Security” if elected to Congress.

In 2001, Schuring cast the only Ohio House vote against creating the Golden Buckeye discount prescription drug program [“Legislation Would Give Seniors Drug Discount,” Dayton Daily News, 6/6/01], and more recently voted to raise the retirement age and strip half a billion dollars from state pension funds. [127 SB 148]

IA-04: Latham goes negative, touts opposition to bailout (updated)

UPDATE: The DCCC  added IA-04 to the Red to Blue list on October 14 and moved IA-05 up from Races to Watch to Emerging Races.

There have been no public polls in the race between Republican incumbent Tom Latham and Becky Greenwald in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district, and neither candidate has released any results from internal polling.

However, Latham may be increasingly concerned about holding this D+0 district amid what looks like a landslide victory for Barack Obama in Iowa.

Until this week, Latham’s campaign messaging touted his record and mostly ignored his challenger. But on Monday he went negative, issuing this statement blasting Greenwald’s support for the recent bailout package. (She came out against the first bailout bill the House considered but supported the version that cleared the Senate before coming up for a House vote.)

Latham voted against both bailout bills, one of very few times he’s ever refused to support something the Bush administration wanted. For months, Greenwald has been hitting him on his lockstep Republican voting record. He is clearly grateful to have this issue to separate him from the White House and Republican leadership in Congress.

Last week Latham and Greenwald held two radio debates, and Latham brought up his no votes on the bailout at every opportunity. I commented at Bleeding Heartland that the bailout was the only thing that kept the second debate from being a rout for Greenwald.

During and after the debates, Greenwald brought up Latham’s consistent Republican voting record on lots of issues, including the deregulation of the banking sector which has contributed to the current economic problems. She also linked Latham to John McCain’s failed approach on health care reform and hammered him for supporting a privatization scheme for Social Security.

Latham denies he has backed privatizing Social Security, but to paraphrase Josh Marshall, he uses classic Republican “bamboozlement” language on this issue. He has supported private investment accounts, which could be devastating to seniors’ income in a bear market.

Greenwald has challenged Latham to televised debates as well. He declined one invitation and is dragging his feet on rescheduling an Iowa Public Television debate that was postponed while Congress was considering the bailout.

The third quarter financial reports for Latham and Greenwald are not available at Open Secrets yet. As of June 30, Latham had a big cash on hand advantage, in part because he sits on the House Appropriations Committee and in part because Greenwald had to get through a four-way Democratic primary (she won with more than 50 percent of the vote).

Greenwald’s summer fundraising must have been reasonably strong, because she went up on tv in September, got the endorsement of EMILY’s List, and was put on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Emerging Races” list.

No doubt Latham still has a money edge, because he has been advertising more extensively on tv and radio throughout the district. His first two television commercials focused on a bill he co-authored to address the nursing shortage and the need to “crack down on Wall Street greed” and help Main Street businesses.

Most House race rankings still put IA-04 in the “likely Republican” category, but this is a district to watch, especially in light of the big Democratic gains in voter registration and Obama’s double-digit statewide lead over McCain, confirmed by at least ten polls.

If Latham does hold on to his seat, I think he should send Nancy Pelosi a thank-you note. Here’s Latham’s voting record on corporate subsidies. Here’s Latham’s voting record that relates to government checks on corporate power. Here’s Latham’s voting record on corporate tax breaks in general (including sub-categories on tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and for the wealthiest individuals).

Yet despite his long record of standing with corporations rather than middle-class taxpayers, the bailout has allowed Latham to position himself this way going into the home stretch of the campaign:

“Reckless Wall Street CEO’s made a mess and they asked Iowans to pay to clean it up,” noted Latham for Congress spokesperson Matt Hinch. “Tom Latham stood up in Congress and protected Iowans by twice voting no on this massive Wall Street bailout. Tom Latham believes that, as a matter of principle, it is wrong to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to reward, benefit and bailout those on Wall Street who created this mess.”

Highlights of Becky Greenwald’s endorsed Wall Street bailout plan includes:

* The largest corporate welfare proposal in U.S. history all at taxpayer expense;

* Gives the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and Wall Street veteran and former Goldman Sachs CEO, Henry Paulson a no-strings checkbook with $700 billion in taxpayer funds to spend as he sees fit;

* The Washington Post reports that there is a strong possibility of conflicts of interest, since the same companies who created the mess on Wall Street will, “be managing the assets while also selling their own troubled securities to the government.”;

* Taxpayer funded pork in the bill included tax breaks for rum, sports entities, television and the manufacturer of wooden arrows for children;

* And, no guarantee by Secretary Paulson that his plan will actually work.

“Becky Greenwald would reward the same greedy CEO’s who caused this crisis,” continued Hinch. “Becky Greenwald would spend $700 billion of Iowans’ money to fix Wall Street mistakes and greed. No accountability and no guarantee it will even work. It’s clear that Iowans can’t trust Becky Greenwald with our tax dollars.”

I don’t know whether this tactic will work for Latham, but I do know that if he were very confident, he would be sticking to a positive message.

PA-05: McCracken for Congress – Who Understands the Problems Facing the 5th District and the Nation

Throughout the campaign I’ve been involved in several candidate forums with my opponents for the open seat in the 5th Congressional District.  Additionally, during the final 5 weeks of the campaign there will be several additional opportunities for voters in the 5th district to watch all three candidates debate the important issues facing the district and the nation.  The important question voters should consider while watching or listening to these events is which of the three candidates really understands the important problems facing our nation.

There are several issues that clearly define and differentiate where I stand and what I believe in versus my two opponents.  I’ve found that my stances on Health Care Reform, the future of Social Security, understanding the economic problems in the 5th district and, most importantly, fiscal responsibility by the federal government separate me from my two opponents.

Starting with Health Care Reform, my Republican opponent has repeatedly stated “the United States has the best healthcare system in the world” and says “we don’t turn people away.”  But, the sad fact is there are 45.7 million uninsured people in the United States and many more underinsured.  He also regularly says that a “tremendous debate needs to occur” and that the way to solve the nation’s health care crisis is to “peel away the layers of federal regulations.”  

In contrast, I understand that too many of our citizens, both here in the 5th district and across the nation, lack access to affordable health care.  The statement that “we don’t turn people away” is completely false.  The fact remains that people who have no health care coverage do get turned away and those who finally get treatment once it is a critical situation that requires a trip to the emergency room are then faced with harassment from the billing department at the hospital or by a collection agency.  

On health care reform, my opponents are wrong on several counts — we don’t need a “tremendous debate” we’ve talked long enough and we need more detailed solutions than just “peeling away the layers of federal regulations.”  Throughout the campaign, I have proposed as a first step a voluntary national health insurance purchasing pool to provide low cost health care coverage for individuals and small businesses.  Once this proves successful, then we can move forward on the real solution which is universal health care for everyone.

On Social Security, the contrast is also clear.  On numerous occasions my Republican opponent has touted his strong support for the idea of allowing young people to take part of their Social Security to invest in private accounts.  I have stressed that we must work to save and strengthen Social Security for all future generations and any policy that includes private accounts like those proposed by my Republican opponent would only weaken Social Security.  

Of even greater concern is the fact that private financial investments fail as we’ve clearly witnessed in recent weeks.  What happens in the future if funds diverted from Social Security to private accounts fail?  Will the taxpayers in the future have to bailout millions of individuals who chose to go the private accounts route when their investments fail and they have no retirement to fall back on.  The choice must be to save and strengthen Social Security for our children and grandchildren.  Policies that would weaken the system while placing the future retirement of millions of our young people at risk is unacceptable and candidates proposing these ideas should be rejected.

Finally, the one issue that I’m asking the voters in the 5th district to really judge the candidates on is the issue of fiscal responsibility in Washington.  This is an issue I understand as a citizen, as a former school board member and now as a county commissioner.  I will continue to stress that the most important thing we need from Congress is fiscal responsibility with a commitment to balancing the federal budget which currently has a $482 billion deficit, building a solid surplus and, most important, paying down the $9.7 trillion federal government debt.  My Republican opponent continues to build his campaign around “extending the Bush tax cuts” while at the same time proposing increases in spending.  

As proof of my commitment to supporting fiscal responsibility and my honesty with the voters in comparison to my Republican opponent’s mixed signals on fiscal matters go to www.yourcandidatesyourhealth.org and compare both of our responses on increased federal funding for research.  Throughout the campaign and in surveys I’ve been asked to complete, I stress that there is a fiscal crisis in Washington and there is NO MONEY for increased domestic spending until we make the commitment to solving the fiscal crisis.  In contrast, my Republican opponent continues to support the failed fiscal policies from the last 8 years and he continues to suggest that federal funding increases are possible in many areas.

In the closing weeks of the campaign, I’m going to stress to voters to use the fiscal crisis as the key issue to decide the 5th district race.  The question voters must ask themselves is this:  Do you want a person representing you in Congress who understands our biggest problem is the $9.7 trillion debt owed to nations like China and Saudi Arabia OR do you want a person who disregards this threat in favor of extending tax cuts that benefited the most wealthy and affluent citizens?  Perhaps more important to consider is this:  Will we send people to Congress who will confront and solve this threat now, or will we pass responsibility for this problem on to our children and grandchildren?



More on the Bush bailout plan:
 I wrote last week of my concern about President Bush’s plan to provide a $700 billion bailout to rescue failing financial institutions.  Earlier this week I watched President Bush speak to the nation about his plan where he attempted to explain what he was doing and why he wanted to do it.  While we heard the what and the why, he failed to offer the most important information the nation needed to hear — How is he going to pay for it.  Sadly, the facts are out in his proposal that the $700 billion bailout will be paid for by increasing the federal debt limit which means the bailout will be funded with more borrowed money AKA fiscally irresponsible policies.  

If I was a member of Congress now, I could not support any bailout bill that fails to address funding the bailout and I would strongly and vocally oppose adding this cost to the debt.  However, I would be offering solutions on how to raise the funds to pay for the bailout.  Specifically I would suggest the following recommendations to raise revenue to fund the bailout:

1. I would call for immediate investigations to identify any corporate executives who were responsible for this financial fiasco and would demand that the bailout bill include language to freeze and seize the assets of those responsible for the mess.  The assets of those responsible would then be liquidated to pay restitution to the federal government to help fund the bailout.

2. I would propose 2 funding streams that would expire once the bailout costs are recovered.  First, there would be a ½ % stock transfer fee.  In order to waive this fee for private citizens who dabble in the stock market, the first $5,000 per year would be exempt from the fee.  Second, there would be a ½ % mortgage fee that would be waived from the first $75,000 of the mortgage amount so it would not severely impact first time home buyers.

These two suggestions would raise significant revenue to fund the bailout plan and would also keep the cost from being applied to the federal debt.  It would also place responsibility for funding the bailout costs on those who will benefit from the bailout rather than the middle class taxpayers.  The most important language that would be included in regards to both the stock transfer fee and the mortgage fee is that they will expire once the crisis is over.  This will provide the incentive for leaders in the financial services industry to do everything they can to get us through the financial crisis so the added fees to the federal government will expire as soon as possible.



Schedule for the Upcoming Week:

Monday — Newspaper Interviews — The Progress / Clearfield, Clarion, Ridgway and St. Marys, Daily Collegian

Tuesday — WJAC Interview,  Meet the Candidates — Clearfield Chamber of Commerce at Elks Club

Wednesday —  Meeting with Fayette Resources / DuBois, Interviews with PCN and Lewistown Sentinel,  State College Borough Democratic Committee event — 6 PM Ramada Inn in State College

Thursday — Newspaper Interviews during the day,  Debate in Bradford at Pitt / Bradford Campus 6 PM

Friday — Event in State College with PSU Students

Saturday — Clarion Leaf Festival and Parade



FUNDRAISING REMINDER
— Keep talking with people about the 5,000 Friends to Flip the Fifth project.  We can win the 5th District Congressional District for the first time in 32 years but we need to be organizing our forces heading into the final weeks.  The only way to turn this country around is to send people to Washington who will make the tough decisions.  The choice in the 5th district is clear.  My opponent regularly states that he supports the fiscal policies of the Bush administration AKA “the Bush tax cuts” and will continue them — More of the Same.  While I continue to stress that we must balance the budget, built a surplus and pay down the debt.

In order to get the message out to voters we will need to advertise which costs money.  Please contact your family and friends and urge them to financially support our campaign as we move into the final weeks.  Donations can be made online through www.actblue.com or by direct mail to McCracken for Congress, PO Box 332, Clearfield PA 16830.



Mark B. McCracken

Your Candidate For Congress

————————————————————————————————–

This diary is cross-posted at McCracken’s campaign blog, PA’s Blue Fifth

Mark McCracken for Congress

ActBlue page

OH-16: Schuring on Wrong Side of Economic Crisis

Boccieri Banner

Blocked predatory lending crackdown, wants more giveaways to Wall Street

A devastating week for the U.S. financial sector has underscored the danger of congressional candidate Kirk Schuring’s economic policies for working families in the 16th Congressional District and across America.

Democratic candidate John Boccieri said today:

“Kirk Schuring’s economic philosophy is as bankrupt as Lehman Brothers. He is not offering the change that middle class families need to bounce back from this economic crisis.”

Schuring is staking his campaign on the same failed policies that caused the crisis by constantly siding with Wall Street over Main Street. His policy stances will actually worsen the impact of economic instability for middle class families.

FACT: Schuring blocked crackdowns on predatory lenders in the state legislature. In 2001, he helped push through a sham reform bill supported by predatory lenders in order to prevent Ohio’s local communities from regulating out-of-control predatory mortgage loans. HB 386; “Home Security,” The Columbus Dispatch, 9/21/05

FACT: Schuring’s top economic priority is giving more tax breaks to the Wall Street firms that created this financial mess. Corporate tax giveaways are the very first item in Schuring’s “jobs plan” – but he has not proposed a single tax cut directed at the middle class. www.schuringforcongress.com/issues, accessed 9/24/08

FACT: Schuring’s response to the crisis focuses only on helping Wall Street. In an interview on WHBC this morning, Schuring did not once call for direct assistance to the innocent homeowners at the heart of this crisis.

FACT: While Schuring claims to oppose out-of-control spending in Washington, he insists on an open-ended commitment to spending $5,000 per second in Iraq, which has already led to the largest budget deficit in American history, forced the government to borrow billions from nations like China, and left us with limited resources to stabilize our struggling economy. 16th District Notebook,” The Canton Repository, 9/21/08

FACT: Schuring has said “I think everything should be on the table” when it comes to Social Security. Kirk Schuring on Social Security/Medicare,” accessed 9/24/08 Schuring’s Republican allies in Washington have been trying for years to turn Social Security over to Wall Street, and Schuring’s stunningly anti-senior record in the state legislature makes clear that he can’t be trusted to look out for older Americans in Congress. Boccieri Calls for Protecting Social Security on 73rd Anniversary

Let the facts speak for themselves; Kirk Schuring’s policy positions are not what the working families of Ohio’s 16th Congressional District need in the United States Congress.

OH-16: Date Set for Fourth Boccieri-Schuring Debate

Boccieri Banner

Date Set for Fourth Boccieri-Schuring Debate

Schuring, Canton Chamber of Commerce Reject Additional Forums

Both 16th District congressional candidates have agreed to a fourth debate before the November election. This discussion will take place live on the WHBC radio show “Points to Ponder” on October 15.

Unfortunately, Sen. Kirk Schuring has refused a debate proposed by the AARP that was to take place at Stark State College of Technology. Sen. John Boccieri had agreed to this debate, but the AARP has canceled the event after Schuring rejected their offer.

Senator Major John Boccieri(D-Alliance) responded to the news as follows:

“It’s unfortunate that Senator Schuring refused to participate in an open discussion about the issues facing our seniors in this election. Social Security, pension protections, and the cost of health care and prescription drugs are vital concerns that the next Congress will have to address, and it’s disheartening that Senator Schuring is unwilling to do so.”

Don Singer, a representative of the Boccieri campaign, also responded to the Canton Chamber of Commerce’s cancellation of a debate that both candidates were willing to participate in:

“After much progress, I’m disappointed that the Chamber of Commerce suddenly closed the door on negotiations despite Senator Boccieri’s willingness to debate the candidate they had just endorsed.”

What gives? The Canton Chamber of Commerce endorses Schuring, plans a debate, but as soon as John Boccieri accepts they pull the plug? I might be wrong, but this just doesn’t pass “the smell test”. As for the AARP debate, I think we covered that here.