Month: July 2008

With the submission of signatures for this year’s Oregon Ballot Measures, I thought I’d run down their chances of making the ballot and what they mean, along with listing those ideas that will not make it this year.  Cross-posted from Loaded Orygun (http://www.loadedorygun.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=1220).

On July 3, petitioners turned in the last of their required signatures for this year’s crop of proposed ballot initiatives.  The SOS has until about the end of the month to verify whether they are valid or not.

The data sources for most of this come from the SOS’s website at: http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.search_form

Acronyms:

AG: Attorney General.

SOS: Secretary of State.

Some process basics:

Although commonly thought only as an Initiative process, the actual truth is that there are four major types of ballot measures (of which the first three are by far the most common):

Legislative Referrals-Typically these are constitutional modifications but they can be statutory as well (See 2007’s Measure 49, which modified the state’s land use laws as an example).  Depending on the specific measure, they require either a simple majority or, in some cases, a 3/5 majority to get on the ballot.

Citizen Statutory Initiatives-Change or create state law.  They require 82,679 signatures.

Citizen Constitutional Initiatives-Change the Oregon Constitution.  They require 110,358 signatures.

Citizen Referrals-Refer a recently passed law, by the legislature, to the people for a vote, most recently seen in the failed attempts to get votes on the state’s new domestic partnership (civil unions) and GLBT civil rights laws.  They require 55,179 signatures, which must be turned in within 90 days after the law is signed by the Governor.

Signature Verification Method:

Oregon is unique in that it does not generally verify every single signature.  Instead, the SOS randomly samples about 10-15% of the signatures and verifies them against the statewide database.  There are accepted ratios that for every type of violation (such as out of state, not registered and duplicate signatures) that are found, there are likely to be a certain number in the full set.  If a sampling shows a measure may not have enough to qualify, the SOS then takes a second equally sized sample and verifies that.  Typically about 65-75% of signatures submitted for a measure are valid, although non-paid signature gatherers tend to do much better than paid ones.  The recent record for paid signature gatherers is 85-90% by the Christian Right folks, who get such high validity rates by passing around the petitions at churches, where registration is high.

Changes to Oregon’s Initiative Laws:

In response to a number of minor scandals, mostly by conservative groups, the Oregon Legislature passed HB 2082 in 2007, which set down increased requirements for gathering signatures.  Simply put, the requirements  are as follows:

1. Required online training courses and certification for all paid signature gatherers.

2. The state will now provide basic templates for petition signature sheets.  In the past, sheets were given a guide, which was often followed incorrectly, leading to invalidated signatures.

3. 1,000 signatures must now be submitted to get a ballot title (the description that goes on the ballot, widely considered a key part of whether a measure passes or not).  Previously, only 50 signatures were required, leading to “title shopping”, where groups would submit many versions of the same measure to try and get a good ballot title.

4. The requirement that each sheet only contain signatures from persons in only one county is repealed.  This was done because with the new statewide voter registration database, it was an unnecessary restriction.

5. Increased restrictions on signature gatherers related to what they can or can’t do to correct invalid information on a petition sheet.

6. The SOS now serves as the campaign finance organization for all initiatives in the state, including local initiatives.  Previously, the SOS only worked on state level measures.

7. All signature gathering companies are required to maintain and submit regular accounts showing that petitioners were paid in a manner that was not per signature but by hour/day.  This provision has caused a lot of trouble for some initiatives and may well keep some off the ballot.  It is currently being challenged in federal court, but is not expected to be successfully so.

8. All sponsors and signature gathering firms are now held personally liable for the illegal activities of anyone working for/under contract to them.  This is important because up to now only the signature gatherers themselves was liable.

Failed Ideas:

The following measures are a selection of the bad ideas that thankfully will not qualify for this year’s ballot:

Note: All Measures are listed by the Initiative Petition (IP) number.

Key:

S-Statutory Measure

C-Constitutional Measure

22-C: Would have “Made Oregon Constitutional Guarantee Of Free Expression Of Opinion Inapplicable To Conduct Or Personal Behavior”.

23-S: Would have banned any teaching that “promotes GLBT behavior” at public schools and universities.

35-S/36-C: Would have allowed building a casino on the location of the old Multnomah Greyhound track.  The State Constitution currently prohibits casino gambling outside of Indian Reservations (and has since the state’s founding).

78-C: Would have posed a supermajority requirement (3/4) on the legislature for passing a law with an emergency clause.  This is important because laws with an emergency clause are not subject to a referendum petition since they take affect immediately upon their signature by the governor.

105-S: Would have revoked the right of the federal government to own state land, would have reverted such land to the counties for ownership.  This measure was rejected by the AG’s office on the grounds that the state did not have the authority do take this action.

108-C: Would have declared that using public funds to perform abortions is murder.

112-S: Would have basically turned all state workers into federal immigration officers, requiring them to verify status of all they serve.

Measures Submitting Signatures:

This list only includes those measures that had not reached the required number of signatures before I wrote about them last.  For a list of all measures, see this diary: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/113448/828/338/541717.

Key:

Validity Rate-Percentage of Signatures found valid in previous submissions.

Required Signature Numbers: Statutory 82,769, Constitutional 110,358.

20-S

Chief Sponsor: Anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore

Summary: Requires teacher pay to be based on “performance” not seniority.

Valid Signatures Previously Submitted: 81,149.

Previous Validity Rate: 65%.

Signatures now submitted: 3,784.

Required Validity Rate: 43%.

Will it Qualify: Yes.

41-C

Chief Sponsor: Longtime loser Republican candidate Kevin Mannix.

Summary: Dedicates 15% of Lottery funds to Crime Prevention, Investigation and Prosecution efforts.

Valid Signatures Previously Submitted: 102,565.

Previous Validity Rate: 64%.

Signatures now submitted: 18,183.

Required Validity Rate: 43%.

Will it Qualify: Yes.

51-S

Chief Sponsor: Conservative Activist R. Russell Walker.

Summary: Caps Attorneys fees, a classic “tort reform measure”.

Valid Signatures Previously Submitted: 68,227

Previous Validity Rate: 64%.

Signatures now submitted: 19,129

Required Validity Rate: 76%.

Will it Qualify: Likely No.

Note: The sponsors for this measure are currently challenging the state’s new initiative requirements, especially those related to providing “accounts” for all signature gathering efforts.  As such, these recently submitted signatures should technically not count since they are not currently in compliance with the law.  However, the SOS has agreed to provisionally count them pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

53-S

Chief Sponsor: Walker.

Summary: Requires sanctioning of attorneys who file “frivolous lawsuits”.

Valid Signatures Previously Submitted: 69,263.

Previous Validity Rate: 64%.

Signatures now submitted: 19,383

Required Validity Rate: 70%.

Will it Qualify: Leans No.

Note: As with the last one, these signatures are currently presumed invalid as the sponsors are not in compliance with the initiative requirements posed by the SOS.

109-S

Chief Sponsor: Former SOS Phil Keisling (D).

Summary: Creates an “Open Primary” allowing top two, regardless of party affiliation advance to the general election in most cases.

Valid Signatures Previously Submitted: 69,383.

Validity Rate: 76%.

Signatures now submitted: 27,421.

Required Validity Rate: 49%.

Will it Qualify: Likely Yes.

Let me know what you think.

Netroots Nation is just over a week away. James and I are doing a panel which I know will be of interest to this site’s readers:

60/275: The Races We Aren’t Watching but Should (and Those We’re Watching, Too)

Saturday, July 19th 3:00 PM – 4:15 PM

Discussion, Exhibit Hall 4

House and Senate campaign handicappers from Daily Kos, MyDD and the Swing State Project put their heads together to talk about the most important races around the country in 2008 – and the possibility of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and an even stronger majority in the House.

Joining us on the panel are Jonathan Singer of MyDD and Markos and Brownsox of Daily Kos. Two other members of the Swing State crew, Trent and Ben, will also be at the convention. Are you coming to Netroots Nation? Be sure to say hi if you are!

Is ineffective Bush Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito afraid to be seen with her good friend of the past 7 years, George W. Bush? Did she ask him to stay away as she runs against a tough challenger, Anne Barth, and Capito tries to distance herself from her past rubberstamp support of Bush’s extreme rightwing agenda?

NPR:

In what has become something of a Fourth of July tradition, President Bush traveled to West Virginia – the fourth time in his presidency he has gone there on Independence Day.

Mr. Bush marked the occasion by promoting something he had lately stopped talking about – victory in Iraq.

Despite being saddled with the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, President Bush got a warm welcome today in Martinsburg. It was an invitation-only crowd, mainly West Virginia Air National Guardsmen and their families.

Mr. Bush made no mention of the fact that he served in the Texas Air National Guard at a time when the nation was mired in the Vietnam War.

2007 (Martinsburg):

I appreciate being here today with a really fine United States Congresswoman, Shelly Moore Capito, and her husband, Charlie. (Applause.)

2005 (Charleston):

I appreciate Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito. I appreciate her service; I appreciate her love for the great state of West Virginia. Thank you, Shelley Moore. (Applause.)

2004 (Morgantown):

Today is the day we gather with our friends and family and give thanks to the United States of America; give thanks to the fact that we are citizens in a free land. (Applause.) I give thanks to Shelley Moore Capito for serving the people of West Virginia so well in the United States Congress. (Applause.)

I was greeted by your Mayor today — I’m honored the Mayor, Mayor Danny Jones took time to say hello. Mr. Mayor, thanks for having me here, and thanks for serving your community. (Applause.) I know, you want me to tell him to fill the potholes. (Laughter.) I appreciate the President of the Charleston City Council, Councilman Tom Lane for being here, as well. Thank you, Councilman. All those who work hard for the people of Charleston. (Applause.)

We’ve got a lot of state and local officials. I’m honored you all are here. Thanks for inviting me to this beautiful capitol. I appreciate the planning committee for this independence weekend celebration. You know, it takes a lot of effort to put one of these deals together, and a lot of people have been working hard to do so, starting with Spike Maynard, who is the co-chairman and the Chief Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. (Applause.) I told the judge I liked being in the presence with somebody who doesn’t try to re-write the Constitution. (Applause.)

I appreciate Mr. Sam Hindman, who is the retired publisher of your newspaper. He’s a leader in your community. He’s been a community leader for a long time. Thanks, Sam, for your hospitality. I want to thank my friend, Bill Raney, President of the West Virginia Coal Association, for being here, as well. (Applause.)

2002 (Jackson County):

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. (Applause.) Thank you. Well, thank you, Shelly*, and thanks for that warm welcome. I’m really proud to be in Jackson County, West Virginia. (Applause.)

Today we mark the 226th birthday of the United States of America. Last year I spent my first Independence Day as your President in Philadelphia. This year I get to spend it in Ripley, West Virginia. (Applause.)

Shelly told me about the 4th of July celebration. She said I needed to come and meet the town. It looks like most of you showed up. (Laughter.) I appreciate your hospitality. I appreciate all the hard work that went into making this 4th of July celebration such a fantastic gathering of our fellow Americans. And thanks for having me. (Applause.)

I want to thank Shelly Moore Capito for her friendship and her leadership in the halls of Congress.

But no Bush for Capito this year on July 4th. With his popularity around 25 percent, she doesn’t want voters to remember she’s been supportive of his unpopular programs every step of the way.

Soon we’ll be able to celebrate our independence from both of them. Capito came in with Bush, she needs to go with him.

You know, during the campaign for Kentucky’s First Congressional seat thusfar, we have been showing all the many different things that Heather Ryan, our Democratic challenger, and Exxon Ed Whitfield, our Corporate Republican Congressman disagree on. They are extremely numerous. While work prevented me from making it to Murray today to see the Freedom Fest parade, the good hillbilly Jim Pence, and Heather Ryan actually finally found something in which the fiery redhead, and the Bush/McConnell lackey agree on. Follow along for the vid.

Yes, Heather Ryan and Exxon Eddie finally agree. From Jim Pence:

Indeed!! Whitfield must rank as one of the most ineffective members of Congress ever. It is so nice to know that he will be voting for Heather, to change Washington!! Maybe next, he can consider a contribution to Americans for Ryan:

http://www.actblue.com/page/am…

Since he doesn’t live in the district, or the state for that matter this is an excellent way for him to contribute for change in Washington!! By the way, we could use help from Democrats too!!

Now that Heather and Exxon Eddie have finally agreed, lets look at a few things they disagree on:

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

HR3685: Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against an individual on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, including actions based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation of a person with whom the individual associates or has associated. Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims. Inapplicable to associations that are exempt from religious discrimination provisions.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hou…

So, Exxon Eddie hates women? Well after the first of November, he will really hate one particular red-headed one!!

Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks.

Vote to pass a bill that would repeal an export tax break for U.S. manufacturers ruled an illegal trade subsidy by the World Trade Organization, while providing for about $140 billion in new corporate tax cuts. Revenue raising offsets would decrease the cost of the bill to $34.4 billion over 11 years. It would consist of a buyout for tobacco farmers that could not go over $9.6 billion. It also would allow the IRS to hire private collection agencies to get back money from taxpayers, and require individuals who claim a tax deduction for a charitable donation of a vehicle to obtain an independent appraisal of the car.

Reference: American Jobs Creation Act; Bill HR 4520 ; vote number 2004-259 on Jun 17, 2004

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hou…

Here at Ryan for Kentucky, we believe Corporations have seen plenty of tax breaks and Corporate Welfare. It is time to give those breaks to working Americans.

Voted NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization.

H.R.3920: Trade and Globalization Act of 2007: Amends the Trade Act of 1974 to allow the filing for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) by adversely affected workers. Revises group eligibility requirements for TAA to cover: (1) a shift of production or services to abroad; or (2) imports of articles or services from abroad.

Reference: Trade and Globalization Assistance Act; Bill HR3920 ; vote number 2007-1025 on Oct 31, 2007

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hou…

Here at Ryan for Kentucky, we believe not only in helping our workers who have lost their jobs to free trade agreements, but we believe any new agreements should be seriously considered and rejected without protections for the American Middle Class.

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require a registered lobbyist who bundles contributions totaling over $5,000 to one covered recipient in one quarter to:

file a quarterly report with Congress; and

notify the recipient.

“Covered recipient” includes federal candidates, political party committees, or leadership PACs [but not regular PACs].

Reference: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act; Bill H R 2316 ; vote number 2007-423 on May 24, 2007

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hou…

At Ryan for Kentucky, we believe that lobbyists have plenty of money and power, and it is time to restore some of that power to the American people. Of course, Exxon Eddie has plans for that money:

Walker also noted Whitfield could use the disparity in fundraising to spread the wealth to other candidates, if his re-election campaign does not require them – a sign Ryan’s campaign may have some convincing to do.

“To the extent he has funding available, he may offer support to other candidates who share his

views on national issues and who may need financial support, but the primary purpose of his reelection campaign funds is to assist with his own reelection campaign,” said Walker.

http://www.politickerky.com/tr…

You see, supporting your fellow grassroots Democrats in Kentucky’s First not only helps win our race, but keeps Exxon Eddie from using his million dollars of special interest money from effecting other races. Ryan for Kentucky is a win/win situation for national Democrats!!

Please help:

http://www.actblue.com/page/am…

Note: This was originally a idea for OpenLeft’s American Blogger contest which it won and is currently on OpenLeft’s front page but I thought I’d share with y’all at Swing State Project beacuse I know you guys have great ideas too. What do you think of the idea?

The voters hit the polls and the people decided in the fifth American Blogger contest. And the winner was PIE! (Progressive Investment Effectiveness) You can read my original comment here. Essentially it is a idea to develop a system (PIE! Scores) to determine which candidates progressive small donors should donate to if they want their money to be most effectively used to create progressive change via the political system.

In this post I will go into a bit more detail about the project and then will outline ideas for criteria and ask for your brilliant ideas for different criteria! This project won’t work if it’s just one person working on it, we need as many people as possible to make this a people-powered PIE! project.

First off let me talk a bit more about the project. The idea is to come up with a set of criteria on which to determine how effective small dollars would be in bringing progressive change, then each candidate running a semi-competitive challenge gets assigned a PIE! Score. Hopefully progressive small donors will look at those PIE! Scores when they are making their donations and progressives will be more effective in making change via the electoral system.

The criteria I originally proposed were:

1. Seats Where We Can Make the Most Progress: Crisitunity of Swing State Project has developed a method of predicting in which races replacing the incumbent with the challenger would produce the largest right to left swing in voting. You can view the House edition here and the Senate edition here. Debbie Cook in CA-46  and Andrew Rice in OK-Sen would earn the most points in this category while Becky Greenwald in IA-04 and Jim Slattery in KS-Sen would fare the worst.

2. Likelihood of victory: Investing in races where Democrats are already heavily favored (Mark Warner in VA-Sen) or where Democrats don’t seem like they have a chance (Wyoming’s Senate races for example) is not a very good use of money. In this we would factor in a number of considerations to determine what the likelihood of victory in each race is. Races that are tossups or competitive (AK-Sen or NM-01 for example) would earn the highest points while races that seem safe (NY-13, NM-Sen) or very tough (CA-46, GA-Sen) earn less. We would have to come up with a exact system for this. Potentially we could average out the rankings of the Swing State Project, Cook Political Report, Chris Bowers and Nate Silver, something like that.

3. Money’s effectiveness: In Alaska when you advertise all the money is being spent on getting your message in front of potential voters eyes. In say IL-10 when you advertise on TV your spending lots of money reaching people who live in the Chicago area but not in your district. Therefore races with cheap media markets that predominantly reach potential voters (NE-Sen, WY-AL) get high points while races that have expensive media markets that don’t just reach your voters (VA-Sen, IL-10) get lower marks.

4. Progressive Leadership Bonus: We also want to elect progressive leaders. People who have endorsed the Responsible Plan (Darcy Burner), put out statements against FISA (Tom Perriello), worked for progressive movement organizations (Andrew Rice) or showed other tendencies that indicates they would be a progressive leader in Congress (Al Franken) would get extra bonuses. For example Tom Perriello was a original signer of the Responsible Plan, put out statements against FISA and worked for a movement organization (Avaaz.org) so he would score very well. Someone like Ronnie Musgrove (MS-Sen) who has showed signs of being a very unprogressive leader (like pushing to put the Ten Commandments in public places) would not get any bonus here.  

So let’s say the first three criteria each earn you up to 30 points for being the best in that criteria and as low as 0 if you are one of the worst in the criteria and you get a 3 point bonus for each of the first three progressive leadership bonus’s and 1 for other signs of progressive leadership.

Andrew Rice would get a 30 from category 1 because he scored the highest among Senate challengers, OK-Sen isn’t considered a tossup (such as AK-Sen which would give it a 30 score) but it isn’t considered completely hopeless (a 0 such as WY-Sen) because of Inhofe’s low approval ratings, general insanity and Rice’s strong campaign so I would give Rice a 10 in this category, Oklahoma is a very effective media market so I’d give him a 30 there and he gets a 3 point bonus for founding the Progressive Alliance Foundation and an additional point for his aggressive netroots outreach and being on the record calling himself a progressive Democrat.

So Andrew Rice would get a PIE! Score of 74. We’d have to calculate for all the candidates but I’d guess that’s a fairly good score.

Get how it works now? Kind of? Well now I want YOUR ideas for criteria. Are the current ones good? have a idea for a new one? Also, Do you think the 30-30-30-10 split for weighting each criteria is a good system? Do you have any ideas for other areas to award Progressive Leadership Bonus’s?

Please speak up then! After we decide the criteria I will post once or twice a week with one of the criteria and the community can help refine each one. For example we will need to decide how to determine the likelihood of victory.

So please make suggestions, give feedback and let’s have some PIE!

The 2008 gubernatorial races were never meant to be the cycle’s most suspenseful contests, but my March ratings found that the top four races had gotten unexpectedly more competitive, with three making their way to the toss-up rating. Yet, things have quieted down over the past few months. For one, heated Democratic primaries in Indiana and North Carolina were resolved and it will take some time before the general election in these states reaches full speed. Meanwhile, Missouri’s Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon is expanding his lead over his two potential opponents in what is looking like it could be a runaway race.

As a result, only one contest remains a toss-up in this month’s ratings — but what a toss-up it is! Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory’s victory in the GOP primary guarantees that North Carolina will host three crucial and competitive statewide elections this fall: Obama’s success at putting the state in play will determine whether he can hope to win a landslide election, the Hagan-Dole race is key for Democratic hopes to reach a 60 seat majority (the seat is at the top of the second-tier of Senate races which were not supposed to be endangered and its loss could open the floodgates of a blue tsunami) and the GOP will try to score its fourth gubernatorial victory since the 19th century. And remember that this is the state that sunk Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambition: North Carolina will have played quite a role in 2008.

The previous gubernatorial ratings, written in March, are available here. For descriptions of the races that have no description here and that are rated “Safe”, check the first gubernatorial ratings, written back in September.

Lean take-over (1 R)

1. Missouri (Open; Previous rating: Toss-up)

The contested Republican primary will not be resolved until August 5th. Rep. Kenny Hulshof and state Treasurer Sarah Steelman are running to become their party’s nominee, and the former looks to have lined up much of the party’s establishment behind him. But the result of their contest might not matter much as Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon has been campaigning for four years now. This cycle’s Democratic environment might be too much for his opponents to overcome, and Nixon has opened up a huge lead against either of his opponents in the latest polls. Democrats hope that this election will be a repeat of Colorado’s 2006 gubernatorial race and Minnesota’s 2006 senatorial race, both open races that were supposed to remain competitive but in which the Democratic candidate rode  the GOP malaise to an early lead and never relinquished it.

Toss-up (1R, 1D)

2. North Carolina (Open; Previous rating: Toss-up)

Both parties settled contested primaries on May 6th. On the Democratic side, Lieutenant Governor Beverly Perdue survived a strong challenge by state Treasurer Richard Moore, who aired negative ads in the closing weeks of the campaign. On the Republican side, Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory prevailed in a primary that was less nasty — and this is the sort of difference that can impact a general election. Since the primary, both candidates have been gearing up for the general election… and McCrory has received the help of George Bush who joined his party’s candidate for a fundraiser in Raleigh. No joint photograph of the two men was authorized, but the state Democratic party is already hitting McCrory for his ties to Bush, highlighting the dismal state of the Republican brand, even in a Southern state.

McCrory is a much stronger contender than Republicans were hoping to get just a few months ago, and this race looks to be the most suspenseful gubernatorial contest of the cycle (which isn’t saying a lot). Early polls suggest that neither candidate has the advantage but that McCrory might be able to peel away the support of independent-minded voters and conservative Democrats who have been critical to a string of state-level Democratic successes. In fact, how competitive the presidential election becomes could impact the result of the Perdue-McCrory contest. If there is a boost in black turnout as some are predicting, it would make it difficult for Republicans to pick up the governor’s mansion.

Lean Retention (1 D)

3. Indiana (Gov. Daniels; Previous rating: Toss-up)

The Democratic primary between Jill Long Thompson and architect Schellinger (favored by the state’s establishment) was even tighter than the state’s crucial Clinton-Obama contest, with results delayed by Lake County and Long Thompson triumphing by 0.6%. Now in a quest to become the state’s first female governor, Long Thompson first has to ensure financial viability. While polls showed no electability difference between the two Democrats, Schellinger was more successful at fundraising. Seeking to attract some attention in a dull campaign period, Long Thompson announced her running-mate and she benefited from glowing headlines after her speech at the state convention for “making history’ as the first female candidate.

Yet, three polls taken in the past two months find Daniels settling in a narrow but consistent lead — leading me to downgrade the race to lean retention for the first time. But the race remains competitive: however much Daniels has improved his popularity over the past two years, he remains very vulnerable and Obama’s decision to invest resources in Indiana will help Long Thompson get out the vote.

4. Washington (Gov. Gregoire; Previous rating: Lean retention)

In a neutral environment, this race would be the ultimate toss-up. The rematch of a 2004 race which ended in grotesque cacophony, Dino Rossi’s challenge to Gregoire is hurt by the year’s pro-Democratic bent. News that Rossi is shying away from his party label reveals the disadvantage he has to overcome. New election rules allow candidates to choose what party label will appear next to their name, and Rossi chose “GOP party” rather than “Republican” (note that the Republican candidate for insurance commissioner is running with no party label at all). However, polls find that the race remains very tight and there is every indication that it will be very nasty as well: A recent controversy over whether Democrats were playing the “Italian card” against Rossi by using the Soprano music in an ad against him confirms that there is little chance that the 2004 bitterness can be overcome.

Full rankings of all 11 races on my governor’s page.

Not good.  The only Democrat in the this race, emergency room doctor Keith Hummel, has suspended his campaign.  His website now has his message on the front page.

At this epic time in our nation’s history, the stakes are bigger than any one person, state, or party and now is the time to take back our country and bring hope to future generations. History will judge us by the decisions and choices we make this year.

The Democratic Party’s message of change brings hope for the people of the 1st District and our nation: hope that our nation will rebound from a war that should have never been waged, hope for the future of our infrastructure and educational systems, and most importantly, hope for those who so desperately need health care but cannot afford it. I am committed to these issues and will continue to work to turn this hope into reality.

Although I have always been open about my past financial difficulties, it is clear to me that they are becoming a distraction from the real issues at stake in this election. Therefore, I am announcing the suspension of my campaign for the U.S. Congress from the 1st Congressional District of Virginia. My candidacy should not harm those who share my fundamental belief in and hope for change and I will not sit back and watch as those who wish to sabotage this message use my financial history as a lever to fracture the hope for a better America.

Our focus must always be giving voice to those who have been disenfranchised and to speaking for those who have been silenced.  The Democratic Party offers that focus.  Although I suspend my campaign today, I look forward to doing what I can to work for the future of our nation.

Finally, to all those who have supported me over the past 12 weeks, I will be forever indebted to you for the kindness, generosity, and support you have given me.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch explains further what Hummel meant by “financial difficulties”.

Dr. Keith Hummel, a Democrat from Montross, has suspended his campaign for the 1st District congressional seat, leaving the Democratic Party potentially without a candidate to run against first-year Republican Rep. Robert J. Wittman.

Hummel said discussions about past financial difficulties have become a “distraction from the real issues at stake in this election.” Those difficulties include a bankruptcy, campaign manager Stephen Pierce said.

Hummel, an emergency room doctor, said he had made no secret of his financial problems.

“I have always said that I am an imperfect candidate,” Hummel said. “Unfortunately, our elections today revolve around narrow and simplistic assessments of viability.”

Pierce said the suspension is the first step that could lead to a withdrawal. He said the campaign would be talking to other Democrats about whether to withdraw.

Jared Leopold, a spokesman for Virginia Democrats, said, “We respect Dr. Hummel’s decision.” If Hummel chooses to withdraw, it would be up to the 1st District Democratic Committee whether to field another candidate, he said.

A spokeswoman for the State Board of Elections said parties have until Sept. 5, 60 days before the election, to fill a vacancy.

Raising Kaine has more, with a commenter alleging sabotage from within.  Dunno anything about that.  I haven’t seen this name bandied about as a replacement candidate, but what about Phil Forgit, the Democrat who lost to Rob Wittman in last year’s special election for this seat?

Side note: This may be a first in history.  The Libertarian candidate’s campaign website is a wiki.  

Tim Bee has just lost the support of a key ally in his bid to unseat freshman Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords:

Retired Congressman Jim Kolbe has ended his support of Tim Bee’s congressional campaign.

“I will not be actively campaigning for Bee,” the former Republican congressman said during a telephone interview with the Herald/Review on Thursday. Kolbe, whose district included Cochise County and whose seat in Congress is now held by Democrat Gabrielle Giffords, hosted a fundraiser recently for fellow Republican Bee at his Washington, D.C., home.

Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the Bee campaign, also confirmed Kolbe’s decision.

“For personal reasons, Mr. Kolbe is no longer associated with our campaign,” Dunn said.

Kolbe is declining to specify the reasons for pulling his support, but it probably has something to do with this:

Last Friday, the Arizona Senate placed a constitutional marriage amendment on the November ballot.

Bee, the Senate president, cast the deciding vote because of rules in the Senate that dictate that he vote last because of his position.

Arizonans defeated a similar measure in 2006 by a 51-49 margin, and I doubt Kolbe is pleased that Bee was instrumental in resurrecting the issue this year.

Time to add another screw-up to the list.

Happy Independence Day everyone!! Today our nation celebrates it’s Declaration of Independence from the British Empire. After much sacrifice from that generation, our nation would go on to become the first that was built upon the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment. Our nation would become a bastion of freedom, and the “city on the hill” for the world to aspire to.

Yes, our nation is the greatest in the world. One of the greatest things about our nation is that we can choose who will represent us in our Government. When we have failed leadership, every two, four, and six years Americans have the right to vote them out.

Well, right here in Kentucky’s First Congressional District, we have a failed Congressman, Exxon Ed Whitfield. He has spent the last several years rubber-stamping every failed policy of the Bush Administration. His election year Renaisance cannot conceal his real voting record, one that blocks any kind of Progressive change, and keeps the power with the status-quo.

Whitfield has made many terrible votes that in my opinion run contrary to what American liberty is all about. There is a world of difference between himself, and our candidate, Heather Ryan. Lets look at some of them.

First and foremost, is fighting for our veterans that have provided us with liberty. Although Whitfield changed his tune in an election year on the 21st Century G.I. Bill, his record speaks for itself.

Whitfield voted against a $53 Million boost for Veteran’s Health care and benefits.  The vote was against an amendment to the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs funding bill to add $53 million for veterans health care and other benefits, offset by a 9% cut to BRAC.  The amendment would add $8 million for combat-related trauma care, $6 million for poly-trauma centers to support wounded troops once they return to their homes, $9 million for VA medical and prosthetic research and $7 million for 100 additional staff who process claims for compensation and pension benefits.  Finally, the amendment would provide $23 million to help approximately 4,100 souses of service members with children whose spouse died during the War on Terrorism between September 11, 2001 and November 30, 2004 by making them eligible for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.  The amendment failed 213-214 – Whitfield was the deciding vote which denied these benefits to injured veterans.  (Leadership Document, “Medical Quality Democratic Amendment Final.”) [HR 2528, Vote #224, 5/26/05; Failed 213-214; R 19-210; D 193-4; I 1-0]

Whitfield voted for the budget that cut veteran’s programs.  Voted for final passage of the $2.6 trillion budget conference report for 2006.  The report cut Medicaid spending by $10 Billion, spent every penny of the Social Security surplus, increased the national debt by $167.5 billion over 5 years and paved the way for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.  Futhermore, the conference report cut funding for veteran’s health care by $13.5 billion over five years.  Yet the budget still found room for $106 Billion in tax cuts for those who need it the least.  (House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus, “Summary and Analysis of FY 2006 Budget Resolution Conference Report.” 4/28/08)  [HCR 95, Vote #149, 4/28/2005; Passed 214-211; R 214-15; D 0-195; I 0-1].

Whitfield Opposed Increased Spending on Veteran’s and Homeland Security.  The vote was against an amendment to the 2006 budget resolution to increase spending levels by $15.8 billion.  The proposal boosted education, training and social services programs by $8 billion, provided $2.9 billion more veteran’s health care and $1.7 billion more for homeland security than the GOP resolution.  Furthermore, the amendment would have reduced the deficit by $10 billion and raised $25.8 billion by reducing tax cuts for those earning more than $1 Million.  The amendment was rejected, 180-242.  [HRS 95, Vote #82, 3/17/2005; Failed 180-242; R 3-218; D 176-24; I 1-0].

http://exxoneddie.com/VotingRe…

Contrast this with Heather Ryan:

Every day we see reports about how our veterans services have fallen into severe disrepair. The men and women who served this country deserve better.  Our VA system needs a complete overhaul; from the GI Bill to health care to disability benefits, without a modernized system, we do those who served our country a grave disservice.  Veterans deserve better.

http://www.ryanforkentucky.com…

Next we have Whitfield’s votes to help ensure that he, and his colleagues aren’t subjected to the same eithics as the rest of us:

Whitfield voted to Weaken House Ethics Rules.  The new rules would allow lobbyists to cater meals to members’ offices and let charities pay for lawmakers to travel and stay at golf resorts and other locales.  The measure would allow outside interests to pay for “perishable food or refreshments offered to members of an office.”  For example, a lobbying firm representing pharmaceutical interests sent in dinner for House speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s (R-IL) staff while they were working late on a prescription drug bill.  The weaker rules passed, 221-203.  Whitfield has since traveled abroad at the expense of lobbyists who sit on the boards of non-profit organizations.  [HRS 5, Vote #6, 1/4/2005; Passed 220-195; R 220-0; D 0-194; D 0-1].

Whitfield Voted Against Creating a Bipartisan Ethics Task Force.  The panel would have equal representation of Republicans and Democrats to make recommendations to restore confidence in the House ethics process.  The measure was defeated.  [HRS 153, Vote #70, 3/15/2005; Passed 223-194; R 223-1; D 0-192; I 0-1]

http://exxoneddie.com/VotingRe…

Heather Ryan has not, and will not take lobbyist money or gifts. This is because she believes the citizens of the First Congressional District should be her special interest group, not Exxon, Chevron, or the RNC.

Even worse yet, is Whitfield’s votes to undo our Constitutional protections. On Independence Day, these should show great importance:

Whitfield Voted to Limit Patients’ ability to Sue HMOs.

[HR 2563. Vote #329, 8/2/2001; Passed 218-213; R 214-6; D 3-206; I 1-0]

Voted for an amendment to the patients’ rights bill to limit lawsuits against health maintenance organizations.  Opponents of the proposal charged it would set up obstacles for patients seeking to enforce their rights, give advantages to HMOs and preempt patient protection laws in states such as California, Georgia, Texas and New Jersey.  Specifically, the amendment would allow HMOs or employers who make medical decisions to transfer a case filed against them to federal court.  It also provides that when cases against health plans are tried in state courts, the proceedings would be conducted under federal rules that offer greater protections for them than state laws.  It would limit non-economic damages to $1.5 million.

http://exxoneddie.com/VotingRe…

At Ryan for Kentucky, we believe that the Constitution has provided checks and balances for our government to operate upon. Circumventing them runs contrary to the ideals this country was founded on. Juries were empowered by the Constitution with certain powers that should not be infringed upon.

Whitfield also proudly voted to shred our Constitution once again:

Whitfield voted for and the House passed, H.R. 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008. This bill closes a terrorist loophole in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that requires American intelligence officers to obtain a warrant before intercepting terrorist communications abroad.

http://whitfield.house.gov/new…

Of course, Heather stood with Progressives, and all those everywhere who believe in upholding our Constitution and the Protections therein. From an email:

Later this week, the Senate will be considering passage of the compromise on the FISA Bill. Since many voters in the First Congressional District of Kentucky have contacted me wondering what my stance on this legislation is, I felt compelled to speak on this issue.

While I was in Washington on that terrible day of Sept. 11, 2001 when planes crashed into the World Trade Center and in Western Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon, I can understand the passion that has fueled this bill. Having said that, I must urge the Senate to reject this FISA compromise as proposed and passed by the House of Representatives with H.R. 6304.

There are several reasons why I feel this bill is unnecessary. First, I think that we have lost focus on the fact that a competent Administration could have actually gone a long way in preventing this tragedy.  The Bush Administration was warned in advance of  9-11 and did nothing at the time to prevent it. I believe if the Bush Administration would have acted on the intelligence provided them, then the 9-11 tragedy could have been avoided through the laws that existed at the time.

I believe this law is an extension of the Bush Administration’s attempts to politicize the Justice Department. Prosecuting entities are provided by the Constitution with checks and balances on which to operate. They already have  very broad  powers and if they found a credible threat would have no problem getting a warrant in a timely fashion.  

I believe that FISA and this compromise are an abomination to the Constitution because it seeks to circumvent the checks and balances provided all of us by that document.  I strongly oppose giving  the Telecom Corporations immunity when they knew they were breaking the law when the Bush Administration asked them to break the law.

I saw where my opponent in this race, Exxon Ed Whitfield voted for this Legislation.  I think it is pretty ironic when the very Republicans that lecture us about the size of the Federal Government propose, and push through the House of Representatives a bill that broadens the powers of the Federal Government vastly. I think this is one issue that Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives should all be able to agree on.  There are certain things that none of us should ever compromise on, and the Constitution is one thing I will never compromise on as Representative of Kentucky’s First District.

We need to expand our Congressional majorities with newer, and better Democrats who understand our ideals and have the courage to fight for them in Washington. Heather represents a new generation of leadership standing up to fight for our party and country, and frankly I think her time, and ours has come.

This Independence Day, why not make an investment in an awesome grassroots Democrat that believes in our ideals, and most importantly has the courage to fight for them? No donation is too small and will be put to work immediately to retire one of the worst Republican Congressmen sitting, and to restore the liberties generations of Americans have fought for.

Please go here and help us win this race!!:

http://www.actblue.com/page/am…

Happy Birthday America!!!!

First, I want to wish you all a Happy 4th of July. I’ve been thinking about the meaning of Independence Day, a day on which we as a people publicly declared our desire to be masters of our own destiny, to chart our own course as a free and independent society no longer under the control of others. For 232 years we Americans have done just that. We have governed ourselves, and I’d say that our record is one in which we can justly take a great deal of pride.

On this 4th of July, I’ve also been thinking about another kind of independence, namely energy independence. We are a strong country with our best days yet ahead of us. Right now, however, we face tremendous problems because we are deeply dependent on foreign oil. And we’re not just importing oil from friendly democracies like Canada, but from places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, countries who have very different values and interests from our own.

More after the jump.

We’ve seen the price of oil go through the roof since George Bush, supported by Chris Smith, invaded Iraq and destabilized the Gulf region. Energy independence is vital because too many families can’t afford to fill up their gas tanks or heat their homes, and also because too much of what we spend on energy ends up with regimes or terrorist groups that want to hurt us here at home and attack our brave servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the summer of 1776 our Founding Fathers literally put their lives on the line to declare our independence from King George III. We need to honor their bravery, and to defend our country’s independence for the sake of our children by taking serious measures starting this summer.

We must increase fuel economy standards for vehicles and invest in more renewable energy. We also need to increase the Hybrid-Vehicle tax credit so all working families can afford a new, fuel efficient vehicle for the cost of their current car payment. Greater fuel efficiency means we import less oil and help families pay the bills. Think about it. If your car got twice as many miles to the gallon, it would be like cutting the price of gas in half because each gallon would get you twice as far.

For more details about my ideas on energy issues, take a look here and here.

George Bush and Chris Smith’s answer to our energy problems is to ask the Saudi king to increase oil production, which will do nothing more than send more American dollars into Saudi coffers.

The time has come to decide whether we are going to elect leaders who fight for energy independence or whether we will continue to send politicians back to Washington, DC who won’t push for change because their party is in the pocket of multinational oil companies. That’s why we need a change, why we need new leadership. That’s why I’m running for Congress.