Tag: House

Crossposted on Daily Kos and Blue Jersey

Last night, I joined a rally of Lobbyists for Republican Scott Garrett, who gathered to thank Garrett for supporting the financial industry that has run our economy into the ground. Scott Garrett, who represents New Jersey’s fifth Congressional district, doesn’t just accept campaign donations and personal loans from the financial giants that caused our current economic crisis – he hired a former Countrywide lobbyist as his chief of staff. Garrett is among the nation’s strongest supporters for deregulation of the financial industry that puts profit before people struggling thanks to today’s economic crisis.

More and pictures after the jump…

My name is Erica, and this week I started working on the Dennis Shulman for Congress campaign. With ‘Lobbyists for Scott Garrett,’ our campaign is highlighting Garrett’s ties to both the housing crisis and the special interest culture of corruption. As a member of the House Financial Services Committee and Housing Subcommittee, Garrett is unduly influenced by the industry he is supposed to regulate. This week, the Shulman campaign released a new ad calling on voters to fire Scott Garrett for letting the greed and speculation run rampant under his watch.

See the ad here – Fire Scott Garrett

Shulman for Congress is also underscoring Scott Garrett’s record as one of the staunchest conservatives in Congress. By the end of 2006, the American Conservative Union had only given a “perfect” score of 100 to two members of Congress for their lifetime voting record – and Scott Garrett was one of them. Yet the district he represents, a politically moderate swath of suburban New Jersey – is nowhere near to the far-right views Garrett pushes in Washington. Voters here are looking for leadership to get our economy going again, work towards alternative energy solutions, and bring an end to the war in Iraq.

Our campaign isn’t afraid to take the fight to Scott Garrett and expose his corruption. We recently launched several websites to highlight Garrett’s atrocious record-including his support for Big Oil, his refusal to acknowledge scientific evidence for global warming, and his opposition to a woman’s right to choose, even for victims of rape or incest.



Garrett Caused the Crash

Scott Garrett and the predatory lenders are a case study in Washington’s corrupt special interest culture. Garrett has accepted more than three quarters of a million dollars from the financial industries he is supposed to oversee in Washington, and put his taxpayer-funded office in the hands of a chief of staff who had lobbied for Countrywide and Washington Mutual.

Oilmen for Garrett

Scott Garrett has voted to subsidize Big Oil, for drilling off the New Jersey shore and in the federally protected areas of Alaska, and has taken $69,000 from the oil industry.

Global Warming – It’s a Real Threat

Scott Garrett refuses to accept the overwhelming body of scientific evidence showing that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming and that it is a real threat to our way of life. He voted to remove language from an appropriations bill acknowledging that greenhouse gases cause global warming and that global warming is a real threat.

Your Choice Not Scott’s

In a district where 70% of residents support reproductive choice, Scott Garrett opposes a woman’s right to choose in all instances, even for victims of rape or incest.

Garrett Shrubs

Career politician Scott Garrett gets a huge property tax break because he says his brother sells $700 worth of shrubs annually. Garrett takes up to $41,000 a year in tax breaks meant for real farmers, and failed to disclose this shrub farm as required by federal law.

In what promises to be a tough race, the amazing outpouring of netroots support for Dennis’ campaign cannot be underestimated. The Daily Kos community raised $20,000 dollars for our campaign in September –  and we here at Shulman for Congress can’t thank you enough. With a horrendous right wing opponent, an inspiring candidate, and your help, together we can elect a strong progressive leader to Congress this November.

In Ohio, the question is:

Are you better off than you were eight years ago?

Ohio is one of the great masterworks of gerrymandering, quietly piling up undue power for the GOP on a scale with few others.

If Ohio is a pinnacle of gerrymandering, OH-01 and OH-02 are the piece de la resistance, in that they take what ought to be an urban Democratic stronghold, and instead, by banking on lingering “good ole boy” voting trends among low income voters and by CAREFULLY slicing up Cinci and its burbs: Viólá!! They get control of BOTH OH-01 AND OH-02 when they should, at best, control one or the other.

As long as the GOP has an incumbent that is anything better than “still breathing” and not under federal indictment, both Districts should be walk overs.

But that’s where “Mean Jean” Schmidt enters –stage far, far right. The evangelical quasi-cons within the GOP thought that this was their district to elect a real wing-bat. And in 2004 in Ohio, we hit a real low point.

But then in 2006, the tide turned in Ohio. And Foul Mouth Evil Mean Jean, just SQUEEKED past Wulsin.

Unfortunately,this year, Wulsin faced a primary challenge from a candidate who was a wealthy and self funded recent GOP convert. He basically tried to “swiftboat” Wulsin with accusations against Vic that have been found to be baseless.

But for whatever reason, this rematch just doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Polls show absolutely conflicting numbers on the OH-02 race. Having lived through a recent high target House race, I think people might be burned out. On our side, we’re fired up about Obama, but if you’re not, the alternative they’re stuck with is an OLD GEEZER, complete with drug addicted trophy wife (who inherited a BUNDLE.)

And there are some demographics where that just doesn’t fly. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the Obama candidacy will boost the Cinci area AA vote. The big question is “By how much?” And what effect has more open and accessible voting had on low income voters spread across OH-01 and OH-02 and white ethnic groups? If there is an overall increase in AA and/or low income voters (especially young ones) are they connecting with Driehaus and/or Wulsin? What really sends the poll numbers swinging is statical changes in the definition of “likely voter.”

Translated: the ground game will be everything. There’s significant undecideds and lots of volatility.

I think that the deciding factor will be old fashioned door-to-door retail politics among the area’s poor neighborhoods, across all ethnic groups. There could be potentially a LOT of likely Obama voters if the door to door campaign is effective.

If there is even a modest drop off in lock step evangelical tin foil hat support for the GOP, then, combined with the stellar work of new Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, that could result in a 3-5 point swing in net voting JUST in changes within the pool of voters.

“O’Biden” could be just the ticket to have real coattails in some areas.

Palin was created to lock-in the very culturally conservative voters that were ALREADY likely to vote GOP. They may grouse during primary season, but come the general election, nothing will dissuade some of these people from voting GOP. But you have to contrast that with the Shrub’s ‘all time ever’ low poll numbers. There’s a friction between conservative voting tendencies vs. a guy who is pretty much REVILED throughout the country.

What’s an incumbent Congresscritter’s best campaign schtick? Why landing Air Force One, of course. But not this year. Oh, no. That’s the LAST thing that incumbent GOP Reps want this year is to see the Shrub show his face… unless of course, it’s an invitation only, thousand dollar a plate dinner.

If the fortunes of the GOP continue to slide toward oblivion (Think: Hoover) And if the Big Mo’ swings our way, convincing low income white male voters to go ahead and vote O’Bama, the GOP is sunk and we MIGHT flip anywhere from three to six seats in Ohio. In order: Boccieri, Kilroy, Driehaus, Wulsin or O’Niell, and Neuhardt.

Somehow, we need to distribute the video and audio of Ralph Stanley endorsing Obama to radio, TV stations and local blogs in Southern Ohio. If I were Driehaus, I would be working FEVERISHLY to get Ralph into the District to appear at a rally.

While everyone was focusing on the fate of the bailout plan this week, the federal government’s debt passed the $10 trillion mark with hardly anyone noticing.  Of course, the bailout plan insures that this debt will climb even higher as there is specific language in the bailout plan authorizing the federal government to raise the debt limit and borrow up to $840 billion to fund the bailout.

————————————————————————————————–

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 05 Oct 2008 at 12:45:21 PM GMT is:

$10,156,891,193,312.09

The estimated population of the United States is 304,852,050

so each citizen’s share of this debt is $33,317.19.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$3.08 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

————————————————————————————————–

The working people of the United States should be outraged that the members of Congress passed the bailout bill without addressing a way to fund the cost.  It is bordering on criminal that our elected leaders at the federal level continue to allow this debt to grow ignoring the impact it will have on the future security of our nation.  I have continued to stress as the main theme of my campaign that we must elect leaders who will make fiscal responsibility a top priority.  We must solve this problem now or we will pass it on to our children and grandchildren, leaving this country a weak shell of what it once was.

In a typical campaign year, voters would be looking for the candidates that are spreading the “Happy Days Are Here Again” message.  However, in 2008, unless you are living a severe state of denial, you have to realize that tough times are upon us and tough choices must be made.  I’ve heard my Republican opponent regularly state “I believe our best days are ahead of us.”   The hard facts are people are struggling with higher fuel prices, no health care coverage, higher food prices and higher local taxes because of the failed policies of the last 8 years and the neglect of the problems affecting the middle class.  While they’ve worked to reform welfare for individuals, our government is now passing bailout legislation that amounts to corporate welfare.

The real message voters need to hear is the hard truth.   This country is a mess and tough decisions must be made to turn the country around.   The turn around won’t be a quick and it won’t be easy.  But, if voters do their part and make the right choices on November 4th, we can start the process to bring our country back.  And, in bringing the country back, the emphasis must be on putting the needs of the working people above the desires of corporate America for profits.  

Review of the Past Week on the Campaign Trail:

This past week I was on the road doing interviews with several newspapers from within the 5th district and I also recorded a ½ hour interview that will be broadcast later in October on PCN.  There were also candidate forums this week in Clearfield and Bradford where I had the chance to discuss the issues with my opponents.  Finally, we finished the week with 2 great events.  On Friday in State College Justin Braz and Bill Van Saun arranged an event with some Penn State students so we could talk with them about how important this election is to young voters.   State Rep. Scott Conklin also spoke with the young voters.  

On Saturday we traveled to Clarion to participate in the Autumn Leaf Festival parade.  It was a great event with special guests Franco Harris and his wife Dana on hand representing the Obama campaign.  The people in Clarion were chanting “Franco, Franco” throughout the parade route and it was really encouraging to hear the cheers for the Democratic floats and the enthusiasm for Barack Obama.  Special thanks go out to Clarion County Democratic Chairman Bill Miller for pulling everything together, State Rep. Matt Ellenberger and the Clarion University Young Dems for their work building 2 great floats.

Franco Harris with Clarion University Young Dems

With State Rep Candidate Matt Ellenberger in front of Democratic Float

Bob Myers from Venango County getting autograph from Franco Harris

Talking with Franco Harris

Schedule for the Upcoming Week:

Tuesday — Cameron County Debate – 6:00PM

Wednesday — WJAC Interview – 9:00AM

Thursday — Debate at State College High School [TENTATIVE] – 10:00AM, PSU-DuBois Debate – 6:30PM

Friday — Lycoming County Grange Meet the Candidates Forum – 6:00PM, Dinner with the PSU Young Dems – 8:00PM

Saturday — Renovo Flaming Foliage Parage – 12:00PM, Venango County Democratic Dinner – 7:00PM

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

The Repubicans running in the Congressional and Senate races in Kentucky face a serious dilemma. Aside from Brett Guthrie every one them were around and voted for the very failed policies that have led to our economic debacle. No matter what their vote on the bailout, every Repubican in the Kentucky delegation holds blame for the failing economy.  

An excellent article from the Lexington Herald-Leader last week really pounded home the fact of how intagled with this current failure all the major Republican candidates are. An excerpt:

Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials hit Capitol Hill on Tuesday to sell the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, getting a mixed reception from lawmakers who argued about the role of government in business.

But there was little dissent in 1999, when Sen. Mitch McConnell and the rest of Kentucky’s congressional delegation voted to deregulate Wall Street banking and investments. They – and most other members of Congress – brushed aside concerns that deregulation could create massive financial institutions that would be “too big to fail,” requiring a government bailout if they started to stagger.

The Kentucky delegation went on to collect millions of dollars in combined campaign donations from the financial sector, while the banking, securities and insurance industries merged into the creature that is now collapsing and calling for government aid.

Now that is a serious Problem!! When every candidate you have running for re-election except the one you have running for an open seat have a record of such failure, it is distressing. I submit that every member of the Kentucky Republican delegation has already shown the lack of judgement and leadership that negates any “Experience” and shows that they are not fit to hold office representing Kentucky.

Of course, as always with this bunch, money always clouds good judgement:

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. $4.3 million

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky. $2.4 million

Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville $697,116

Rep. Ron Lewis, R-Cecilia $551,266

Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Somerset $406,765

Source: Center for Responsive Politics

http://www.kentucky.com/210/st…

Those are the donations to the Kentucky Republicans from the very sector they voted to deregulate so it could implode the Economy.

But it gets even worse in the case of Ed Whitfield, my Congressman. He voted no on the bailout in the House, but his reasons show that he still doesn’t realize what has crashed the economy, or how to fix it:

Whitfield, who represents the 1st District spanning much of western Kentucky, complained that the bailout plan puts unprecedented regulations on financial institutions and markets. He said some leading economists believe such heavy oversight might do more to hinder the economy than help it.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s…

It is amazing to me that for a sitting Congressman to have seen his vote for de-regulation crash our economy, and then submit MORE de-regulation as the solution is just mind-boggling.

This was not lost on Heather Ryan, who released this statement on Ed Whitfield’s vote on the Bailout Bill:

I find it interesting that Mr. Whitfield’s reason for opposing the compromised bail out legislation is because it imposes too many regulations on the banking industry.  Astonishingly, Exxon Eddie is one of the few who will admit that he still has a love affair with deregulation, the very reason the economy is in ruins now.  

Lest we not forget that when this bail out bill was but a mere $700 Billion Blank Check from George Bush on the backs of taxpayers, Mr. Whitfield was a gleeful supporter.  Only once consumer protections, ie. restrictions on how the massive amounts of money could be doled out to banks, were added did he suddenly oppose the bill.  

While I also oppose this bail out, I believe Mr. Whitfield’s motives are vial as he, yet again, sides with the rich special interests and ignores the middle class.  Perhaps someone can send a wake-up call to Exxon Eddie’s Florida estate soon to let him know that the Billionaire Boy’s Club isn’t very popular this election year.

Heather Ryan

Democratic Candidate

U.S. House of Representatives KY-01

Indeed!!! We ARE fed up with the Billionaire Boys Club that has bankrupted our state, and country.

We need to replace the constant De-regulate at any costs vote of Ed Whitfield, and replace it with a young, energetic voice of common sense. Ed Whitfield has not only failed, but he will continue to vote against any Progress for working Americans if given the chance.

All Kentucky Republicans running this year are hurting bad over this. Whitfield is especially vulnerable, if Heather can get her message out. She has called a press conference Wednesday morning at her headquarters at 4905 Clark’s River Rd. in Paducah, please help us by writing the Paducah Sun and asking them to report it here:

http://www.paducahsun.com/cont…

Please consider supporting Heather in this race, we are going to be fighting hard in the last month, including our first radio and T.V. spots, and we need your help!!:

Here is the link to the Kentucky ActBlue page, with many candidates who can all win:

http://www.actblue.com/directo…

Kentucky Republicans have a record. Help us expose it!!

As you may have noticed, things have been pretty busy here at the Swing State Project during the past several weeks. With all the news we’ve been discussing, it’s pretty easy to miss a poll while taking a break to blink. So here’s a roundup of all the House race polls released since the start of September. If I’ve missed something, let me know. Incumbents are in italics.

The original economic rescue package that went down to narrow defeat on Monday was notable for the strange coalition that formed. Rather than a clear left/right split, the opposition was an interesting grouping of vulnerable incumbents and representatives from districts geographically or economically far removed from Wall Street, from across the ideological spectrum.

Today’s second-try vote that passed the bailout 263 to 171 (with Dems splitting 172-63 and the GOP splitting 91-108) necessarily involved a lot of people flipping from nay to yea. As with the original vote, the flippers weren’t heavily concentrated at one point on the ideological spectrum, but scattered throughout. 33 Dems switched from nay to yea, as did 25 Republicans. (Only one representative, Jim McDermott, switched from yea to nay. And one GOP representative, Jerry Weller, switched to no vote to yea.)

If there was one place the switches came from, though, it was the Progressive Caucus, which was originally 35-32 in favor of the bailout. Today, 16 caucus members flipped to yea, making it 50-17 (accounting for McDermott going the other way). The Progressive Caucus shares many members with the Congressional Black Caucus, which also turned direction (reportedly because of heavy lobbying by Obama himself, based on his promises to revisit the issue in January), with 13 flippers, changing its numbers from 18-19 to 31-6. Likewise, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus also turned, with 5 flippers, going from 8-13 to 13-8.

As was predicted, there was little movement among the Blue Dogs, who reportedly weren’t happy with the additional pile of debt thrown in as a ‘sweetener.’ Only 5 Blue Dogs flipped, as they went from 31-22 to 36-17. Likewise, 8 New Dems flipped (some of whom are also Blue Dog members), going from 38-21 to 46-13.

On the Republican side, the ultra-right Republican Study Committee still remained the main bastion of resistance. Of the 205 25 GOPers who flipped, only 11 came from the RSC, as the RSC went from 26-81 to 37-70. On the other hand, the country-clubby Main Street Partnership moved to the most pro-bailout caucus in the whole House, with 7 flippers, taking it from 21-15 to 29-8 (including the addition of Weller).

More over the flip…

Few vulnerable representatives wound up changing their votes, as they (especially on the GOP side) continued to hold out in the face of perceived public opposition. On the Democratic side, only 3 vulnerable members flipped (Giffords, Mitchell, and Yarmuth, all Lean D). On the Republican side, 9 vulnerable members flipped (Knollenberg at Tossup, Kuhl and Schmidt at Lean R, and Boustany, Buchanan, Dent, Ros-Lehtinen, Shadegg, and Terry at Likely R).

(I say ‘perceived’ because a new Democracy Corps memo, based on polling of competitive GOP-held districts taken after the first bill’s failure (and subsequent market crash), suggests that the bailout isn’t as much of a political loser as the “100 to 1 calls against” anecdotes first suggested. This, of course, assumes that the specifics of the bill are properly explained, rather than simply rammed down everyone’s throats, as happened last week.)

By a 47 to 42 plurality, voters say they want their representative in Congress to support the 700 billion dollar plan to purchase troubled mortgage assets as modified by Congress to include limits on CEO pay and repay taxpayers in the long-term…. The winning Democratic message notes the need to turn the economy around and protect the middle class but mainly focuses on the improvements made by Congress to the Bush administration’s original bill, including limits on CEO compensation and protections to ensure taxpayers are paid back when the economy rebounds.

Two One retiree also flipped, remarkable since there were so few retirees voting nay in the first place: Ray LaHood and Jim Ramstad.

One other thing I would have expected was more representatives from what we’ll call ‘investor-class’ districts flipping from nay to yea (in the face of angry constituents upset about their 401(k)s rather than the cost of the bailout). However, they didn’t seem to flip at any greater rate than the rest of the House (although that may be because representatives from these districts were pretty heavily in favor of the package to begin with). Of districts where the 2007 median household income was over $65,000 (approximately the top 20% among districts), there were only 9 flippers: four from the Dems (Donna Edwards, Hirono, Tierney, and Woolsey), and five from the GOP (Biggert, Frelinghuysen, Gerlach, Knollenberg, and Ramstad).

In the wake of yesterday’s failed vote on the colossal Wall Street rescue plan, let’s take a look at how the members actually voted. This is one of the most confusing votes in recent memory, as there aren’t clear ideological fissures in the voting blocs. There’s something more fundamental going on here: self-preservation… and the question of whether each representative is more in fear of the constituents who keep him or her in office, or the financiers who keep him or her in office. (As often happens, Nate Silver already got there first, but I’m adding some additional details.)

As you’ve probably already seen, the bill failed 205-228, with Dems splitting 140-65, and the GOP splitting 95-133 (with one GOP non-voter and one vacancy). The votes, however, were pretty evenly distributed throughout the ideological spectrum.

Follow over the flip for much more:

For instance, the 10 most liberal Democrats according to Progressive Punch split 6-4. Aye: Baldwin, McGovern, Olver, Schakowsky, Danny Davis, and Markey. Nay: Donna Edwards, Linda Sanchez, Jesse Jackson Jr., and Payne.

The 10 least liberal Democrats according to Progressive Punch split 3-7. Aye: Marshall, Donnelly, and Ellsworth. Nay: Lampson, Childers, Barrow, Shuler, Hill, Taylor, and Altmire.

The 10 least conservative Republicans according to Progressive Punch split 5-5. Aye: Gilchrest, Shays, Kirk, Castle, and Ferguson. Nay: Chris Smith, Lo Biondo, Tim Johnson, Walter Jones, and Reichert.

Only the 10 most conservative Republicans showed much uniformity, splitting 1-9, with Boehner himself providing the only aye.

The same inconsistency applies if you break results down by caucus: for instance, the Progressive Caucus was split 35-32. The New Dems were split 38-21. The Blue Dogs were split 31-22. Unaffiliated Dems split 42-24. The Congressional Black Caucus was split 18-19; the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was split 8-13 (these were the only Democratic caucuses to give a majority of nays). The centrist Main Street Republicans split 21 ayes and 15 nays. Unaffiliated Republicans split 17-39. The greatest cohesion was in the ultra-conservative Republican Study Committee, which split 26-81 (and this becomes even more stark when you account for retiring members, and wannabe leadership like Putnam, Cantor, and Ryan).

So, there’s very little correlation between bailout vote and ideology (except at the right end of the spectrum). Where are the correlations? The most important factor is: safety. The Retiree Caucus, as a whole, voted 24 ayes and 10 nays. Among the Dem retirees, the vote was 4 ayes and 2 nays. Among the GOP retirees, the vote was 20 ayes and 7 nays.

This becomes even more pronounced when you discount retirees who are currently running for higher office. If you eliminate both Udalls, Hulshof, and Pearce, that’s four more ‘nays’ off the table. (Tom Allen voted aye, but at this point he unfortunately seems pretty much free to vote his conscience.) If you also pick off Ramstad, who’s supposedly a likely candidate for Minnesota governor in two years, that leaves only five retirees who apparently bucked leadership and voted ‘nay’ for ideological reasons: the corrupt John Doolittle, the corrupter Rick Renzi, the insane wannabe-prez Duncan Hunter, the primaried-out wingnut David Davis, and lone sane person Ray LaHood.

Contrast this with the Tossup Caucus (incumbents defined as Tossup by Swing State Project). These profiles in courage contributed 3 ayes and 7 nays. Of the Dems, Kanjorski voted aye, while Cazayoux and Lampson voted nay. (In doing so, Kanjorski may have dug his electoral hole even deeper. As a key member of the Financial Services committee, he couldn’t bail on this, but voting aye plays right into the hands of Barletta’s demagogic right-populist campaign, and his blue-collar district probably doesn’t contain a lot of six-digit 401(k)s.) On the GOP side, Shays (who lives in the one district where the constituents were probably 100 to 1 in favor of the bailout) and fellow affluent suburbanite Porter voted aye, while Feeney, Musgrave, Reichert, Walberg, and Young voted nay.

The Lean Democratic Caucus (all Dems) split 4 aye and 11 nay. Foster, Mahoney, Marshall, and McNerney voted ‘aye’ (note that all other than Marshall are from affluent suburban districts, and Marshall, a former bankruptcy law professor, has been unusually aggressive in explaining his position). With the exception of Mitchell and, to an extent, Shea-Porter, the ‘nay’ votes came from more downscale digs.

The Likely Democratic Caucus (also all Dems), on more comfortable terrain, split 5 ayes and 2 nays. Rodriguez and Walz were the nays, while rural Blue Dogs Arcuri and Space perhaps surprisingly joined the more suburban Dennis Moore and both Murphys.

The Lean Republican Caucus (all GOP) had probably the greatest uniformity of all, giving us only 1 aye and 12 nays. The one holdout: Mark Kirk, again voting his district (one of the nation’s wealthiest).

The Likely Republican Caucus (also all GOP) also huddled together in fear, voting 3 ayes and 14 nays. The three ayes were Frank Wolf (voting his wealthy district), Alabama’s Mike Rogers, and Mark Souder, who as usual seems to be either indifferent to his reelection or out to lunch.

One other interesting way to break this problem down is by region. Basically, the greater physical proximity you have to Wall Street (or to a lesser extent, another major metropolitan area), the likelier you were to vote for the bailout.

For example, representatives from the Northeast voted 60-32 in favor of the bill. This broke down to 49-19 for Democrats, and 11-13 for Republicans. For the most part, the Dems voting nay weren’t the most progressive northeasterners, but the ones furthest from the urban fast lane, ranging from the progressive (Welch, Hodes) to the conservative (Altmire, Carney).

In the Midwest, the overall breakdown was 41-57. Democrats broke 28-21, while Republicans broke 13-36. (And if you remove leadership, retirees, and affluent suburban districts from the equation, the GOP share of ayes drops down to almost zero.)

In the West, the overall breakdown was 44-54. Dems broke narrowly against it, 27-30, while the GOP broke 17-24. The near unanimity of western CHC members against it (only Blue Dogs Cardoza and Costa were ayes) provided the margin for nays among the Dems, while a number of ayes from rich-guy Republicans in California (Campbell, Dreier, Lungren, etc.) keep it closer among the GOP.

In the South, the overall breakdown was 59-86. Democrats broke in favor 36-25, and the GOP went against it 23-61. Interestingly, the majority of white southern Democrats were ayes (although some of the more vocally-populist Blue Dogs, like Childers and McIntyre, were nays); the Democratic nays in the south came mostly from the CBC (which contrasts sharply with the CBC members in the northeast, who were mostly ayes). The GOP ayes were again largely dependent on retirees, but also members from affluent suburbs (Bachus, Sessions).

So, while the simplest explanation is that voting ‘nay’ has the strongest correlation with being the most endangered and ‘aye’ has the strongest correlation with counting days to retirement, there’s something else going on, too. And it would tend to give some credence to the ‘populist uprising’ theory popular in some quarters of the blogosphere, that instead of a clear left/right fissure, we’re seeing something we haven’t seen much of before: a fissure that’s more rural plus urban core vs. suburban, blue-collar vs. knowledge economy, even, dare I say, proletarian vs. bourgeois. Representatives from rural areas from both parties, in concert with urban CBC and CHC representatives, somehow converged in great enough numbers to overcome united leadership plus suburban representatives of both parties.

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

Growing up liberal during the Reagan years taught me to go into elections expecting to be disappointed. Watching high-ranking Democrats in Congress fail to challenge the premise behind the dreadful and unnecessary proposed bailout of Wall Street, I share thereisnospoon’s concern that Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

But looking at the polling trends in the presidential race and in key Senate races, even a pessimist like me has to admit that a big Democratic wave seems quite possible.

Currently Democrats seem poised to pick up 12 to 18 seats in the House and five to six Senate seats. If we are on the verge of a wave, Democrats could win more than that, including a few districts where the Republican incumbent never saw it coming.

Waves can drag down well-funded incumbents with tremendous clout. Democratic losers in 1994 included House Speaker Tom Foley and my own 18-term Congressman Neal Smith.

This is a thread for discussing House districts and Senate seats that may seem likely Republican holds today, but which could shock us on November 4.  

I’ll get the ball rolling by telling you about Iowa’s two House districts currently held by Republicans.

In the fourth district (D+0), Becky Greenwald faces Tom Latham, who has remarkably little to show for his seven terms in Congress. I went over many reasons I think Greenwald can win this race here.

Latham understands that it will be a big Democratic year in Iowa, judging from his first television commercial (which glosses over his lockstep Republican voting record). David Kowalski noticed that Latham’s campaign website avoids mentioning that he is a Republican (see, for instance, this bio page). Aside from the odd newspaper clipping on his site that refers to him as R-Iowa, you would never be able to tell which party he belongs to.

IA-04 shows up as “likely Republican” on House rankings, in part because Latham sits on the House Appropriations Committee and in part because he has been re-elected by double-digit margins in the past. However, 2002 was the only time Latham faced a well-funded challenger, and that was a bad year to be a Democrat running for Congress. Greenwald had raised more by June 30 than our 2006 candidate against Latham raised during his whole campaign, and she’s fundraised aggressively since then. She is already up on television and recently got the endorsement of EMILY’s list.

Whatever pork Latham has brought back to his district is nothing compared to what Neal Smith brought to central Iowa during his 36 years in Congress, and that didn’t stop voters from giving Smith the boot in 1994.

Now let’s look at Iowa’s fifth district (R+8), where Rob Hubler is running against one of the most atrocious House Republicans, Steve King. I laid out my case for why Hubler can win this race at Bleeding Heartland, but here are the highlights.

Hubler is the first Democrat to run a real campaign against King, who does not have a big war chest and has not been campaigning actively. Although Republicans maintain a voter registration edge in IA-05, Democrats have made big gains since 2006, putting Hubler in position for an upset if he wins independents by a significant margin. King’s extreme views and tendency to make bigoted, embarrassing statements are a turn-off to moderates.

Also, an internal poll of the district for Hubler’s campaign showed the generic ballot for Congress virtually tied at 36 percent for the Democrat and 38 percent for the Republican.

Nearly three months ago, the editor of the Storm Lake Times newspaper wrote:

Republican despondence also may be a threat to incumbent Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron. Scoff if you will, but again recall that Harkin defeated incumbent Bill Scherle and Bedell knocked off incumbent Wiley Mayne in the post-Watergate landslide. The atmospherics may be similar this year.

Like I said at the top, upsets happen in wave elections. After winning in 1974, Tom Harkin represented most of the southwest Iowa counties now in IA-05 for five terms, until his election to the U.S. Senate in 1984. Berkley Bedell represented most of the northwest Iowa counties now in IA-05 for six terms, until he retired because of health problems caused by Lyme’s disease.

Despite Sarah Palin’s presence on the ballot, I do not believe Republicans in western Iowa are going to be fired up to turn out this November. During the past month five separate polls have shown Barack Obama above 50 percent in Iowa and leading John McCain by double digits. McCain has never campaigned much in Iowa, skipping the caucuses in 2000 as well as 2008. He’s against ethanol subsidies, which causes him to underperform in rural Iowa. Certainly McCain lacks the appeal George Bush had to conservatives here in the last two elections.

Harkin is cruising against a little-known Republican challenger for the U.S. Senate, and King is not giving his supporters any reason to believe he’s concerned about Hubler. Why should the western Iowa wingnuts put a lot of effort into getting their voters out?

Meanwhile, Obama’s campaign has at least half a dozen field offices in both IA-04 and IA-05 to drive up turnout among Democrats and other Democratic-leaning voters.

Clearly, Greenwald and Hubler go into the home stretch as underdogs. But who thought Dave Loebsack was going to beat Iowa Congressman Jim Leach two years ago? Democrats put tons of money and effort behind a strong challenger to Leach in 2002 and came up short. As a result, Loebsack got no help from the DCCC or outside interest groups in 2006, and just about everyone viewed IA-02 as “likely Republican.”

Carol Shea-Porter’s amazing victory in New Hampshire’s first district seemed just as improbable two years ago. She was massively outspent by the Republican incumbent and got no help from the DCCC. By the way, NH-01 is D+0 and mostly white, as is IA-04.

The partisan lean and demographic profile of IA-05 (mostly white and largely rural) is similar to KS-02 (R+7), where Nancy Boyda came from behind to beat a Republican incumbent in 2006. The DCCC did get involved in that race, but it didn’t appear to be a very likely pickup before the election.

Two weeks ago Stuart Rothenberg mocked the DCCC for putting “absurd races” (including the Hubler-King matchup) on its list of “Races to Watch” and putting long shots on the “Red to Blue” and “Emerging Races” list. James L. already took down Rothenberg in this great post, so I won’t pile on.

I will say, however, that I have put my money where my mouth is by giving as much as I can afford to Hubler and Greenwald.

Somewhere, somehow, some unheralded challengers will give House or Senate Republicans the surprise of their lives on November 4. I ask the Swing State Project community, who’s it gonna be?

With the crashing of the economy, and the up-coming taxpayer bailout of hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars, Americans and Kentuckians need to take a hard look at the root causes of the reversal of budget surpluses into TRILLIONS of dollars of national debt. In Kentucky, one need not look past the failed Republican Congressional delegation of the time, many of which are still serving and running for re-election.

Led by Mitch McConnell, this bunch of Corporate Profiteers never met a Corporate Welfare or de-regulation bill they would not vote for. One need only look back to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which overturned many of the protections of FDR’s New Deal to find the root of our current woes. While there, one will also find that Kentucky Republicans were unanimous in their support, and failure of leadership.

But there was little dissent in 1999, when Sen. Mitch McConnell and the rest of Kentucky’s congressional delegation voted to deregulate Wall Street banking and investments. They – and most other members of Congress – brushed aside concerns that deregulation could create massive financial institutions that would be “too big to fail,” requiring a government bailout if they started to stagger.

http://www.kentucky.com/210/st…

Of course as always with Kentucky Republicans, their votes garnered them huge dollars in campaign contributions from the very industries taxpayers must now bail out:

The Kentucky delegation went on to collect millions of dollars in combined campaign donations from the financial sector, while the banking, securities and insurance industries merged into the creature that is now collapsing and calling for government aid.

http://www.kentucky.com/210/st…

The numbers are staggering:

McConnell has been individually feted in New York City by major banks, including a 2005 luncheon given in his honor by UBS and Citigroup, which raised at least $60,000 for his campaign fund. Former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, who sponsored the Wall Street deregulation bill and then left Congress to become an investment banker at UBS, helped organize that event and donated $4,000 to McConnell.

Among others in the Kentucky delegation who voted for Wall Street deregulation in 1999, and who are still in Congress, Bunning got $2.4 million; Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville, got $697,116; Rep. Ron Lewis, R-Cecilia, got $551,266; and Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Somerset, got $406,765, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Totals are for donations from 1989 to 2008.

http://www.kentucky.com/210/st…

As you can see, Congressman Ed Whitfield was not only tied up in the failure by voting for this bill, but actually was rewarded with $700,000 worth of campaign contributions for his irresponsibility, and failed judgement.

His response would be laughable if it was a joke, and not a $700 billion or more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay off:

A Whitfield spokeswoman likewise noted that her boss was far from alone in supporting the 1999 law, and she said the congressman doubted whether deregulation – as opposed to greed – led to the current meltdown.

“It’s always easy to point fingers and try to place blame when any kind of crisis arises,” Whitfield wrote in a statement. “Addressing our current financial situation and turning our economy around is a difficult challenge we as a nation face and we in Congress must address.”

In the immortal words of mothers everywhere, if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you jump off of it too? That IS NOT leadership!! At Ryan for Kentucky, we submit that it was the greed of men like Whitfield, following the leader Mitch McConnell that led to the current meltdown. Their greed caused the de-regulation they profited from, and that went on to crash our economy.

Of course Exxon Eddie doesn’t want us to “point fingers” and “place blame” because he knows he showed horrible leadership and judgement, and profited handsomely to the tune of $700,000 to smear his opponents with. At Ryan for Kentucky, we submit once more that a Congressman who was so tied up with the terrible failure of 1999 has not the vision, judgement, courage, or leadership to “Address our current financial situation and turn our economy around”. This same failed leadership is what created this mess, led by all Kentucky Republicans in 1999, including Exxon Ed Whitfield.

In fact, Exxon Ed Whitfield and the whole Republican delegation lined up firmly behind now disgraced Senator Larry “Foottapper” Craig:

“The Financial Services Modernization Act overhauled the financial services industry by eliminating outdated Depression-era laws that have hampered the industry’s ability to increase its efficiency,” Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, wrote in a 1999 article on behalf of the Senate Republican caucus.

http://www.kentucky.com/210/st…

Is this the kind of leadership we need in Kentucky? Blindly lining up behind corrupt industries and leaders that crash our economy off a cliff? I submit that this debacle brings to light exactly why we need new leadership in Kentucky, including the First Congressional District:

This has left us with a huge opening against Exxon Ed Whitfield in this district. As you can see by his own statement, he knows he is intricately tied into this failure. All we need to do is let these voters know just how dirty his hands are.

Please consider supporting Heather Ryan in Kentucky’s First. With the resources to bring Exxon Eddie’s failed record in crashing the economy to these voters, she will win in a landslide. Voters of this district hate to see their tax dollars wasted, and will hold Exxon Eddie accountable. Please, contribute to expand our Congressional majority with real leadership here:

As of now, this race is on the map!!