Tag: House

Today was the filing deadline in WI as well as the second day of New York’s four day filing period.  Wisconsin information is partial as some candidates have filed the paperwork but the state has not validated their signatures.

The big news is that each side in Wisconsin will field at least one candidate with no major party opposition.  For Republicans, James Sensenbrenner will face a primary challenger (Jim Burkee) and an Independent on the fall ballot (Robert Raymond) but no Democrat.  Gwen Moore (D, WI-4) will also face an Independent in the fall (Michael LaForest) but no Republican.  

Four Democrats appear to have qualified to oppose Paul Ryan in WI-1 (Paulette Garin, Mike Hebert, Marge Krupp, John Mogk).  They will meet in a September 9 primary.  Roger Kittelson has the signatures to oppose Tom Petri in WI-6 (unopposed in 2006).  He may (or may not) face Mark Wollom in a primary depending on the validation of signatures.

Signatures must also be validated for three Republicans seeking to make the ballot in Wisconsin.  Surprisingly, one of them is John Gard.  This may show a bit of weakness in his candidacy in WI-8.  The others are Peter Theron in WI-2 (vs. Tammy Baldwin) and Paul Stark in WI-3 (vs. Ron Kind).  Could there be another free ride?

In NY, two of the three Republican House incumbents who have actually expressed interest in retaining their seats have filed: Peter King and John McHugh.  It will be interesting to see if a candidate emerges in NY-13 and what the deal is in NY-25 and how many free rides come out of Democratic districts in the City.

The number of Republican House members who have not yet filed or announced their retirement is down to four in the entire country:  Steve Scalise (LA-1), Rodney Alexander (LA-5), Mike Castle (DE-At Large), and Randy Kuhl (NY-29).  At this point, I expect all to run.  

On the Democratic side, the biggest question mark as we wrap up filing remains whether we will find an opponent in NY-3 for Peter King.  This is an eminently winnable seat.  I think there may be a cattle call when King retires.  Only when will that be?

An interesting side note is the number of high profile primary challenges to Democratic state senators and assembly members.  Reading the Albany Project blog or the Albany Times-Union (local politics don’t seem as big in the NY City dailies), you’d think the state senate had already changed hands.  

Two weeks ago, I posted a diary on DailyKos, MyDD, Open Left, and the Swing State Project announcing the creation of the ActBlue page Protecting Our Asses.  The goals of this page are as follows:

1. To reinforce vulnerable and potentially vulnerable incumbent members of Congress with cash.

2. To reward good, progressive behavior from these incumbents.

3. To diminish or replace the need for these incumbents to seek fundraising dollars from less progressive sources such as corporate PACs and “moderate”/conservative groups.

4. To send the message that the Netroots will have your back if you have ours.

This page grows out of a couple of observations I’ve made.  The first is that the Netroots seems almost exclusively oppositional in its campaign focus.  The candidates supported the most tend to be either general election challengers to Republicans or primary challengers to disappointing Democrats.  Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with supporting Darcy Burner or Larry Kissell or Ned Lamont.  However, I would like to see Democrats retain seats as well.  A multi-term progressive is more able to act than a freshman progressive.  This is where goal number one comes in.

The second observation is that many candidates previous supported by the Netroots have been at various times disappointing.  Perhaps this is because such candidates feel they need to drift toward the center to be re-elected.  Maybe they feel that they can take the Netroots for granted.  Maybe even they feel abandoned by the Netroots and cast their lots with the DLC, etc.  This is where the other three goals come into play.

However, some incumbents stay true to their progressive ideals, despite district dynamics and potentially tough races.  Their courage and resolve should not cost them their jobs.  Such a thing would send a devasting message: Progressivism still equals defeat.

The first candidate added to Protecting Our Asses was Carol Shea-Porter.  Today, I’m announcing the addition of Steve Kagen.  Kagen is a freshman Democrat representing the Eight District of Wisconsin.  Kagen won by two points in 2006.  His race is currently rated as “Leans Democrat” by CQ, Cook, Sabato, and Rothenberg.  The PVI for this district is a troubling R+4.  So, there is a possibility that Kagen, should he be re-elected this year, will continue to face spirited challenges in the near future.

Despite his competitive race and Republican-leaning district, Kagen is a progressive, loyal Democrat.  Kagen enjoys a 93.27 rating from Progressive Punch, which includes perfect scores on the environment, housing, government checks on corporate power, and labor rights, plus either A’s or high B’s on aid to the less privileged, education and the arts, fair taxation, healthcare, human rights and civil liberties, war and peace, and equal justice.  Kagen has voted the right way on FISA, Iraq, the surge, S-CHIP, the minimum wage, and prescription drug price negotiations, just to name a few.

Please reward Steven Kagen (and Carol-Shea Porter) for their progressive stances.  We need to keep them in Congress.

http://www.actblue.com/page/pr…

The GOP is facing a deep hole. The McCain camp is in disarray, Mitch McConnell has admitted that there’s no way for the GOP to pick up seats in the Senate, and in the House… well… the fact that Tom Cole is up to Deathwatch No. 9 says it all.

With the Republicans finally realizing that rebuilding their permanent majority is going to be a long, multi-step process, it seems like they’re engaged in some soul-searching about where to start the demolition work. And today’s thought-bubble isn’t about rebranding their line of dog food, let alone deciding not to try to sell poisoned dog food in the first place. It’s about doing what the Republicans do best: manipulating the electoral process, in this case via gerrymandering. This means seizing control of the statehouses in 2010, which is something that we’ve already talked about at length at Swing State Project.

Sam Stein at HuffPo has the dirt.

“The 2010 elections are almost as important or equally important as the elections this year. After redistricting in 2011, the governors are going to have a huge influence in determining the political makeup of this country,” said Chris Schrimpf, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association. “We could feasibly see 25 to 30 congressional seats swing as the result of redistricting. And the state legislatures and governor could determine that swing. Can the National Republican Congressional Committee make a statement like that with a straight face? It would be harder for them.”

Now it may not be surprising to see the spokesperson for the Republican Governors Association doing the over-selling of the importance of the role of governors in the redistricting process; after all, the RGA has funds to raise, and they need a fresh new angle to do so in an environment where GOP donors are increasingly sitting on their wallets while looking for a sign of a pulse.

But he’s got a point: in many of the states where new House seats will be added or lost via the 2010 census, there’s also a 2010 governor’s race… California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada among the gainers, and Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania among the losers. (Plus one likely lost seat in a state with its gubernatorial race this year: Missouri, where luckily we’re on track to pick up the governor’s seat.)

Now, of course, the governor doesn’t actually draw the lines (that’s generally the legislature’s job, with disputes usually winding up in the courts rather than on the governor’s desk). But via veto power in some states, or redistricting commission appointment in other states, the governor has a huge role in the process.

And while it’s easy to be sanguine about many of these 2010 governor’s races (is there any Republican in California who can retain the governor’s seat post-Arnie?), don’t underestimate the Republicans’ ability to fight back with their favorite methods when backed against the wall:

“In the worst case scenario, 2010 would be the first, most important evidence that there is life in the Republican Party,” said Craig Shirley, a longtime Republican strategist. “The elections that year will be vitally important because it will put on stage the worst creative skills of ever politician… Members of Congress aren’t bright about handling Social Security, Medicare and the budget but they are astonishing bright at self-preservation… and drawing favorable [political] districts.”

“Use It or Lose It” legislation fails to reach two-thirds majority.

On June 26th in response to ongoing calls to allow oil drilling off the coast of the United States and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Democratic members of Congress offered “Use It or Lose It” legislation to mandate that oil companies either drill on federal land they have leased or relinquish the right to do so.  Currently, oil companies have dormant leases to over 68 million acres in the western United States and Alaska that are available for immediate drilling and exploration that, according to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) “contains over 100 billion barrels of oil”.

While the vote was 223 for and 195 against, it failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed for passage under shortcut parliamentary rules.  For the record, all Democratic members of the Pennsylvania delegation voted for “Use It or Lose It” while all Pennsylvania Republicans voted against with the exception of Rep. John Peterson who did not vote.

One would think with leaders such as President Bush, Senator John McCain and many Republican members of Congress calling for more domestic drilling that oil companies would be rushing to tap the 68 million acres they already have access to.  Also, with the overwhelming emphasis placed on the idea of increased domestic drilling, the “Use It or Lose It” bill would have received bipartisan unanimous approval.  

It appears the calls for increased drilling offshore and in ANWR are nothing more than an election year maneuver to keep the American people from realizing the failures of the Bush Administration and the former Republican controlled Congress to enact an energy policy.  While the Republicans had total control of the White House and both houses of Congress from 2001 to 2007 they did nothing to enact meaningful legislation that could have averted the oil crisis.  

Oil prices continue to climb and American citizens are feeling the pinch of higher gas prices.  Yet, 68 million acres with over 100 billion barrels of oil remain untapped.  When called upon to help the American people, 195 members of Congress failed to help the people they were elected to represent.  Voters need to remember this on November 4th when they can decide if they want more of the same or something better.

———————————————————–

Campaign Team Welcomes Jennifer Anderson

The McCracken for Congress campaign welcomes Jennifer Anderson of Kersey, Elk County to the campaign team.  Jennifer served as Elk County Director of Elections and Voter Registration for many years and is currently working for the Auditor General’s office under Jack Wagner.  Jennifer is going to handle coordinating the campaign in Elk County along with compiling voter registration data and past election results from throughout the 5th Congressional District.  Jennifer will be assigned the dual titles of Elk County Coordinator / Data and Information Director.  

———————————————————–

Upcoming Events for the Campaign:

The following fundraising events are scheduled:

Thursday July 17th – Clearfield

McCracken for Congress Dinner

5:30 to 7:30 PM – Lawrence Township Fire Company Social Hall – Mill Road Clearfield

Cost – $20 per person

Event catered by The Country Butcher – Door Prizes

Friday July 18th – Tioga County

McCracken for Congress Picnic

4-8 pm – Hills Creek State Park, Crabapple Pavilion

Cost – $10.00 per person, $18.00 per couple, $25.00 per Family

Hot Dogs, salads, desserts and water, iced tea and lemonade to be served.

RSVP – Ann Gazda

Sunday July 20th – Lock Haven – Clinton County

McCracken for Congress Dinner

3:30 to 5:30 PM – Sons of Italy Hall – Downtown Lock Haven

Cost – $20 per person.

After dinner, although not an official part of the campaign event, people are encouraged to take part in the concert held at the riverfront amphitheatre which will feature a performance from a band featuring classic rock. NOTE – bring lawn chairs in case the stands are filled.

Please contact mccrackenforcongress@verizon.net for additional details on the above events.

———————————————————–

Weekly Event Wrap Up: It was a busy week for parades with the 4th of July holiday.  Kelly, Amanda and I participated in the Osceola Mills parade in the morning on July 4th then it was on to Brockway where we met up with Jefferson County Commissioner Jeff Pisarcik and his family for the annual Brockway parade.  Saturday morning I traveled to Lewistown to have breakfast with the Mifflin County Democratic Women’s Club and later in the day it was on to Bellefonte where Kelly, Amanda and I joined up with Tim Wilson, Jayson Harpster and a pickup full of Obama supporters for the Bellefonte parade.  With these 3 long parades, it is estimated that Amanda and I tossed approximately 150 pounds of candy over the 3 day weekend.

Campaign Events for the upcoming week:  This week I’ll be attending Democratic meetings in DuBois on Monday evening and Potter County on Tuesday evening.  Saturday will be busy with possible visits to Clarion County for the Tri-County Farm Bureau Town and Country Day and to Philipsburg for the Heritage Days Parade.  

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

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…

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!!!!

The Republicans in the House have a clever acronym for their analogue to the DCCC’s Red to Blue program: ROMP (Regain Our Majority Program). I suspect the long line of Republican recruits challenging Democratic incumbents and holding out their tin cups to the NRCC are looking at the newest list of ROMP recipients and saying “Man, that is flagrant false advertising!”

Here’s the newest list of fresh-faced, eager young recruits, ready to bring their grassroots-powered outsider energy to picking off do-nothing Democrats standing in the way of conservative progress:

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, WV-02

Rep. Phil English, PA-03

Chris Hackett, PA-10

Rep. Tom Feeney, FL-24

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, FL-21

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, FL-25

Steve Stivers, OH-16

Pete Olson, TX-22

Add that on top of the previous list of ROMP recipients from April:

Rep. Michelle Bachmann, MN-06

Rep. Vito Fossella, NY-13

Rep. Sam Graves, MO-06

Rep. Ric Keller, FL-08

Anne Northup, KY-03

Erik Paulsen, MN-03

Rep. Bill Sali, ID-01

Rep. Jean Schmidt, OH-02

Rep. Tim Walberg, MI-07

Darren White, NM-01

So, um… let’s get this straight. The Republican route to regaining the majority is by spending a lot of money to defend a 14-year incumbent against a woman who runs an arboretum?

The newest ROMP installment, out of 8 recipients, features 2 seats where the Republicans are trying to defeat a Democrat, plus one where they’re trying to hold an open seat. Add in the previous ROMP installment, which, out of 10 recipients, targets one Democratic seat for pick-up (plus 2 open seats for holds). So, if they add 1.5 more new Democratic targets every three months until the election, they’ll have a full slate of ROMP recipients for picking up those 19 seats they need in order to Regain Their Majority in… uh, let’s break out the calculator here… early 2011?

Cross-posted at Blue Jersey

Chris Smith voted to double the cost of prescription drug co-pays for military families. In 2006, the Bush administration doubled the cost of prescription co-pays for military families under Tri-Care health coverage. Democrats introduced legislation restoring the original co-pays of $3 for generic drugs and $9 for brand name drugs, but Chris Smith and other Republicans voted to block the legislation. [HR 5122, vote #139, 5/11/06; Leadership document, “Democrats Are Fighting for Military Families,” 5/11/06]

According to research, many military families face difficult financial challenges. Over 20% of military families report having received WIC aid or food stamps from the government. While a few dollars saved might not mean much to Chris Smith, who has voted to raise his own salary by $32,600 since 1999, every dollar helps our military families afford basic necessities.[Washington Post/Kaiser Foundation Military Families Survey March 2004 CRS: Salaries of Members of Congress Updated January 8, 2008; 1999 Vote #300; 2000 Vote #419; 2001 House Vote #267; 2002 House Vote #322; 2003 House Vote #463; 2004 House Vote #451; 2005 House Vote #327; 2006 vote #261; 2007 Vote #580]

“Before veterans are veterans, they are servicemen and servicewomen. Military families deserve to know why Chris Smith voted to double their prescription drug co-pays,” said Josh Zeitz campaign manager Steve D’Amico.

This vote is another example of why I’m working to elect Josh Zeitz and bring Chris Smith back to New Jersey. I know you know want to turn the seat blue, so if you can volunteer, please email me at: ian_at_joshzeitz_dot_com. To learn more about Josh and his stance on the issues, please visit his website.

TheUnknown285 proposes ( http://www.swingstateproject.c… ) that Carol Shea-Porter, NH 1, is a good investment and I want to second that.  Her campaign is going to be real hand-to-hand combat – the R’s and their 527s see her as vulnerable and have targeted her with ads that have been running for months already – but she is well armed.

First, she just tells the truth and people can see that.  She inspires confidence by refusing to cop to the easy political summary of an issue.  She sees it as her job to educate, unconstrained by conventional wisdom.  She seems to find the underlying realities of an issue and communicate that in a way that people understand.  An example is her explanation of her FISA vote in today’s Portsmouth (NH) Herald: http://www.seacoastonline.com/… .  

We’ll see in November how well she’s bringing the whole district along, but anecdotal signs are good. Regular folks who don’t necessarily follow politics all that closely say, “Oh, yeah, I’m going to vote for her.  She’s really working hard down there.” Or “I’m proud to have her representing me.”  What they really end up saying is that, whether or not they agree on everything, they can see how serious and honest she is and they buy into that.  All this is independent of their party affiliation.

Second, she’s a professional legislator and politician, in the best sense of the word.  She actually attends her committee hearings, works her issues, shephards legislation through the process.  Then, in Unity, NH last Friday, she reached rhythmic rhetorical heights before 4,000 people and a wall of media, improvising and creating real excitement.  A few hours later, she converted a room of 40 people by telling stories from the front lines of committee work.

Finally, although she won last time on a viral campaign and no budget, she looks to be fully committed to both on-the-ground organizing and serious fundraising in this campaign.  Recently, she cold-called a business person who follows the issues in a middle-of-the-road sort of way but has never been politically active.  After a half hour discussion of issues, he proposed hosting a house party that, two weeks later, raised serious money.

So there’s nothing inevitable about the outcome of this race.  National Republicans are going to invest in winning back this seat.  We need to do the same.  Carol’s had good fundraising results so far, but will need major support from every direction before it’s over.

I’m very disenchanted right now.  Somehow, we’re still in Iraq, don’t have universal healthcare, don’t have stem cell funding.  We’re seeing pushes for offshore drilling.  And this week, our party assumed the position when it comes to FISA.

What was even more infuriating is to see candidates that many candidates heavily supported the grassroots and the Netroots (both in the more limited sense that includes the page DailyKos, Swing State Project, etc collaborate on. and the broader sense to include all of the liberal websites such as Democracy for America and MoveON).  It’s both heartbreaking and infuriating to see people like Patrick Murphy, Kirsten Gillibrand, Nancy Boyda, Jim Webb, and Jerry McNerney, people we thought would be the vanguard of the coming progressive era, vote they way they do, with the likes of Murphy and Gillibrand joining the Blue Dogs!

I learned about reductionism in research methods.  This is the flawed logic of looking for THE cause of something instead of looking for all causes.  So, maybe we were had.  Maybe (probably?) the Netroots endorsement lists and frontpage diaries need to be more selective.  Maybe (hopefully) these are all still pretty progressive people who are just getting bad advice from their advisors and fellow Democratic caucusmembers.

But I think another cause is worth noting.  Because many are freshman, many won narrowly, and many represent competitive districts, many of these people are in close races.  That goes for the likes of Boyda, McNerney (although that one is looking better), Altmire, etc.  And considering that money, unfortunately, plays a big role in elections, these vulnerable incumbents need money to remain competitive and be re-elected.

This is where, I think the Netroots fail. I do not see one incumbent on the Orange to Blue list.  There wasn’t a single one on the Netroots List from the last election.  Democracy for America lacks incumbent members of Congress on their page.

I know many say that our incumbents are doing brisk fundraising.  Yes, but at what cost?  Let’s look at Patrick Murphy.  I see $11,750 from Comcast Corp and $10,000 from Credit Union National Assn, for example.  

So, I’m starting a fundraising page called “Protecting Our Asses.”  This page is designed to provide positive reinforcement for current, vulnerable Democratic legislators.  You vote the right way, you get support.  You throw you lot with the Blue Dogs are the corporatists, then let them bail you out.  

This will hopefully send a message that the Netroots will have watch your back if your watch ours, provide positive reinforcement for good behavior, give much need campaign funds to good but vulnerable Democrats, and dilute or possibly even replace contributions from less than progressive sources.

The first addition to the list is Carol Shea-Porter.  Shea-Porter won in what is, in my opinion, the second-most surprising, positive (because there are some negative surprises, ie. Christine Jennings) race in the country, second only to Nancy Boyda’s defeat of Jim Ryun.  Despite representing a light red district and facing a spirited challenge, Shea-Porter has been a progressive through and through.  Shea-Porter had a 98% Party Unity Score in 2007. She has a a 95.7% Progressive Punch score, making her the 29th most progressive member.  She gets A’s (above 90) in all but two categories and B’s in all.  She has perfect scores on the environment, corporate subsidies, government checks on corporate power, and labor rights.

Carol Shea-Porter voted the right way on stem cell research, Iraq funding, the Iraq escalation, timelines for Iraq, the minimum wage, prescription drug prices, and FISA.  Let’s reward her for taking the high road.

http://www.actblue.com/page/pr…