Tag: Iraq

Over the past few weeks, our nation has been swept with the shocking revelation from former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan that the Bush White House engaged in conscious deception to lead our country to war with Iraq. After the thousands of American lives lost, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars appropriated, and five plus years spent in Iraq, this latest disclosure underscores the need for change in Washington.

When I first launched my campaign for Congress in December 2005, I made ending the war in Iraq a central part of my campaign platform. Even as political pundits warned that opposition to the war in Iraq would show “weakness” on the part of Democrats, I was outspoken in my opposition to the war. In my opinion, some things are too important for political games. And a war—this misguided war—is one of them.
 

As I met with voters across the 10^th district in 2006, I learned that the pundits were all wrong. People here didn’t think of the war in electoral terms, instead they thought of the human loss every time they opened the paper to see that another young Illinois soldier had died heroically in the line of duty. As the details of the march to war increasingly came to light, they began to oppose it for moral reasons.
 

Scott McClellan’s revelations may not be entirely new, but they are entirely shocking. Here is an insider in the Bush administration who acknowledges that not only our government’s intelligence was faulty, but—even worse—our government actively peddled propaganda to promulgate their flawed war agenda.
 

Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee released two bipartisan reports on pre-war intelligence that confirmed McClellan’s allegations. The reports found that the Bush administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq,” leading Intelligence Committee Chair Senator Jay Rockefeller to declare that the Administration had “led the nation into war under false pretenses.”
 

According to Congressional Quarterly, my opponent, Mark Kirk, was one of nine Congressional Republicans hand-picked to craft the language to go to war. He wasn’t just one out of 435 votes, not just one of the dozens of talking heads on cable news stations, but one of nine Congressman who helped lead us into this unnecessary war.
 

Since then, he has been one of President Bush’s most reliable allies in Congress. In the last year alone, he has voted 9 times against establishing a responsible timetable withdrawal, despite growing signs that our troops are in the crosshairs of an Iraq civil war. Even worse, The Politico recently identified him as a ringleader in the effort on the part of Republicans to vote “present” on war spending.
 

Despite his complicity in propagating this war, he went to the White House in May 2007 to complain to President Bush that the war was hurting his re-election chances and continues to refuse to even list the war in the issues section of his website.
 

Leadership is about standing up for what is right, asking the tough questions, and demanding accountability. Mark Kirk has failed the 10^th district and our nation on all three counts when it comes to the war in Iraq.

 

I’m running for Congress because I believe it’s time for a change in Washington. It’s time we restore honor, honesty, and accountability to Congress. I can’t think of any better place to start than by ending this war in Iraq.

 

Cross-posted at Daily Kos and Open Left.

Crossposted at Daily Kos and EENR Blog.  I didn’t see much discussion of this race, so thought this might be helpful for readers here.

Most of you probably remember me from all of the hard work I put in blogging about Rick Vilello, former candidate for the PA-05 nomination.  Well, during that time I also got very sick.  So sick that I was unable to go to work and they eventually had to let me go.  The good news is that my sickness was apparently an allergic reaction to something in the area, and now that I have left the area, I’m no longer sick.  I’m returning to the PA-06 and noticed that there has not been a single diary on our very progressive candidate down there.  I would like to rectify that situation.  Bear in mind that I do not work for the Bob Roggio campaign, although I do look forward to volunteering for it.

First off, I would like to include a link to Bob Roggio’s website.  Feel free to check in early and often.

Bob Roggio for Congress

So who is Bob Roggio?  Aside from being the next Congressman from the PA-06, he has had many roles.  He was a successful businessman, a member of the military, and a political activist.  He is also graduated from Penn State, and the story of this degree, in my opinion, speaks to his character more than anything else.  

When Bob was 21, his father suddenly passed away.  In order to help support his mother and the rest of his family, he dropped out of college to work full time.  In addition, he joined the Army Reserves.  During this time, Bob began working at Zenith Products Corporation.  Over a 30 year career, he became a vice-president and a principal owner, all without receiving his college degree.  At the end of his career, he and the rest of the owners of Zenith sold the company in 1994.  At this time, Bob could have just retired, but he didn’t.  First, he went back and got the degree he gave up on so early in his life.  Then, he expanded the dedication to public service that had been a part of his life all along.

In 2004, he was a critical part of the effort to deliver Philadelphia, and thus Pennsylvania, for John Kerry.  In 2006, he was called upon to help send Bob Casey to Washington.  And today, he is answering that call to public service once again by running against Jim Gerlach in the PA-06.

Many of you may be saying, “That’s all well and good, but where does he stand on the issues?”  I can honestly tell you that he is right on the issues as well.  He wants to bring our troops home and knows that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.  He wants to develop alternative energy sources and help us to become independent from foreign oil.  He believes that everyone deserves health care they can afford.  He believes in a woman’s right to choose.  He also believes that we need to spend money on our crumbling infrastructure so that we can have more and better jobs again.

So there we are.  This is Bob Roggio in a nutshell.  I’ll write more about him once I get back to the district full time.  I’m still recovering, so it might be a while.  Until then, please stop by Bob’s website.  And if you believe that the PA-06 deserves progressive leadership as much as I do, please visit this Act Blue page.  Thanks for stopping by!

You already know the basics: Travis Childers supports withdrawing our troops from Iraq in 12 to 18 months, a timeframe that every serious analyst acknowledges is safe and reasonable. Large majorities are in favor of withdrawal, so it’s especially heartening to see a Democrat in a red district embrace this stance. And it’s one of the many reasons we’re supporting him.

But a Childers win will reverberate far outside MS-01 when it comes to Iraq. Other potentially vulnerable Democrats in conservative areas will be able to look at this race and conclude that if Childers can succeed in an R+10 district running (at least in part) on Iraq withdrawal, they can, too.

This is crucial because Dems are planning to vote on withdrawal once again this year. I think we know Bush won’t budge, but DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen says nuts to that:

“There are some people who would say, ‘OK, why are you going through this exercise again, if the president is going to veto this?’ We have a responsibility to do everything we can to follow through on the changes we say we want made,” Van Hollen said. “I think it is a question of demonstrating where you stand, and what you will do, and continue to push to do, if you are elected in November.”

Van Hollen gets it – it’s about sending the right message. Childers can help send that message with his own vote, but just as importantly, he can also help make it a lot louder by giving fellow Democrats the courage to take the right stand on Iraq. Remember, only six Democrats hold seats as red or redder than MS-01. A Congressman Childers would offer a whole lot of Dems a whole lot of breathing room.

What’s more, I think Childers has figured out a devastatingly effective way to sell his position to voters:

He said he’s amazed more people on the campaign trail haven’t asked about a national debt of more than $9 trillion.

“We’re spending our money, folks, in Iraq. We need to be spending our money in America.

“We need to help young people get homes. We need to address the mortgage crisis.”

By linking withdrawal from Iraq with a populist appeal that addresses deep concerns about the economy, Childers knocks Republicans back on their heels with a one-two punch. This goes right at core GOP weaknesses, and I think it’s an approach that can play in many districts.

But all of this only matters, of course, if Childers gets elected – which is why we need to do everything we can to help him. Thanks to the generosity of the Swing State Project community, we’ve raised an impressive $1,300 so far. That puts us an even $1,000 away from original goal. But we really have very little time here. The election is only two weeks away, and money received by a campaign in the final week is more difficult to deploy strategically.

So I would really like to see us hit our target by Monday, May 5th. Can we add another $200 today? Let’s do it for Childers – and for our troops.

Update (James): Actblue seems to be have had a few server issues this morning, although things seem to be working fine now.  If you have trouble accessing our fundraising page, please try again a little bit later.

Here in Kentucky’s First District, during the failed do-nothing 109th Congress and well before, Exxon Ed Whitfield served as a loving rubber-stamp to every failed policy of Mitch McConnell and George W. Bush. In Iraq, these three managed to send our troops into the wrong country on the wrong mission. Worse than that, they showed the ultimate in disrespect to our troops by sending them there without proper training, planning, and most important for the welfare of our troops, equipment.  

Now it seems that Exxon Eddie is praising the failed efforts of himself, and his mentors Mitch McConnell and George W. Bush. From Ryan for Kentucky:

Paducah, KY – April 11, 2008 – Representative Ed Whitfield chose April 10th, 2008, just after General Petraeus was grilled by the Senate Armed Services Committee, as a convenient opportunity to remember Kentucky’s men and women in the military.  He expressed his disapproval of any withdrawal plan to bring our troops home from the ill-conceived war in Iraq by repeating the administration’s talking point that “gains brought on as a result of the surge can just as easily be lost should Congress fail to give our commanders and troops the authority and tools they need to complete their mission”.  Indeed, this Bush administration tag line is a strange “concern”, as our troops were never given the “tools necessary to complete their mission”.

Luckily for our troops, not everyone running for this office is too good to meet them personally and hear their concerns. I would like to share a story from our troops told to Heather on the campaign trail:

While on the campaign trail, I spoke with an Army Veteran who shared a story which exemplifies that our troops have been ill equipped from day one.  Last summer this Army Veteran and his friends stopped at a gas station in Cadiz, KY on his way home from the Fancy Farm Political Picnic.  There they met a woman and her husband, a 101st Airborne soldier from Ft. Campbell, KY. This soldier’s unit was preparing for their third deployment to Iraq while the soldier was leaving for his first tour.  The veteran wished him luck and out of genuine concern, asked him if he and his fellow soldiers had all the equipment they needed to fight.  The soldier laughed and said that that very morning his company had visited a civilian junkyard in order to scavenge donated scrap metal to weld to their Humvees.  The 101st Airborne, an aggressive front-line unit on their third deployment, did not have enough uparmored vehicles to help their troops survive IED attacks.  Remember, this was at a time when Congress was essentially giving the administration blank checks to prosecute the war.  This is just one instance of the lack of respect that Mr. Whitfield and the Bush administration have for the safety of our troops in combat.  These two entities are lock step in acknowledging armed service members when it is convenient to their agendas, but tend to forget their needs while in combat and after their service.

It is disgraceful that Whitfield, Bush, and McConnell are more than willing to stand in front of our troops for a photo-op while they deliver their empty talking points on Iraq, and respecting our troops. Unfortunately the truth they won’t admit is from day 1 this Administration, rubber-stamped by Whitfield and McConnell have disrespected our troops in every way possible. Whether or not you believe in the mission in Iraq, the fact of the matter is these men sent our troops into this country without the training, equipment and planning to do their jobs. While our troops have performed wonderfully, their leaders in Washington, including Whitfield and McConnell FAILED!!

Whitfield and McConnell were too busy being partisan hacks, and upholding every failed vision of the Bush Administration that they failed our troops in their most important solemn duty to them. They FAILED to provide any kind of oversight into the blank check they issued President Bush, and they FAILED in holding him accountable for his actions. They FAILED our troops and allowed our injured to come home and heal with cock-roaches in Walter Reed at the whim of the failed policies of this administration.

They were so busy with their partisan hackery, nothing, not even the welfare of our returning injured troops was more important than desperately attempting to validate the failed policies of President Bush, policies they had provided no oversight on, and ideed, policies they had rubber-stamped.

However, Whitfield’s blatant disregard and disrespect for our troops did not end there. It appears while praising the troops in Iraq, Exxon Eddie forgot some others:

In yet another gross act of disrespect, while praising the Ft. Campbell soldiers serving in Iraq, Whitfield completely ignored the 7,200 101stAirborne soldiers currently serving in Afghanistan.  Today, on the 101st day of 2008, the headquarters of the 101st Airborne Division took command of NATO’s Regional Command East sector of Afghanistan from the 82nd Airborne Division.  It is not surprising these brave soldiers slipped Whitfield’s mind.  They are fighting a forgotten enemy, Osama bin Laden, in a forgotten war.  They deserve our praise and support as well, and they deserve the leadership that will allow them to complete their mission and return home to Kentucky.

Now, this sort of spells out Whitfield’s view on this “War on Terror”. He stubbornly rubber-stamps partisan hackery, disrespecting our troops all along the way to desperately justify a failed policy. Then, he forgets the troops in Afganistan, who are actually trying to find and fight the entities that actually attacked us on 9-11. I have a message for Whitfield, McConnell and Bush. You may have forgotten Osama bin Laden and let him walk away scot-free, to make video tapes mocking our troops and their sacrifices, but Americans and Kentuckians surely haven’t.

The best way Americans can honor the sacrifice of our troops and veterans is to elect leaders that will respect them. Heather Ryan wants a sane policy in Iraq:

The War in Iraq:

As a veteran of the United States Navy, and an active member of the American Legion, my dedication to the men and women in uniform is unyielding.  The current service member is highly skilled, highly trained and highly ignored by this administration.  The American people

were duped into an ill-conceived war under false pretenses and the administration continues to over utilize a national guard system which was never intended to be used for sustained combat missions.  Congress must insist that an exit strategy be planned and implemented immediately.  By the Bush Administration’s own account, the nation will be forced to reinstate the draft system again should we continue to over-tax our National Guard with sustained combat.  I am not a supporter of reinstating the draft for as history clearly shows us, the draft is merely for those of us who are not wealthy enough to buy our way out of

active duty.  We must not allow this ill planned and ill executed war to continue to destroy the brave men and women in our armed forces while simultaneously placing our nation at a heightened risk with a limited national guard.

http://www.ryanforkentucky.com…

Better yet, Heather Ryan as a veteran believes we should respect ALL our district’s service men and women serving, and our veterans that have served:

So, to the Screaming Eagles of the 101st Division Airborne (Air Assault); to the 4th Brigade Combat Team, the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade, Division HQ, and the 101st Sustainment Brigade, currently serving in Afghanistan as part of Combined Joint Task Force 101. And to the Division’s 1st, 2nd and 3rd Brigade Combat Teams, currently serving in Iraq: We keep you in our hearts and thoughts, always.

Being a veteran after proudly serving her nation in the United States Navy, this issue is not a talking point or a photo-op to Heather, it is personal.

We need Heather Ryan in the Congress to fight not only for a sane policy in Iraq, but to fight for the benefits and respect our troops and veterans have earned. We need sane voices that will provide oversight into any future wars and the funding for them, instead of blindly following in a partisan trance. We need REAL leaders in Washington, not the failed policies of rubber-stamping partisan hackery.

We can win this race in Kentucky’s First!!! All we need are the resources to introduce the 63% of registered Democrats to the horrible record Exxon Ed Whitfield has amassed in their names. A record of FAILURE for our troops, veterans, and citizens. Please help us get the resources we need to get the word out on our great candidate, Heather Ryan, and our FAILED Congressman Exxon Ed Whitfield.

I have set a goal of raising $1500 for Heather online by May 20, and am very close to halfway there. Won’t you please chip in and help us get our message out? Your generous contribution will go to work immediately to expand our Congressional majority with an awesome grassroots Democrat who isn’t afraid to fight for us!! Please go here and help, no amount it too small:

http://www.actblue.com/page/am…

With your help Heather Ryan will be fighting alongside our next President for a sane policy in Iraq, and will provide much needed leadership in our Congress!!!

Cross posted from 21stCenturyDems.org.

As I reflect on the Take Back America 2008 conference, I’m thrilled 21st Century Democrats was a partner organization at the event.  We are proud to stand with other great groups like Campaign for America’s Future, Progressive Majority, ACORN, People for the American Way, the Center for Progressive Leadership, and many others who are working hard to change the direction of this country from the disastrous policies of George W. Bush.

For me, one of the highlights of the conference was the roll out of “A Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq” by Darcy Burner, Chellie Pingree and several other Congressional candidates. Darcy explained how a the Bush Administration’s top down approach to ending the war in Iraq has failed to stem the violence and that’s why she drafted the plan and organized fellow Congressional candidates to take a bottom’s up approach by putting forward a plan to end the war.

One of the most important points made during the rollout was the need to change the frame of the conversation about the war from whether the surge is working to what we should be doing to make our country safer.   To shift the conversation we need to get more people involved in this debate. We must talk to our neighbors, friends, family – and most importantly to the candidates where we live – and ask them to sign on to the responsible plan to end the war in Iraq.

We in the progressive community have asked for leadership on ending the war, and now have Darcy Burner, Chellie Pingree and several other candidates who have put themselves on the line by not only standing up against the war, but by providing a detailed plan of how the United States can bring our military engagement in Iraq to a responsible end and take steps to restore the checks and balances in our government to make sure we do not make the same mistake again in the future.

You can endorse the plan here. You can also show your support the candidates leading this effort by donating to Darcy Burner, Chellie Pingree or the slate of Congressional candidates who have signed onto the plan.

(From the diaries. What’s your take? – promoted by James L.)

As we all watched in amazement last year, the Blue Wave in 2006 was so strong Republicans almost lost House districts in Wyoming and Idaho – two of the most conservative districts in the country (only 10-20 districts gave Bush a higher percentage of the vote in 2000 or 2004).  Not one Democratic seat was lost.

It couldn’t get better than that, could it?

Could it?

As the latest Democracy Corps memo puts it, “If Americans have ever been angrier with the state of the country, we have not witnessed it…”  And that anger is directed mostly at Republicans. 

Now, the numbers – first up, the Master Indicator – the Generic Ballot question.  The graph show the net Democratic advantage:

Click to enlarge.

Join me on the flip for a fourteen ways to look at the 2008 House races – and, in some cases, the mood of the country in general. 

Cross-posted at Open Left and Daily Kos.

Note: If I haven’t linked to polling data directly, you can find it at pollingreport.com. Unless I forgot to put in the link. 

The Vote

1.  Generic Ballot (+)  (The plus sign means an improvement from 2006 for Democrats)
The generic ballot question really has done a great job predicting the actual nationwide vote in congressional elections recently, when the results of all polls are averaged together.  The actual Democratic advantage has ended up about 3-4 points less than what the polls say in the final week for the past four elections in the Bush era.  So far, despite increasing unhappiness with Congress, Democrats continue to have a stunning advantage on the generic ballot. 

2. Battleground Districts (+)
Democracy Corps has once again been busy polling the House races in key areas of the country.  The Mountain West favors Democrats slightly more than they did in 2006, but the amazing numbers are in the 35 most vulnerable Republican districts.  Their poll numbers are lousy.  No wonder so many have decided to retire (more on that later).  The 35 most vulnerable House Democrats, on the other hand, are not so vulnerable at all, polling well ahead of generic Republicans (55 to 37). 

Party preference in key districts. Click to enlarge.

The Parties and Approval

3.  Bush Approval (+)
Bush’s approval continues on a downward trajectory, overall, and he is making sure Republicans go down with him.  In 2006 Bush’s approval was related to Republicans’ performance in House elections; there’s no guarantee for 2008, but lower approval ratings for Bush are worse for Republicans than higher approval ratings.  Note the map below for districts is from July 2007, when Bush’s approval was a few points lower than today.  (An archive of old approval ratings maps is now available on dKosopedia.)

Bush’s approval by state (10/07) and district (7/07).  Click to enlarge.

4.  Party Approval (-)
The Republican brand is trashed.  Democrats have a net approval that is less than November 2006, but still positive, and not unusually low.  Republicans remain way, way in the negative.

Net favorability of Democrats and Republicans.  Click to enlarge.

5.  Congressional Approval (=)
Nobody likes Congress, we’ve heard, but people like Congressional Republicans a fair amount less than they like Congressional Democrats.  According to ABC/Washington Post polls, people are most likely to blame Bush and the Republicans for blocking Democrats from doing what the people elected them to do.  The difference between the parties’ approval is still about the same as last year.

Approval of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and who is to blame for Congress not getting things done.  Click to enlarge.

6.  Party ID (+)
Republicans and Democrats are at about the same levels as 2006 according to Rasmussen, but when you include Independents who lean towards Democrats, Pew shows the leftward shift continuing into this year.

Two measures of partisan identification.  Click to enlarge.

The Issues

7.  Party Trust (+)
The public continues to swing to the Democratic side of issues, part of a longer-term trend.  Republicans used to be the party of Fiscal Discipline, but last July, an NBC/WSJ poll showed Democrats have advantages on Reducing the Deficit (+25), Controlling Government Spending (+16), and Taxes (+9).  Well, so they’re left with God, Guns, and Gays, right?  No…. Rasmussen asked about Abortion (+7 average this year), and Newsweek about Guns (+2) and Same-Sex Marriage (+8).  And White Evangelical Christians are abandoning the party in droves – some to become Democrats, but mainly to become Independents or apolitical.  Then what about Terra, Terra, Terra, 9/11?  Still no…at best, Republicans come out even on questions about National Security and the so-called War on Terror.  On the issues voters claim are most important to them, Democrats have increased their advantage since 2006, and two issues that are among the most favorable for Democrats (health care and the economy) have gained prominence.  There is one sour note in this symphony: a decrease in the Democratic advantage when it comes to corruption and ethics in government.

Democratic advantage on key issues and importance of key issues in recent elections.  Click to enlarge.

8.  Iraq (+)
The public continues to think the war in Iraq simply isn’t worth it, to a greater extent than a year ago, although opinion was more pessimistic mid-year.  More and more people also think the number of troops should be decreased.

Opinion on whether Iraq is worth it and troop withdrawal.  Click to enlarge.

9.  The Economy (+)
As we saw above, the public trusts Democrats much more on the economy, and the economy is coming to the fore in terms of important issues this election season.  People think things aren’t very good and they’re getting worse, despite all the rosy numbers the Bush administration keeps putting out.  And when the Republicans try to talk up the economy, it really pisses people off (see Page 7.)  One reason, of course, is because Real People actually buy things like milk and gas, and the prices keep going up while wages are not.  Over Bush’s presidency, gas has been increasing at 13% per year (log plot here), while wages have been increasing at about 3% per year.  Up until about 2004, the public perception of the economy’s future seemed to be tied strongly to the stock market; after that, it appears gas prices are key.  For more and a much better analysis, see How to hide a recession.

Public perception on the current state of the economy, direction of the economy, milk and gas prices, and how gas and the Dow influence public opinion.  Click to enlarge.

10.  Health Care (+)
Health care availability and cost are both increasing problems, and surely related to perceptions of the economy.  The percentage of Americans without insurance has been rising steadily through the Bush presidency, and the number now stands at 47 million. Those who have health care plans through work have seen premiums almost double, while benefits dwindle and copays multiply.

Percent of Americans who are uninsured and premium prices.  Click to enlarge.

The Campaigning

11.  Fundraising (+)
Any way you slice it, Congressional Democrats and Democratic challengers are beating the pants of the Republicans in the money race.  The bad news is where a lot of this money is coming from.  The new members of Congress are raising a ton of cash, and Republican challengers are not.  Data for the first six months of 2007 and previous years are available from the FEC.

Total and median funds for incumbents, median funds for challengers, and number of challengers.  Click to enlarge.

12.  Recruitment (+)
As BENAWU has tirelessly documented, there are more districts with Democrats running now than at this time in 2005.  Part of this, of course, is that we started out with a few extra seats in the House filled with incumbents!  Nonetheless, Democrats are having a great recruitment season.

Number of districts with Democrats running, and district status as of mid-October.  Click to enlarge.

13.  Retirement (+)
Democrats are keeping their behinds tightly plastered to their seats and Republicans are fleeing for the exits, as covered by many of Steve Singiser’s diaries.  The Cook Political Report has tracked retirements over the past few cycles, and based on the numbers, it looks like we can expect another wave of Republican retirements in the new year, possible making it up to 30.  Democrats, on the other hand, have far fewer retirements or even potential retirements compared to the 2004 or 2006 cycles. 

Republican and Democratic retirements, and Republican and Democratic potential retirements.  Click to enlarge.

14.  Coattails (-)
In 2006, we had no national Democrat for Republicans to run against in House races.  In 2008, we will, and whoever it is will have high negatives after the right-wing slime machine is done with them. 

The good news is, right now, 74% believe that Clinton will be the nominee, and her most recent NBC/WSJ ‘very negative’ ratings were 26%.  No, really – this is good news, because it means the current excellent Generic Ballot numbers (which recently have had a good relationship with the actual vote) must therefore already have substantial negative coattails built in.  We still should assume the effect will increase.  Below are Kerry’s numbers from 2004 and the generic ballot numbers (note that approval of Democrats in general was also falling at the end of the campaign).

Kerry’s disapproval and the generic ballot, 2004.  Click to enlarge.

Summary:

Out of 14 factors, there are only two that are worse now compared to the 2006 cycle.  The generic ballot favors Democrats to an amazing extent.  This will be affected by local campaigns, of course, and here the Democrats are also excelling, with outstanding fundraising, recruiting, and retention.  Broader factors such as the economy and presidential approval ratings are also trending towards Democrats.  The public trusts Democrats more, and approves of Democrats more, even as they are unsatisfied with what Congress is doing.  As of now, Democrats are in an excellent position for the 2008 elections, despite the shortcomings of Democratic leaders over the past year. 

The Democratic field is cleared for State Senator John Unger (campaign site) to challenge Foleygate/Page Board scandal star and incumbent Wall Street Journal Republican Shelley Capito for West Virginia’s Second Congressional District seat.

The Democratic House leadership seems to be lining up behind Unger’s bid to unseat the increasingly vulnerable Capito, hopefully giving Unger vital early support in a district the Democratic leadership dreadfully under-invested in the 2006 cycle. Unger has even been honored as one of Rahm Emanuel’s “Six Pack”, one of only six candidates to whom he has donated so far in this cycle.

It is a very encouraging sign that Monday evening six of the leading House Democrats (including Hoyer, Emanuel, and Van Hollen) will host a big old fundraiser (info) for Unger.

In 2006 Democrats picked most of the low-hanging fruit in regaining the House majority. Seats in which we have a legitimate takeover opportunity are few and far between (and we have several seats we won in 2006 we are going to be hard-pressed to hold and need to offset).

John Unger’s campaign in 60-some percent Democratic registration WV-02 offers us a chance to pick the GOP’s pockets of a seat which traditionally belongs to us. Read on for the who, how and why.

OK, with the formality of condensing my verbose but incredibly persuasive arguments into few enough characters to fit into the Main Text, let me now indulge in my customary Faulknerian self-indulgence.

THE DISTRICT

First off, WV-02 is not a seat any Republican, even the daughter of beloved but convicted former Governor Arch Moore, should ever hold for long.

As noted, Democrats retain over 60 percent of voters by registration. This figure has dropped from the 2-to-1 edge held for generations. Two factors account for the GOP’s small gains over the years.

FACTOR ONE:
The Eastern Panhandle has grown remarkably quickly. And most of the new arrivals have been Republicans. The 2000 and, especially, the 2004 Bush campaigns did a fantastic job getting these newbies registered and out to vote. Capito has benefited enormously from this. In fact, without this influx of Republicans, she never would have won the seat in the first place. The Panhandle, particularly Berkeley County (the most populous and fastest growing of the Panhandle counties), provide Capito’s margin.

WHY UNGER WINS

John Unger’s State Senate District includes Berkeley County. And his electoral success there, despite his Democratic identity and generally progressive politics, is quite impressive.

In 2006, Unger simply pounded his GOP opponent in Republican-friendly Berkeley County, clearing 63 percent. In the rest of the district, Unger did even better: clearing 67 percent.

Unger can compete with Capito in her base region. Unless Capito can rack up big majorities in the Panhandle, the math just does not work for her in the rest of the district… especially as she continues to lose ground each election in the other major population center of WV02 (Kanawha County).

Capito’s vote percentage has fallen in each of the last three general elections (60% in 2002; 59% in 2004; 57 in 2006). Had anyone from outside the district itself invested in Mike Callaghan’s energetic but underfunded challenge in 2006 until the weekend before the election, Capito would have dropped well below the 55 percent figure which redflags vulnerable incumbents.

Unger is uniquely suited to chip away or (Lord willing and the DCCC actually writes some checks before election day) actually reverse Capito’s margin in the county she has to win big. He’s a proven vote-winner in the region key to unseating Capito.

FACTOR TWO

The erosion of Democratic support among values voters has converted a lot of previously reliable Democratic voters into tacit Republicans when it comes to federal elections. We simply have lost a lot of our old pro-labor base on the abortion issue. They can’t in good conscience vote their economic self-interest at the expense of their moral code. In a district in which a plurality of Democratic primary voters self-describe as pro-life (let alone the general electorate), the identification of the national Democratic party’s rigidly pro-choice stance has created for the Republicans the wedge they have used to keep Capito in office.

WHY UNGER WINS

Remember I said GENERALLY progressive politics?

John Unger is pro-life. And I don’t mean the heartless, calculating kind of pro-life that seems to fill the ranks of GOP office-seekers. Unger spent a year working for Mother Teresa (I kid u not.check pix as a college kid.

Just as an aside, is there any better way to annoy Christopher Hitchens than to back a guy who worked for Mother Teresa?

His position on abortion is a matter of deeply held faith rather than political calculation. And, when you check out his websites and see all his charitable and relief work, you will realize this is a man of compassion in action. His concern for future generations does not end at the moment of birth.

Contrast Unger’s position on abortion with Capito’s twists and turns over the years on this vital issue.

Capito spent her early career as a pro-choice Republican. When she decided to run for Congress, she began to morph into a pro-lifer. By the time she filled out her NPAT form for Project Vote Smart for the 2004 cycle she was checking off on opposing abortion except in the cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the woman, voted for the Global Gag Rule, and rated a 30 percent from NARAL.

Attempting to keep her feet in both camps, Capito spoke one way to choice groups and another to lifers… effectively blurring the public perception of her true position and allowing folks to see what they wanted to see.

However, Capito made a rather uncharacteristically overt and unambiguous move in the wake of the GOP losing control of the House: she joined the GOP House Pro-Choice PAC.

I can only spitball as to the logic behind her decision. Perhaps she decided in the wake of the loss of the House, the wind was blowing in the other direction (and in the word of Mayor Quimby, let it not be said that she did not also blow).

In any event, she has made an enormous strategic blunder. Abortion was the only thing holding her up among fundamentalist voters. At the very least this will suppress their turnout. More likely it will seriously erode her margin among values voters. Almost certainly it will hurt her at the polls in a district where pro-choice is not an edge in a Democratic primary… let alone a general election.

Now imagine the following scenario:

THE MANCHIN AND GIULIANI FACTORS

Governor Joe Manchin will be heading the ticket. And running as a pro-life candidate. With his favorability and job approval ratings in the 80s and facing only a sacrificial lamb GOP challenger, the only real question is if 70 percent is a ceiling or a floor for his vote. Manchin is going to have long coattails.

This is going to happen. It will boost Unger across the district. Republicans will be demoralized. Indies will trend heavily Democratic. And wayward Dems will come home even if just to jump on the winner’s bandwagon.

But imagine the scenario if Rudy Giuliani is on the GOP ticket. The voters of WV02 will have a choice between pro-life Democrats and a Republican federal ticket headed by a Planned Parenthood Contributor and seconded by someone who flipped to the other side on the pro-life majority.

The Republican edge on values issues evaporates and possibly reverses. Capito will be bleeding lifers all over the district while facing Unger popular in the region she has to rack up even bigger majorities than ever just to survive.

THE PANHANDLE DEPENDENCY:

The math does not add up to a majority for Capito without the Panhandle margin. Berkeley County alone accounted for 14.74 percent of her total 2004 vote (think that’s the best year to use as it was the last Presidential election year). Her dependence on huge winning margins in Berkeley has  grown and continues to grow over the course of her terms in office.

In the 2002 off-year cycle, Berkeley County accounted for 11.05 percent of her vote total. In 2006 the figure swelled to 13.29 percent. Extrapolating from this and the 2000 to 2004 change, just to stay even from her a natural erosion elsewhere, she would need to boost her Berkeley County numbers to 17 percent of her vote total.

Now what that means in performance on the ground is Capito would have to boost her percentage of the Berkeley County vote from 68.5 percent in 2004 (which was rung up with the massive Bush exurban GOTV effort deploying enormous resources there virtually unopposed) to 79 percent in 2008. She would have to raise her vote total from 21772 to 25105 in a county which only saw 31768 votes in a record-turnout year for the GOP.

Does anyone think she can do that against a guy who pulls 63 percent of the vote AGAINST the tide?

CONCLUSION: UNGER BEATS CAPITO

John Unger is uniquely suited to win this race.

Why do you think the DCCC recruited him to run? Why do you think West Virginia’s Congressional delegation took the unprecedented step of endorsing a candidate before the filing deadline?

John Unger is the only dog we got who can win this fight. Capito has left her flank open on social issues. Unger can exploit this. Capito has become too reliant on unsustainable margins from the Panhandle to hold her seat.

MONEYBALL

With the GOP having lost control, Capito can’t raise money like she did when she was in a position to reward her corporate benefactors. Despite moving back to the Finance Committee (usually a gold mine as financial services firms line up to throw money at its members) after the 2006 thumping, Capito’s fundraising is lagging (309K cash on hand in her last quarterly versus 472K at the same point in the last cycle).

And her peril is greater than it appears. With the majority, she could raise vast amounts quickly. With Democrats holding the majority, there is very little incentive for business to up the ante for Capito. She simply can’t raise two millon in the last months before Election Day 2008 now because it is no longer a prudent investment for big business. She is no longer positioned to give them a good return on the money invested.

My guess is she will max out around a million and a half dollars in 2008.

This sounds like a lot, but one has to consider what she had to spend to survive Mike Callaghan’s energetic but underfunded 2006 challenge to Capito.

WHY HER 57 PERCENT IN 2006 WAS AN UNDERPERFORMANCE

As I whined earlier, the Callaghan campaign got almost no institutional support from the national party apparatus and campaign committees. While Callaghan did a fantastic job raising 600K from a less than wealthy district (in comparison, the 2004 nominee raised less than 100K), the total is somewhat inflated as most of the money did not arrive until it was too late to do anything with it.

After a bruising three-way primary against two essentially unelectable opponents, Mike Callaghan’s campaign was essentially broke. With the noticeable lack of outside-the-state financial support, Callaghan had to take valuable time away from the stump in a district which has historically rewarded retail campaigning to focus on personally raising from small donors enough money to keep the offices open and the phones on.

Callaghan had no choice. There simply aren’t enough max or even high amount donors in WV02 to raise enormous sums of money without a lot of time-intensive effort by the candidate.

Meanwhile, Capito was raising money in increments of hundreds of thousands as leading Republicans willingly trekked to the state on her behalf. It is truly shameful that Capito was able to raise $2.44 million to add to the million she had salted  away from past campaigns with out breaking a sweat because her party gave her backing while Democrats left our nominee twisting alone in the wind.

And so we arrive at Labor Day 2006. Capito starts her media campaign. Fully aware that Callaghan does not have the funds to go on air, she unleashes a relentlessly upbeat series of ads in a massively heavy rotation. She doesn’t mention Bush. She doesn’t mention she’s a Republican. She’s just this nice lady you shouldn’t fire.

Then the Mark Foley scandal breaks, Capito is a member of the Page Board. She takes the tack that no one told her, conveniently ignoring her job was to provide oversight and her own responsibility to keep herself informed. She panics and goes negative. And I mean, she goes viciously, relentlessly, personally, and dishonestly negative against Mike Callaghan. She drops a million and a half dollars on negative ads (and at West Virginia rates, that is an enormous number of gross rating points). She keeps this up for weeks. Until the week before the election, West Virginia’s radio and TV is wall-to-wall Callaghan-bashing ads.

Meanwhile, Democratic nominee Mike Callaghan doesn’t have enough money to respond… unless he wants to miss a payroll for the campaign staff. It is to his credit that he chose to take the punches rather than short his people. He goes on the road and tries to fight back as best he can.

I said this district rewards retail ( and it does, as the last three flips have gone to the candidate who outworked on the ground the opponent who relied on an air war alone). West Virginians expect to know or at least meet the folks for whom they pull the lever. But no district rewards retail enough to overcome a $3,000,000 to none edge (especially when a radio spot costs twenty bucks a run).

And so it goes. Capito spends all the 2.44 million she raised for the 2006 cycle and the million or so she had stashed away for a future statewide run. Perhaps realizing her unceasing negativity is building to the point of backlash, in the last week and a half, Capito shifts to an (arguably…and weakly so) humorous TV spot where she’s saying she’s busy and scurries around in fast-motion silent movie style.

A late poll shows Callaghan closing. The national party throws in enough money for a small buy the weekend before the election. That is all Mike Callaghan had to fire back at three million bucks of mostly vicious, personal, and fallacious attacks over the course of three months.

Despite this utter lack of support for a promising young challenger, Callaghan actually knocked Capito’s percentage down a couple of points… nearly below the 55 percent vulnerability trigger.

With any backing at all, this would have been a much closer race. With substantial backing in the wake of the Foley scandal and Capito’s ridiculously incoherent rationalizations of her irresponsibility, Callaghan would have beaten Capito.

If this is an unreasonable conclusion, why did Capito spend it all? She’s been saving for a statewide for years. I see no other reason than she saw the possibility of a defeat which would derail her political future. Kudos to Mike Callaghan for making her spend it all (“make him spend it all, Arch” was the unofficial motto and slogan on the most popular bumper sticker of Capito’s father’s run against Jay Rockefeller, my fellow West Virginians of a certain age will recall).

WHY AM I RANTING THEN?

I am terrified we will let let another golden opportunity pass. In John Unger we have another viable candidate with a winnable race against a vulnerable incumbent in a Democratic leaning district in a swing state.

Face it, folks. The way Congressional districts are drawn these days, there are very few seats left where we have a reasonable chance of a Republican-to-Democrat flip. WV-02 is one of the best chances we have.

And we are going to need it.

We caught the Republicans napping in 2006. And Foleygate broke just at the right time to derail their counteroffensive. They were about to start waving the bloody shirt right when the Foley/Page Board scandal shifted the environment (remember we were falling fast in the generic preferences the three weeks before the Foley story broke).

The GOP is doing everything they can to force into retirement any of their folks who carries a whiff of scandal. They are cutting loose from President Bush.

Simply put, we can’t count on them making mistakes again they way they did in 2006.

And now we are playing defense. In politics, like a knife fight, it is always easier and more productive to attack than defend. We have to be smarter and tougher than we were in 2006 just to break even.

We simply can’t afford to pass up opportunities like the one John Unger (campaign site).

It is encouraging to see Members from the leadership showing early support for Unger and his race in WV-02. I truly hope this is one they shortlist for special attention.

And I beg anyone who reads this to contact the DCCC, their unions and professional associations, friends, neighbors, and anyone they bump into on the street to get involved.

Check out Unger’s bio and record. This is a good man with a great shot at winning a crucial seat.

The campaign e mail is info@ungerforcongress.org

The House Minority Leader John Boehner said in an interview with CNN on Wednesday that the blood shed in Iraq and the billions spent were a “small price.” A lot of bloggers pounded Boehner for this and rightfully so, though many missed an important angle: Boehner is the leader of his fellow 200 Republican members of the House of Representatives.

So on Thursday, I called on the Republican members of Nevada’s delegation (Jon Porter and Dean Heller) to answer one question: Do they think the death of Nevada’s fallen soldiers is a “small price to pay?”

I also asked members of the 50-State blog network to do the same. Thus far five other blogs have done so.

Left in Alabama has two posts up (here and here), Calitics, Minnesota Campaign Report and Blue Jersey are asking their Republican Congressmen as well, and Blue Mass Group wants an answer from the Republican candidate in Massachusetts 5th CD (which has a special election coming up) and also has a follow up.

We already have John McCain on record saying “he ought to retract it.” But McCain’s a Senator.

Where are the 200 men and women who elected John Boehner as their leader? Do they agree that the 3,780 American lives lost in Iraq are a small price?

If you haven’t already pressured your local representative on your blog, please join us and do so now. Also, bring this to the attention of your local media. Write an old fashioned letter to the editor. CNN has picked up the blogospehere’s reaction, so should your local media. Every Republican member of the House should have to answer if they agree with their leader.

Cross posted from My Silver State.

(From the diaries – promoted by Trent Thompson)

It is with great pleasure that I am able to announce the next Blue Majority endorsed candidate: Dan Maffei, from New York’s 25th Congressional District.

I am particularly excited about this endorsement for several reasons. First, I am from the district, and ever since Jim Walsh originally won the seat by a few hundred votes back when I was a freshman in high school, I have been itching for someone to defeat him. Second, Dan Maffei epitomizes one of my longest-running arguments about the need to run in every district. In 2004, no Democrat ran against Walsh, but in 2006 Dan came within 1% of defeating him. Third, having met Dan Maffei, I can honestly say that there is no member of Congress, or candidate for Congress, with whom I was more personally impressed and within whom I felt more personally comfortable (there are two or three who I feel roughly the same about). When we talked for over two hours over coffee and pizza, it felt like every idea we exchanged about strategy, policy, and life really clicked (like me, he went to local public schools, and hasn’t exactly made a fortune working in progressive politics). Dan is a serious, brilliant progressive, who absolutely means more and better Democrats. Please, contribute to Dan today.


Here is a video Dan put together to introduce himself and the district to the readers of Dailykos, MyDD, Open Left and Swing State Project a few days ago:

Now, some of you might ask something to the effect of “wait-he is running against Jim Walsh, the Republican who just said he was now opposed to the Iraq War? Isn’t that the sort of Republican behavior we should be encouraging, rather than immediately punishing with a major counter-endorsement?” If you are asking this question, I am glad you did, because even though the Maffei endorsement was decided upon several days before Walsh’s announcement, since that time it has revealed the true danger Democrats face in offering up weak, meaningless, “compromise” bills on Iraq. The NY-25 is the first case study of how Democratic weakness in the House on Iraq can allow Republican to potentially blur the difference between the two parties on Iraq, and thus wipe out virtually our entire advantage heading into the 2008 elections.


Here is the situation. Over the past nine months, Jim Walsh has said he was in favor of withdrawal, and then voted a timeline that would actually mandate withdrawal. Even in discussions with local media yesterday, and in calls I made to his staff, he refused to come out in favor of a timetable. Walsh has said that he is in favor of oversight on Iraq, and then voted against oversight. He said he was opposed to the escalation, and then refused to vote against the escalation. In May, he said he was opposed to a blank check for Bush on Iraq, and then voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq in the capitulation bill. Everything Walsh is saying now, he ha already said before. The key difference is not hat Walsh has changed his opinion, but that Democats in Congress are changing the legislation they are trying to pass through Congress.

Back in the spring, House Democrats forced votes on stiffer legislation that required real oversight and mandated withdrawal. It only received two votes form Republicans, because the many so-called moderate Republicans who are supposedly against Bush’s policy in Iraq are not willing to pass binding legislation opposing Bush’s policy in Iraq. They are, however, willing to pass meaningless legislation that suggests Bush should change course, but does not actually require him to do so. For example, Walsh is a co-sponsor of the Kirk-Lipinski bill that does not mandate any troop withdrawal whatsoever, but sets it as a “goal.” Compromise bills of this sort are in abundance nowadays, and I imagine Walsh will vote for all of them. However, if a bill comes up that actually mandates troops withdrawal, there is still no indication that he would vote for such a bill. Given everything he has said on the matter, I bet he won’t vote for mandated troop withdrawal.

This is the crux of the problem progressives face in the 2008 elections. Bad, Bush Dog Democrats are coming up with cover your ass legislation that won’t do anything to drawdown our military involvement in Iraq. Instead, the actual impact of these bills will be to allow Bush Dogs and endangered Republicans alike to appear as though they oppose Bush’s policies, and thus strengthen all of their hands for re-election. In short, weak Iraq legislation in Congress will help empower Bush Dogs, and help prevent progressives like Maffei from taking over Republican seats. This is the exact opposite of the more and better Democrats refrain that has been traveling around the blogosphere. Weak Iraq legislation will allow Republicans like Walsh to blur their differences on Iraq all over the country, and the result will be fewer, and worse Democrats.


In the first major case study of this kind for the 2008 elections, we can’t let this stand. Supporting Dan Maffei means opposing weak, toothless Iraq legislation in Congress. It means taking a stand against a self-defeating Democratic strategy that will not only do nothing to drawdown the Iraq war, but will also go a long way toward wiping out any chance of a second Democratic wave election. It means supporting more and better Democrats, instead of reverting to the pro-war, minority status Democratic Party of 2002-2003.


Contribute to Dan Maffei on Blue Majority. Fight Bush dogs and Republican blurring alike. This lean-Kerry district is going to be a very big race down the road, and a place where a true progressive like Maffei can hold a seat for a long time to come.

Just four Republican members of Congress had the courage late last week to vote for a bill requiring that U.S. troops stationed in Iraq be deployed by next April.  Mike McCaul was not among those showing such courage.  Instead, he voted to keep taxpayers’ sons and daughters mired in the escalating violence while the Baghdad government continues to enjoy its summer-long vacation.

For Central Texans who have been watching Mr. McCaul put his rubber stamp on the White House’s failed public policies for the past four years, his vote last week was no surprise.

Nor will his next move be – introducing a measure calling for the adoption of the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations from last year, now that those recommendations are no longer viable, if they ever were.

This isn’t leadership.  It’s followership.  And followership isn’t good enough.

When I went to Iraq in 2005, it wasn’t because I was a fan of President Bush or his war.  I’m not.  But I had spent the previous years working for small-d democracy from Kosovo to Afghanistan, and I thought I might contribute in some small way to help the Iraqi people consolidate their peace so that our own troops could come back home where they belong.

I worked on the elections of October and December that year – historic successes in the midst of the violence, failure, and disappointment that have marked the U.S. presence there.  In a rare collective act of hope and bravery, Sunni and Shiite alike went to the polls to choose a legitimate government in a free, fair, and open process, and the overwhelming public sentiment was to carry on with more elections in an effort to rebuild their nation.

Like millions around the world, I now realize that the Bush Administration and its congressional allies considered the elections little more than a photo op.  No wonder they didn’t take advantage of the momentum that had started.  The newly elected Iraqi government saw no reason to have more elections that could undermine its new power.  The Iraqi public, hungry to make its voice heard again, never got that chance.  The White House failed to push for more democratic change in Iraq.  And without pressure from either government, the elections ministry where I worked collapsed into a cycle of score-settling personal vendettas and political purges.

Press releases instead of progress.  Spin over substance.  Flashbulbs, declarations of mission accomplished, and endless requests for just a little more time to turn things around.  It’s not enough.

Along with thousands of brave soldiers and hundreds of other civilians from around the world, I tried to play a role in bringing positive change to Baghdad.  But it wasn’t enough. The elections I worked on were allowed to fade away, like sowing seeds on dust.  The best efforts of our troops, our team of international experts, and our good-hearted Iraqi friends didn’t end the war.  We simply installed a government bent on entrenching itself every bit as violently as Saddam Hussein had.

But I’m one of the lucky ones.  I’ve come back home.  And now I’m asking you to send me to Congress so that, together, we can make sure our brave troops come home soon, too.

http://www.dangrantf…