Tag: Health Care

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

————————————————————————————————–

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

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

$10,156,891,193,312.09

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

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

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$3.08 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

————————————————————————————————–

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

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

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

Review of the Past Week on the Campaign Trail:

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

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

Franco Harris with Clarion University Young Dems

With State Rep Candidate Matt Ellenberger in front of Democratic Float

Bob Myers from Venango County getting autograph from Franco Harris

Talking with Franco Harris

Schedule for the Upcoming Week:

Tuesday — Cameron County Debate – 6:00PM

Wednesday — WJAC Interview – 9:00AM

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

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

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

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

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

Mark B. McCracken

Your Candidate For Congress

————————————————————————————————–

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

Mark McCracken for Congress

ActBlue page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schedule for the Upcoming Week:

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

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

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

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

Friday — Event in State College with PSU Students

Saturday — Clarion Leaf Festival and Parade

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

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

Mark B. McCracken

Your Candidate For Congress

————————————————————————————————–

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

Mark McCracken for Congress

ActBlue page

cross-posted at Bleeding Heartland

If you were a loyal Republican foot-soldier seeking re-election in a state that’s trending Democratic, where the Democratic presidential candidate has a commanding lead over your party’s nominee as well as a much bigger ground game in your own Congressional district, you might want to reinvent yourself.

Late last week, Tom Latham did just that in his first television commercial of this election cycle. You can view the ad at Latham’s campaign website. It focuses on a bill Latham introduced to address the nursing shortage in Iowa.

Judging from the content of this ad, Latham recognizes that 2008 will be a big Democratic year in Iowa.

Neither the commercial nor the campaign’s accompanying press release mention that Latham is a Republican. Instead, they note that he authored “bipartisan legislation” in a specific area.

Polls typically give Democrats an edge on handling health care and education. Even someone watching this ad with the sound turned down can see that Latham is portraying himself as sensitive to these issues. Here are the words that flash on the screen during the commercial:

Nursing Shortage (footage of ambulance with siren, nurse alongside patient on stretcher)

Iowa Faces Severe Nursing Shortage (hospital scenes)

Bipartisan Legislation (Latham sitting and writing)

Help Nurses Repay Education Loans (nurse with patients)

Tom Latham (as he talks with one of the nurses quoted in the ad)

In addition, Latham’s ad features three testimonials from nurses. One of them is “nurse practitioner Linda Upmeyer,” wearing a white nurse’s coat with a stethoscope around her neck, who says, “Tom has done a wonderful job of hearing the need and translating that into legislation.” Conveniently, the ad fails to identify Upmeyer as the Republican state representative from Iowa House district 12.  

The press release announcing Latham’s television ad is even more blatant about running away from the Republican label. It describes Latham as “bipartisan” twice and notes that he “teamed up with Wisconsin Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin to introduce this bill in the United States Congress.”

I never thought I’d see the day when the conservative Republican Latham would brag about working with Baldwin, who is openly gay and has one of the most progressive voting records in Congress. Latham’s voting record as a whole could hardly be more different from Baldwin’s.

Not only does Latham’s ad avoid mentioning his party affiliation, it seems designed to address the gender gap by having a female voice-over and three women nurses do almost all of the talking. The only male voice you hear is Latham’s at the very end, saying “I’m Tom Latham, and I approved this message.”

Democratic candidates tend to do better among women, and the disparity may be even greater this year in IA-04. Becky Greenwald is giving Iowans the chance to send a woman to Congress for the first time.

One clever feature of this ad is that it implies Latham has delivered for Iowa’s nurses, without mentioning whether the bill he authored has any chance of becoming law. The wording of the press release suggests that the bill has not advanced:

Latham teamed up with Iowa nursing and health care professionals through numerous roundtables around the state to listen to their unique perspective and input on what was needed. He then wrote legislation and teamed up with Wisconsin Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin to introduce the bill in the United States Congress.

You would think that someone who spent 14 years in Congress (12 of them as part of a Republican majority) would be able to point to some concrete achievement on behalf of nurses or in the area of health care.

Instead, the Latham campaign talks about his “trusted leadership” on the nursing shortage, when he has nothing to show for this “leadership” other than writing one bill that went nowhere.

By the way, Latham signaled last week that he is not willing to defend the totality of his record in a public forum. He declined an invitation from KCCI-TV and the Des Moines Register to debate Greenwald during prime-time television. Latham also refused invitations to debate in August.

In a debate, Latham might have to explain why he talks about helping nurses repay their student loans in his commercial, when he voted for enormous cuts to federal student loan programs in 2005 and 2006.

As a challenger, Greenwald has lower name recognition than Latham, and understandably used her first television ad to introduce herself to voters. With Latham avoiding debates and using skillful image construction to conceal his ineffectiveness, I believe Greenwald will need to run some television ads that spell out why she is seeking to replace “Iowa’s low-yield Congressman.”

UPDATE: The Greenwald campaign responded to this ad with a statement exposing Latham’s real record on health care.  

Date Set for Fourth Boccieri-Schuring Debate

Schuring, Canton Chamber of Commerce Reject Additional Forums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee and our allies at the Leadership Conference on Guaranteed Healthcare are debuting a new feature: The Healthcare Heroes Caucus, which will honor candidates who are running on a platform of supporting HR 676, John Conyers’ bill for an expanded and improved Medicare for All.

We will highlight the stories of these healthcare heroes, and work to get them the attention and support they need.  It’s not always easy to run in the face of insurance companies and a sold-out political culture…but it is smart.  Poll after poll shows the American people are open to an expanded and improved Medicare for All, and are desperate for the kind of solutions that will improve care while saving money.

Debbie Cook is our first Healthcare Hero candidate and she’s a great one.  She is a committed progressive running in CA-46, an Orange County California district that is ready to toss out libertarian radical Dana Rohrbacher and elect a real leader.

First of all, true progressives like Debbie need your support. Go show your appreciation for her healthcare heroism on her ActBlue page.

Now that’s taken care of, please read Donna Smith’s profile of Debbie from the Guaranteed Healthcare Blog.  Fun excerpt:

But during her Congressional campaign, she hears over and over again from citizens struggling with healthcare costs that are too high or the lack of any health insurance coverage or even those who are forced into bankruptcy.  “I think other countries might look at us as a Third World country when it comes to what happens to so many Americans faced with healthcare expenses they cannot afford.” She went to say that huge insurance industry profits often come before getting patients the care they may need.

It’s no wonder Debbie hears about healthcare issue out on the campaign trail.  California ranks number one in the nation with the number of people uninsured well over 6.5 million and the number of citizens struggling with “underinsurance” rated nearly as high.

Efforts by State Senator Sheila Kuehl to pass SB840, state single payer legislation, have been thwarted by the governor’s pen, not a lack of political support from citizens and healthcare professionals who know just how bad things are for so many Californians.

“Healthcare decisions need to be made by patients and their doctors, not by insurance companies,” Debbie said when asked how much influence insurance companies should have on patient care.

“Healthcare professionals in growing numbers are supporting single payer health care where we use a system similar to Medicare to pay bills, and focus our efforts on improving the efficiency of care, especially treatment of chronic diseases.,” Debbie noted when she reflected on RNs fighting for single payer legislation in California and nationally.

cross-posted at Blue Hampshire

On Sunday I attended a Vets BBQ at the Sweeney VFW post in Manchester, NH to support the re-election of Carol-Shea Porter (D-NH) to the US Congress from the first district. An overflow crowd, they even ran out of hamburgers, greeted CSP and her guest in NH that day, Congressman Chet Edwards (D-TX) from the 17th district which includes the village of Crawford which is currently missing the idiot that is currently and woefully living in the White House, most woefully.

The two have become fast friends in DC as Congressman Edwards, Carol’s new BFF down there, is the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and VA (MILCON/VA). He came to NH to see what’s up first hand. He was impressed with the turnout at the event, so was I.

Carol’s remarks were brief and focused on the outrage that NH is currently the only state in America that does not have a full service VA hospital. Follow me below the fold for all the remarks because as Carol told us all in attendance: “There is no excuse.”

Bill Duncan’s first hand account including a lot more specifics about Carol and Edwards’s efforts in the state can be seen here: Veterans Turn Out for Carol Shea-Porter.

Edwards begins his introduction of Carol with a great anecdote which contains a really harsh and stark truth about the business of politics, bonus points to the Congressman. As I said earlier many people showed up for the BBQ. That surprised me especially on such a beautiful day when there have been many, many wash-out weekends this summer. I also noticed that it wasn’t the typical VFW crowd you would expect either. People were there from a variety of age groups, some brought their kids and many were younger. We even had an RFK grandson in attendance.

Video: Carol Shea-Porter in Manchester (8:03)

Edwards:

And I want to just say that one person can make a difference. I carry a very heavy burden on my life, I want you to know that when I was 26 years old, I had the gall to run against a former economics professor of mine for Congress …

I lost by 115 votes to a guy named Phil Gramm. I don’t want you to have the burden that I’ve felt since 1978. At least my credibility ought to be good because everything I said about him turned out to be true … My point is this, if I had had a meeting like this on a Sunday afternoon like this and this many people had gotten one extra person to go to the polls Phil Gramm ladder never would have become law.

No argument there, Congressman Edwards. There is certainly an urgency in every race from Obama on down in this cycle, but the down ballot races that don’t get the attention they deserve may very well be close all across the country. In 2006, Carol was swept into office against incumbent Jeb Bradley on the crest of a throw the bums out mentality. But this year Democrats all over the map have to hold those seats and they have to hold these seats on the record. It’s only been a couple of years and the record is not as strong and clear as it could be with Bush and the Senate filibuster blocking just about everything that Democrats were sent to Washington to do. It’s not going to be a tidal wave in this district this time around. And that could be true all over the country.

Carol then took to the mic:

When I first got to DC you know I realized that the Veteran’s Hospital has been closed for years now as a full service hospital. Nobody did anything about, why not? What do I have to do to bring it back? So I took a look down the list and said, “who do I have to talk to?” And I found Chet. And I ran up to Chet and said, “Chet, you are my new best friend.” He’s your best friend too, because he works very, very hard for Veterans.

He’s worked with me, he’s come to see what we’re talking about. We’ve met with the veterans and he’s going to carry that story back to Washington.

There’s just no excuse for not having either a full service hospital or equivalent care in your own community. (applause)

There’s also no excuse that our Congressmen and Senators knew this and stayed silent. There’s just no excuse…

If you signed up to serve your country from NH why shouldn’t you receive the same benefits as someone from Massachusetts? Or Connecticut? Or from Iowa? What wrong with us? We deserve the same treatment. (applause)

Carol tells us that it isn’t solely nobility that motivates her to act like a “squeaky wheel” on this issue in DC. No, she’s got “a dog in this fight too,” as a former military spouse she is directly affected by this outrage and judging from the remarks on Sunday Carol is personally invested in the well being of veterans around the state and in her district.

Far beyond the hot-button issue of the VA and health care in NH Carol talks about why this fight is so important to all the citizens of this country.

I checked with my husband and when he signed his papers, he didn’t check whether he was a republican or a Democrat. He was an American going to serve his country.

So we cannot discriminate and we cannot allow one party to hold back on treatment, opportunity and honoring commitments to the veterans. We have to serve each other.

Carol brings home the point that commitments made long ago effect the nation as a whole today. As a member of the Armed Services committee in the Congress she knows that America faces plenty of threats all over the globe today. She tells us that the new generation coming up judges the quality of care against the desire to serve. And I really agree with that statement.

We don’t rely on a draft to staff our armed forces today. We rely on a professional, volunteer army to meet our needs. After 8 years of George Bush, the recent Walter Reed scandal, a generation of cutbacks in services across the boards and the heightened state of readiness required to meet our current needs in America today, no issue is more symbolic of our government’s intention to honor those commitments made to every one that served than veteran’s health care and the sorry state of the VA in NH today.

We need them … We need people to sign-up for the Armed services. We need them to look at how we treat our veterans and say, “Yes. I trust America that should I be wounded or should I be killed they’ll take care of my family and they will take care of me. They won’t break that sacred promise.”

And so the young are looking to see what we do right now and if we truly honor our commitments.

pictured are Carol and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) in Kuwait

The answer here from me is: Yes we do. We must … Keep up the good work and we will make sure that veterans today and tomorrow have what we promised them yesterday. Thank you very much.

Carol then saved the best for last after wishing Mike Lopez a Happy Birthday and thanking Jim Craig (“one class act”) for emceeing the event. When talking about the importance of sending Bob Bruce to the governor’s counsel she says:

We have someone who is running for executive counsel, Bob Bruce, who also comes from the people. And so I appreciate you looking at his record and his concern for all of us. His slogan goes along the line of “send your neighbor.” And that’s the best thing you could do. Send one of us. Fill all of these positions with somebody that knows your story because we are one of you.

You know my slogan: Running for the rest of us. Thank you for the honor of serving you in Washington. And I would ask that you send Democrats up and down the ticket because it’s not the fact that we’re Democrats. It’s that we’re holding the American agenda right now. We’re the party that has come together to say that we have to save the middle-class and fix the country … Democrats and other people will be very well served by Democrats in Washington and in NH.

The lighting sucked at the VFW so my apologies for the poor quality of the video and pics in this diary, but the audio is clear as a bell and the remarks were pretty sweet. I hope you enjoyed the show.

So where is the urgency to support a great candidate like Carol Shea-Porter in her re-election bid this year? Well may you ask.

While the Obama race is vital to the future of the country so too are the down ballot races that will determine the climate and ultimately the success President Obama can expect once he gets sworn into office. NH-01 has been targeted as a Republican pick-up by Freedom Watch who I predict will be the new swift-boaters in this cycle. They’ve already been running ads smearing Carol’s position on offshore oil drilling and Brian Larsen from PoliticsNH.com told me on Sunday that they’ve just announced their third ad buy in the state targeting both Carol and Paul Hodes. By no means is Carol’s re-election to the Congress going to be a slam dunk and in preparation for my “re-emersion” into NH politics I came across a very disturbing website that I think holds the playbook for the ugliness that we may see unfold in NH’s first district in the coming weeks.

Democrats are far outstripping Republican fundraising efforts from the top to bottom all over the country with some exceptions and nowhere is a disturbing trend more apparent than in down ballot races like Carol’s.

“There’s a good chance 527 groups will dominate Republican rescue efforts in congressional races this year,” said David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.”

“It’s clear the NRCC is outsourcing their attacks to right-wing smear organizations. We have been anticipating this activity for months and have been preparing our candidates with the tools they need to respond effectively,” said DCCC spokesman Doug Thornell.

source

With the Democrats holding a money advantage, the GOP’s best hope may be that independent outside groups like Freedom’s Watch throw a lot of money into congressional races. As of now, however, the Democrats look to pick up significant numbers of additional seats.

source

And just in time I found a website called The Real CSP, link withheld for obvious reasons. I don’t know who or what really is behind this scum that passes for political education but let’s just look at one egregious example. Under the heading “Deserting out Troops” the website claims: “Shea-Porter put partisan politics above the needs of troops and commanders on the ground by voting for a Democrat-sponsored bill mandating extension of troop deployments overseas. (House Roll Call 795)“

But if you look at govtracks.us for HR 3159 you’ll see a summary from Project Vote Smart and that CSP was a co-sponsor of the bill that provides the following:

• Mandates that before a member of the regular armed forces be redeployed to Iraq, he or she must be given a period of rest at least as long as the duration of his or her most recent deployment [Sec. 2 (a)].
• Mandates that before a member of the armed forces reserve be redeployed to Iraq, he or she must be given a period of rest at least three times as long as the duration of his or her most recent deployment [Sec. 2 (b)].
• Exempts special operations forces and forces used to facilitate deployments [Sec. 2 (c)].
• Allows the President to waive the rest period requirements in order to meet a threat to national security if the President certifies the necessity of the deployment to Congress within 30 days [Sec. 2 (d)].
• Allows the rest requirement to be waived for members of the Armed Forces who voluntarily request mobilization [Sec. 2 (e)].

So she votes for passage of the HR 3159 on the next vote Roll Call 796, unlike 190 Republicans in the Congress, and the website/smear campaign would lead you to believe that she does not support the bill, which she voted for and co-sponsored. Ya know, that kind of “deserting the troops” Unreal. All rightey, looks like we’ve got our work cut out for us.

DownwithTyrrany also reports that Wal-Mart is targeting Carol in her race.

But you’re not going to find Carol Shea-Porter on the lists of congressmembers who take special interests money and then vote for them instead of for her constituents. Her predecessor, Jeb Bradley, always did– and now those same big special interests are back shoveling money into his campaign, trying to help him reclaim his old– their old– seat. Carol’s voting record is clear as a bell; she votes in the interests of her constituents. Period. She doesn’t have millions of dollars in corporate money hanging over her head as an incentive– or a threat– to vote for special deals for corporations.

This election in NH’s first is not going to be any kind of pretty. Without credible media voices debunking these kinds of scurrilous charges, attack ads and misleading ad campaigns to put in kindly can sway voters. Mud sticks, especially if you throw enough of it.

We hold the American agenda in this election and Carol holds it everyday for the people of NH’s first. Get out there to support a great public servant and in so doing we’ll be supporting each other.

To donate to Carol’s re-election campaign click here, but don’t bother if you’re a DC lobbyist – she doesn’t take your money.

Also consider volunteering or to sign-up for the excellent news letter try the main website. The intro video is set for auto-play.

It’s going to get tres not jolie out there before this one is over, kids. So get out there. She needs you now. We need each other now – more than ever.

This diary is another in the continuing guerrilla vlogger series. I’m not associated with the campaign in any way shape or form and most importantly I speak only for myself when blogging. I do all these vlogs as a citizen journalist, as in I’m not paid. I do everything with an ordinary mini-DV, a PC, Movie Maker and free tools available on the web. Thanks for reading.

Using poor children as pawns is the nastiest sort of partisan politics. That Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), once a poor child himself, would stoop to this level by voting against the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) shows that his desire to become president has surpassed his ability to support progressive values.

This bill would have expanded an already successful program to provide health insurance to millions of children across the country. It takes some twisted logic for someone who claims to support health care coverage for all to oppose this necessary and overdue move in the right direction.

It wasn’t perfect, Kucinich expounded, because it didn’t include children who are legal aliens. He took the opportunity to promote his own universal health care bill, HR 676, which would cover both children and adults as a better choice – despite the fact that it is not going anywhere soon.

Full text available at Huffington Post and Rosemary Palmer for Congress

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

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

As a physician and medical scientist, I know something about Band-Aids.  You have to clean the wound first if you really want it to heal.  A little strip of adhesive glue and gauze is not going to get the job done.

As a Congressman, I have learned that Band-Aids are what politicians are using to “fix” our nation’s broken health care delivery system.  But you don’t have to be a doctor or a Congressman to understand that Band-Aids can’t fix a fracture.

That’s why I declined to accept the health care insurance offer from Congress.  Plainly put, I will not accept health insurance coverage until everyone I represent in Wisconsin and across America is given the same opportunity.  After all, I did not run for this office to get health care benefits.

I ran to change Washington and to guarantee access to affordable care for every citizen, everywhere in these United States.

Since voters sent me to Capitol Hill last November, I’ve been working hard to leverage support for a new approach.  My purpose is not to destroy profit centers in medicine, as some insurance industry allies will falsely argue, but to allow everyone to benefit from the efficient delivery of affordable care in a transparent and competitive marketplace.

Here’s how.

• Open Disclosure of all health care-related prices;
• Unitary Pricing so everyone gets the same discount and pays the same price for the same product or service;
• Form a Single Insurance Risk Pool to leverage down insurance prices for all citizens;
• Deductibles set at three percent of a household’s taxable federal income; and
• A Renewed Commitment to Cover all uninsured children and working parents.

I’m looking forward to seeing “Sicko” soon, and I hope it will serve as the kind of wake-up call for Washington on the need for serious health-care reform that Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” has been on the urgent issue of global warming.

Everyone knows our health care system is broken.  And  there’s no longer any mystery about why.  Rising health care costs have outpaced wages.  Solid middle-class families are being squeezed.  How can people afford to purchase insurance policies when the average premiums are about $12,000 a year for a family of four?

People simply don’t have the money.

Here’s my bottom line: No citizen – rich or poor, young or old – should be denied access to affordable health care.  Period. And no business should be be pushed to the brink of bankruptcy simply because it cares for its employees.

After more than 25 years helping to heal the wounds of families in my District, I understand our health care crisis is beyond a Band-Aid remedy.  I’m pro-cure, and so are American families.  Washington should be, too.

And until it is, I will decline my Congressional health coverage.