Trying to start over again

This blog has been abandoned by me for months. Now that I've removed all (hopefully all) of the spam comments, I'm ready to start again. Hopefully I'll be able to post original commentary as well as my DailyKos work here.

News from OH-03: Filing Updates and Why You Should Care

Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 09:35:01 AM PDT
As of 1130AM this morning, there are four candidates who have taken out petitions for the Democratic primary to succeed Stephanie Studebaker on September 15th. The nominee will take on incumbent Republican Mike Turner, a two-term GOP rubberstamp from Ohio's 3rd Congressional district (Montgomery, Warren, Clinton and Highland counties, including the city of Dayton). The filing deadline is 4PM today, with 50 signatures needed. They are:
Jane Mitakides, the 2004 nominee Charles W. Sanders, a frequent candidate and former Mayor in the 2nd Congressional district Jude Logan Demers, an unknown J. Richard Chema, Assistant Prosecutor Southern Ohio
Mr. Sanders and Mr. Demers can be easily written off; the former because he has run numerous times for Congress before (usually against ex-Congressman Rob Portman, currently occupied by Jean Schmidt), the latter because he has never been heard of before in the district (or on Google, for that matter).

Previous story at
The primary, then, should the petitions come in will be between Ms. Mitakides and Mr. Chema. I would rank Mitakides, who is better-known from her 2004 race as the favorite, although Montgomery County's Democratic organization (the county occupies rouhgly 60-70% of the district) may endorse Chema. Why? It's hard to say, but it could stem back to Mitakides and County Chairman Dennis Lieberman both running for Ohio Democratic Chairman in 2005, with Mitakides endorsing the eventual winner, Chris Redfern.
Should Mr. Chema recieve the Montco endorsement from Chairman Lieberman (no relation to Joe), it is possible he could take the nomination. However, based on what I know of Jane Mitakides, I think she would make a much better nominee. Here's why:

Having run once before, Jane has name ID and a base of support. While Jane garnered 38% in 2004 against Mike Turner, it should be noted that she outran John Kerry in the non-Dayton parts of the district. Having increased name recognition amongst the 2004 voters, she will have less difficulty than before in getting her name out there. By contrast, Mr. Chema has not run for office before, and with the possible exception of local TV reports has virtually no name ID. Advantage: Jane Mitakides

Jane has a much stronger fundraising base. Without any support from the DCCC or other Democratic groups, Jane raised over $600,000, slightly more than Rick Carne's 2002 (and DCCC-backed) total in the open seat race won by Turner. She has a wide range of connections, from her ties to Wesley Clark to her days in Texas to her ties to the Greek community. She could very likely put together the same type of financial strength that she did in 2004. Mr. Chema, even with Mr. Lieberman's blessing would be starting from scratch. Advantage: Jane Mitakides

Jane, having run before, can put together a campaign worthy of the name. Activists in Ohio-03 know Jane, and will be likely to get back on board her campaign, as they did in 2004. Again, experience in both fundraising and organization is key, and Jane has both. I don't see Mr. Chema putting together a campaign for the first time with just 80 days remaining. Advantage: Jane Mitakides

Overall, Jane has a clear advantage for taking OH-03 back from Mike Turner, simply because she has been here before. She knows what mistakes she made, and how to correct them. She knows how to raise money, and how to use for maximum impact. And she has a strong base of supporters in the district who can be counted on to support her. Already, the Warren and Clinton County Democrats have thrown their support to her.

I have nothing against Mr. Chema; if he wins the nomination, I hope he will win just as much as I would for Jane Mitakides. But with Ohio become the epicenter for the 2006 Democratic earthquake, this district needs an experienced candidate to take advantage of Mike Turner's weaknesses. And there are many:

90% Bush supporter, 94% Tom DeLay backer, with $20,000 in rewards for it.

*Despite Ohio's rapid loss of blue-collar jobs, voted for CAFTA in 2005

*Has only $375,000 COH as of late June, due to opponent's weaker fundraising.
*Unfledging support for the Iraq conflict

*Wants to run for higher office, including George Voinovich's 2010 US Senate seat (when he will likely retire)

Those are, but a sampling of reasons why Turner should be fired. You can go to http://www.ontheissues.org/... to see some more, including his awful ratings.
The district is winnable, particularly in this pro-Democratic year in Ohio. Kerry finished with 45% here, giving the district a +2.9% GOP edge; this is equivalent to OH-01 (where Democrat John Cranley leads incumbent Steve Chabot 49-40% in the latest poll), and better than OH-18 (Bob Ney's seat). This time, the Democratic nominee (either Jane or Chama) will be able to build on the 38% Jane got in 2004 and push up towards 50%. With a strong candidate, Turner can be caught off guard and defeated; and the DCCC's interest in this race may also prove beneficial.

I'll keep you all posted as 4PM approaches, so that if another candidate enters, you'll know of it. Thanks!

OH-03 Update: Hackett Out, Primary Awaits - Insider News

Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 07:02:08 PM PDT
[Note: Most of my information is from off-the-record sources, but rest assured that it is accurate.]
As some of you may know, Ohio's 3rd Congressional district lost a great nominee and a good woman, Stephanie Studebaker, who withdrew from the race due to personal circumstances of a horrid nature. You can review what happened at http://www.dailykos.com/... and http://www.dailykos.com/...
Since Ms. Studebaker withdrew from her campaign before Friday, August 18th, a special election primary will be held to replace her. There has been considerable discussion over who should replace her, and I will attempt to bring you all up to date on what is happening.

Item 1: As I expected, Paul Hackett has ruled out a run in OH-03. His statements in the Dayton Daily News yesterday, I've been told, are a true indicator that he doesn't want to run. And, knowing Hackett to be a stand-up guy with real integrity, I truly feel he won't be drafted. He'll make a great public official, should he ever serve in office, but 2006 won't be his year.

Item 2: I just got off the phone with Jane Mitakides, who ran in 2004 against Mike Turner (the rubberstamping incumbent). I blogged for Jane in her last race, and I sat with her in the Ohio Delegation during Kerry's Acceptance speech in Boston. Ahh, memories...
Anyway, Jane told me that "If my party wants me, I'm ready to run." She has told this to the AP as well, so I can assume that we have a candidate ready to take on Turner.
Here's some more info on Jane: http://en.wikipedia.org/...http://www.dailykos.com/... (This was from 2005, when she briefly ran for State Democratic Chair before endorsing the current one, Chris Redfern)
http://www.dailykos.com/... (From her 2004 campaign)
http://www.dailykos.com/... (A post by Kos from the 2004 race, with details on the district)
I've known Jane since her 2004 campaign, and we've stayed in touch. She's a very nice lady, but a tough campaigner, and with strong fundraising connections. I firmly believe that if she does emerge as the nominee from this process, she'll be competitive against Mike Turner.
There are a few concerns about Jane that have popped up before, and if anyone wants to discuss them I'll be happy to answer as best I can in the comments. Mind you, her candidacy is conditional on having party support, which may not happen because of Item 3...


Item 3: Debbie Lieberman for Congress? Or not? There's been considerable scuttlebut that Debbie Lieberman (no relation with Joe), a Montgomery County Commissioner is thinking of running as well. Her husband is Dennis Lieberman, who is the Montgomery County Democratic Chairman, and who lost to Chris Redfern at the convention that chose the next Ohio Democratic Chairman. Apparently the Liebermans are conducting a poll to test whether Debbie can win; if she can, she'll enter the race and clear the primary decks. If they don't look promising, she'll back out.
Montgomery County includes Dayton, Ohio, and so makes up a large majority of the district. In other words, since Dennis L. controls the party apparatus in OH-03, he calls the shots. And if his wife wants to run, then she'll be the nominee. Debbie Lieberman's biography can be found at http://www.mcohio.org/...
Is Debbie Lieberman a better candidate than Jane Mitakides? Of course, if the former runs than the latter probably won't, so a primary question is irrelevant. Rather, I feel that this race will come down to whether the Democrat can successfully raise enough cash quickly to garner national attention. And having run before, and with better connections (Texas, New York, Ohio, Florida, etc.) from her political ties, I think Jane would make a better fundraiser. And from there, she might as well be the better candidate.

Item 4: If Lieberman is out, then who?
My sources tell me that if Commissioner Lieberman doesn't want to run, then it's possible that Rick Carne, the 2002 nominee may jump in. From what I understand, Carne has been a lobbyist on Capitol Hill (http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/...) since leaving his job as Chief of Staff to Congressman Tony Hall to unsucessfully defeat Turner in the race to succeed his boss. Here's his biography from 2002:
http://www.smartvoter.org/...
Carne was hamstrung by his late start in 2002, for only once Congressman Hall was appointed to become Ambassador to the World Food Program (in Rome) could he begin actively campaigning. A primary between him and Mitakides is a possibility, although again only if Lieberman is out. Having run sooner to now, I'd bet on Jane winning that.

Item 5: But what about the DCCC?
My sources tell me that the DCCC is indeed looking at this race as a possibility, due to Ohio's GOP meltdown. The district has a +2.9 GOP rating, better than OH-18 and far better than OH-02 (the seat that Vic Wulsin will occupy in 2007 - go Vic! http://www.wulsinforcongress.com/), so a strong Democrat could catch Turner off guard. As of June 30th he had only $375,000 COH, which is hardly a safe number for a two-term incumbent. The unfortunate exit of Studebaker means that the DCCC has a clean slate to work with in OH-03. Whether they'll ultimately invest, I don't know; but considering that OH-18 may fall off the table with Ney's departure, OH-03 may come onto it.
So, that's what I know. Let me know if you have any more information, or if you have questions. Thanks!

NJ: County leaders spend taxpayer dollars on new furniture

Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake", but it became part of popular legend anyway. Likewise, the Morris County Republican Freeholders may not have said, "Let them eat furniture", but they might as well have said so to their constituents following their recent actions.

You see, Morris County (and the rest of New Jersey as well) suffers from very high property taxes. Even so, the Morris County Freeholders (equivalent to County Commissioners), all 9 of whom are Republicans, have kept $25 million in surplus funds rather than spending it on reducing property taxes. This funding, according to the Freeholders is for protecting their AAA bond rating, while other counties keep their rating with far less revenue. But now we know why they're keeping the money: new conference room furniture!

This should be no suprise to those who know about Morris County, New Jersey. After all, the Freeholders regularly spend $32,000 every hour on the job, so another $50,000 for conference room furniture shouldn't be a problem, right?
The only problem is that Morris County has the 2nd highest housing costs in New Jersey! That means that many a county citizen is burdened with property taxes that are higher than most states, let alone counties - and the Freeholders want to spend $50,000 on furniture? Mind you, this isn't just spending on the Freeholders' tab - this money comes right from the budget surplus of $25 million reserved for taxpayers!
So, either the Morris County Republican Freeholders are hypocrites (for saying that the AAA Bond rating is important, but spending the money "necessary" to keep it is equally OK), or they simply don't give a damn about property taxes, or helping their constituents with the high cost of living. Sound familiar, mes amis?
I'm concerned with this because Morris County is right next door to me in New Jersey, and what happens there will affect me as a college student at Drew University (in the county). So, I've been helping out the Democratic nominees for Freeholder, one of them being Dana Wefer.

Dana and her running mates are campaigning on cleaning up corruption and waste in Morris County (of which 33 years of Republican rule have certainly contributed to), improving transportation and environmental concerns (such as Morris County losing $446 million per year from traffic tie ups that result in lost revenue) and promoting fiscal sanity. You can read more about Dana's positions (and as such the Morris County Democratic positions) at http://www.danawefer.com .

But why bring up Dana, when the diary is about fiscal inanity from Republicans? Well, it turns out that she caught the GOP Freeholders with their hands in the cookie jar, and issued a press release on it.

DEMOCRATIC FREEHOLDER CANDIDATE WEFER TAKES FREEHOLDERS TO TASK FOR "LAVISH" SPENDING
Morristown, August 14, 2006- Last Wednesday, the Freeholder Board allocated $50,000 from the capital surplus fund to upgrade their conference room furniture. Dana Wefer, Democratic candidate for Freeholder, has condemned the expenditure as lavish and wasteful.
"This expenditure is yet another example of how the freeholders are completely disconnected from the people they serve,Wefer said. At a time when everyone is tightening their belts because of high gas prices, increasing property taxes and a rising cost of living, it is just wrong for the freeholders to spend so lavishly on their taxpayer funded buildings" ,Wefer argued."Our county freeholders spend $32,000 an hour!" Wefer noted. Expenditures like this must stop, she said, and promised that if elected in November she would work to ensure spending like this ends.

[My note: And as a devoted student of government laws and regulations, she knows what she's doing]

Wefer is making her second run for Freeholder after an impressive showing last year. She is the sole female candidate in a field of six candidates seeking election to the Freeholder Board this Fall. The two other Democrats are Mine Hill Mayor Rich Leary and Chatham Township Councilman Jack Hartford. Wharton Mayor Bill Chegwidden, Denville Mayor Gene Feyl, and incumbent Freeholder John Murphy are the candidates on the Republican side. All three Republicans were present at Wednesday's meeting when the expenditure was approved. None have protested the expenditure.
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can comment on the press release directly at http://politics.nexcess.net/...
The point is not as much that $50,000 is being spent than the fact that Morris County ought to spending $25 million on alleviating the hefty taxpayer property tax costs. Their refusal to is based on preserving that money for future use; so why are they spending it on frivolities? It's that kind of "out of touch" behavior that we've seen in Washington with Ted Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere" and Bush's repeated tax cut insanity.

And when writ locally on the people shouldering the burdens of today's America, it can breed very bad results for those responsible for the misery. Much like "Let them eat cake" became a household term in France for hating Marie Antoinette, so too could "Conference room furniture" become the bane of Morris County's GOP control.

Already, their control is slipping. Dana drew 41% in 2005 against a seasoned incumbent who outspent her significantly; this time, there are two open seats and 3 seats in general up for grabs. Last year she was an unknown 23-year old graduate student; this time, she is a known political figure who drew 52,000 votes in 2005, and more well-known than all, but one of the other candidates (the other is a former Gubernatorial candidate). In Morris County, the Democrats have improved their control of Mayoralties and Town Council seats, and are gunning for more in 2006. You can read more about their efforts at http://www.morrisdems.org .

And in this year of change, there can be no better chance to elect Dana to the Freeholder Board than now. And having her opponents join the current Freeholders in wasting taxpayer dollars can't hurt her chances.

16 candidates, 1 House seat --- one Mishonda Baldwin (MD-03)

Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 03:07:31 PM PDT
http://www.baldwinforcongress.com
I first saw Mishonda Baldwin on national television. I didn't know it at the time, but she was (and is) running for an open seat in Maryland's 3rd Congressional District. http://www.baldwinforcongress.com/...
You see, Mishonda was the only "Sister" of the Fighting Democrats who came to Washington on February 8th, joining Senator Max Cleland to stand up against the Republican exploitation of America and its soldiers. And when I heard her speak, I was struck by the strength of her speech, the passion and confidence that seemed to come from inside of her, and that her age - 33 - belied her experiences.
This remarkable woman - soldier, public speaker, activist, mentor, progressive - is up against formidable odds in her bid to become Maryland's first black Congresswoman. Read my interview with her, hear her story - and you'll see why she is head and shoulders above the 15 other candidates in this race.

IMG]http://i38.photobucket.com/...[/IMG]
http://www.dailykos.com/...(Kos' report on Mishonda from Majority Report) http://www.dailykos.com/...(Liveblogging from Mishonda)
First, my interview with Mishonda, which I conducted last week:
Questions for Mishonda Baldwin 1)At age 19 you went to Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm. Why did you enter the military, and how did your Iraq experience affect your life?
I entered the military because my family could not afford to send me to college. The Army had a program that would provide money while I attended college and would pay back some of my college loans. So, at the age of 17, my mother signed me up for the Army.
During my sophomore year at the University of Connecticut my unit was deployed to the Persian Gulf for Operation Desert Storm.
While overseas something happened that gave me a new perspective on life. If you recall, there was the air war and there was the ground war. The day the ground war started I became sick. I broke out in hives. No one could determine what was wrong with me.
My platoon leader came into the tent and said that we were going to cross the Iraqi border, but I couldn't go because I was sick.
When my unit crossed the border, they were attacked. The vehicle I was supposed to drive was attacked. People lost their lives and were seriously injured.
I learned a very valuable lesson at nineteen years old. "To whom much is given, much is required." I returned to UCONN with a sense of purpose after my life changing experience and I have lived a life of purpose ever since.
2)You've had a variety of experiences and activities since leaving active duty. Describe some of them, and what they mean to you as a person.
I was an Army Intelligence Officer, specializing in Counterintelligence. I owned a small business. I served as National Chair of the National Black Law Students Association, served as the 1st African American woman ROTC Battalion Commander in Connecticut, and recently served as a US Delegate to the Middle East.
All my experiences helped to provide me with a well balanced, well rounded approach and view to the challenges we face as a country. I am grateful that I have first hand knowledge and experience that speaks directly to where we find ourselves today. We have socio-economic challenges, international challenges, security challenges, and environmental challenges. I am grateful that I can contribute new ideas to the conversation.
3.What led you to decide to run for Congress?
The decision to run for Congress wasn't an easy one to make but it was the only one to make after I sat in front of my TV for 4 days and cried my eyes out as I watched the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I saw people searching desperately for leaders to take control of the situation and no one came. Every reporter and news team could reach the people but where were the leaders? At that moment everything that I had ever experienced and learned came rushing back to me. I realized that all I had been through and accomplished in life had prepared me for such a time as this. So, I made the decision to no longer be a spectator on the sidelines but to get in the ring.
4.Describe the district that you're running in. How does the huge candidate field play in role in how you're campaigning?
The district I am running in covers 3 counties and a city. It includes parts of Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Howard County. The Primary race consists of 8 Democrats and 8 Republicans. In a field of 8 Democratic candidates, one has to be very strategic about what votes they gather. As a former Army Intelligence Officer, I've been trained to study the battlefield and to formulate a concise plan with winning in mind and that is the approach I have taken in this race.
5.How have party leaders viewed your candidacy? Did your age and/or background play a role in this?
Party leaders have been hands-off because it is a primary, but they are overall supportive.
6.What issues are you concentrating on the most in your campaign? Why? And have those issues resonated with voters?
Education, Health Care, and the War in Iraq are issues I am concentrating on in my campaign.
Health Care: Health Care is a human right and all Americans deserve the right to know that if they get sick they can seek proper treatment. As leaders we need to do the following:
1) Move beyond partisan bickering and pass the Medi-Kids Health Insurance Act. This will expand the 1965 Social Security Act and provide health care to all children born after 2006 up to the age of 22. This is an innovative step towards universal health-care.
2) Either move to a single-payer system in this country or reallocate health-care spending. For example, instead of the government using money for reimbursements to hospitals for the uninsured, we can reroute some of those funds to provide direct health insurance coverage to the uninsured and simultaneously create a small fund for the uninsured that fall between the cracks of the system.
3) Completely overhaul the prescription drug program in this country.
Education: Education is one of the most important ingredients to success in this country. The 3rd district has a school system that is juxtaposed against itself. We have Baltimore City which has some of the lowest performing schools in the state and Howard County which has some of the best performing schools in the state, both in the same district. To equalize education, it must become more than a lip service priority. We must have a comprehensive overhaul of the entire education system, i.e.
a) curriculum revamp (we need to readjust the current curriculum to be more inclusive and innovative to address the changing needs of the world but simultaneously focuses on the basic building blocks of learning),
b)funding scheme (we must revisit how we fund education in this country, zip codes and property tax bases can no longer be the determiner of the success of a school),
c) Teacher pay (if we say teachers are important, then we must pay them accordingly)
Iraq War: As a Decorated Desert Storm Veteran and former Army Intelligence Officer, we owe the soldiers on the ground a clear plan with a clear objective to include a clear exit strategy. We need leaders in Congress who can rebut the notion that stay the course is a plan. We need to secure Baghdad, empower the local population by incentivizing the revenue pie from the oil fields with them and begin the redeployment process.
I am genuinely concerned with the leadership and the future of this country. Voters are, too and they are excited that someone is sincerely focusing on these issues and say that I am "a breath of fresh air".
7.Has your age been an issue with voters?
People are excited that I am young and have accomplished so much. They see me as the next generation of leadership.
8.Do you have a specific strategy to win the primary? Who do you view as your toughest competition in the primary?
Yes. My race is a very crowded race. There are a lot of "establishment candidates" and all of my opponents are great people. However, my biggest opponent is myself. I must make sure that I stay focused on the plan that is set for this campaign. I believe that what God has for me, no one can take away and what God doesn't have for me, I cannot attain.
10.How would Congresswoman Baldwin vote on these issues:
a.Overriding President Bush's veto on embryonic stem-cell researchSupportb.A bill to increase funding for student vouchers to go to private schoolsOpposec.A bill to provide national, public health insurance, paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy Supportd.A bill to mandate job opportunities for veterans of the US Armed Forces Support e.A bill that would create a plan for withdrawal of troops from Iraq [exit plan]Support
11.What advice would you give to future candidates who would like to run for office as a young person?
Follow your heart and not conventional wisdom.
12. Anything else you'd like to add? Stay encouraged, change is coming!------------------------------------------------------------Allow me to run down some of the key points I gleaned from this interview:
1)One can easily understand why Mishonda is determined to help others; for her, the rest of her life is a gift that those around her in 1991 were not as fortunate to recieve. When I read her response, I was shocked, to be honest; I can't imagine what it must feel like to know that you were spared from death or disfigurement by chance. But she clearly has taken that shock and given her life purpose out of it.
2)There are very few members of Congress who can claim the same type of diversified resume as Mishonda. Having her in Congress would give Democrats a ball of fiery energy that they may well need in 2007 and beyond.
3)Katrina certainly shook our nation to its foundations, myself included. Before Katrina, I had not been aware of the extent of poverty, racism and vulnerability in America. Like Mishonda, I cried, I was angry - but she has done something about it, and I haven't yet.
4)16 candidates (eight from each party) means a pretty big ballot. Luckily, Mishonda's not a hard name to locate. :) Btw, the district is mostly Democratic (55% Kerry) and the GOP failed to recruit a strong candidate.
5)Maryland Democrats have two key races on their hands in November: ousting Governor Ehrlich and electing a new US Senator. Having Mishonda on the ticket in MD-03 would further drive up turnout and help Martin O'Malley and the Senate nominee win as well.
6)Mishonda has detailed plans for improving this country. Some candidates run with vague ideas and generalities as to how to fix things in Washington; from talking with her, I know that's not her weak suit. She has some other platforms as well at her website, http://www.baldwinforcongress.com/...
7)I shouldn't have asked this question, considering Paul Sarbanes' son, John is running, and he's younger than Mishonda.
8)Mishonda has a deep belief in herself, in her life's work and in her ability to win. I'd love to see some GOP hypocrite try to question her beliefs in a debate - we might see Sumner/Brooks Part 2! Just kidding
9)She'll be a solid Democratic vote, in addition to her being a strong, outspoken advocate for her constituents. -----------------------------------------------------------Let me address a few concerns that you may have about her candidacy:
1)There are several well-known candidates in this race; however, they've spent the campaign beating up on each other. The leading woman (Paula Hollinger) has been under fire for a possible money laundering scheme. Mishonda is the only other woman in the race.
2)Mishonda knew that the major money would go to the other candidates; she therefore has spent little time begging for it. Rather, since she has far more time to campaign instead of dialing for dollars, she's attended local events all over the district since the beginning of the year. She may not have TV ads, but she has name recognition. And with MD-03 voters being bombarded by the others' TV ads, fatigue will eventually set in, leaving the grassroots candidate (Mishonda) as the one.
3)MD-03 is largely Caucasian, with only a 16% minority population. However, the district has a wide variety of ethnic and religious groups inside of it, making Mishonda's race irrelevant.
If there are any other questions, feel free to ask them here. I'll do my best to answer them, and will pass them on to Mishonda if I can't. She's been here before, and trusts us.
I'll be covering the Baldwin campaign through the primary (September 12th) here, as well as (hopefully) through November 7th. Should she win, she will be one of Congress' most dynamic Representatives, as well as one of its most dedicated. If you give her your support, it'll be the best return investment since the dot-com boom. Her website is http://www.baldwinforcongress.com ; for more, try some of these links:
"Female Vets Put Military Mettle in House Races"http://www.alternet.org/...Mishonda's interview with Air America http://shows.airamericaradio.com/...
Coming soon: Don't take my word for it! Hear some testimonies from those who came to know Mishonda...and now work for her!

Texas: Kay Bailey Hypocrite Strikes Again! KKK/Hilton Edition

Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 12:53:39 PM PDT
Hi Kossacks,
Hope all is well with you and yours on this (slightly) cooler day in New Jersey - how's the weather where you are? Well, anyway, if you're a Republican office-holder right now, you're likely in hot water regardless of where you are. (Cue flashing "laugh" sign) And this is especially true of Texas' Aging Prom Queen, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Perjury? What perjury?), whose Senate seat will be occupied by Barbara Ann Radnofsky starting in 2007 (http://www.radnofsky.com).
Anyway, Kay Bailey recently double faulted on two issues, of which one whopper of a lie made it to the NY Times. Her recent inanity, plus Barbara Ann's sharp retorts, is covered below. Enjoy!

Issue 1: Barbara Ann vs. The Klan - where's Kay?
On July 29, the Ku Klux Klan announced it would be protesting in Amarillo, Texas tommorow against the existence of Latinos...err, sorry. That would be "protesting against immigration laws " that are currently in place in this country. There will certainly be plenty of demonstrators to protest their appearance in Amarillo, and the Klan has been already condemned for their plans by many Texas politicians. So, where's Kay on the KKK?
So far, she hasn't made any statement whatsoever.
That's right, Texas' Senior Senator has no stated opinion on American terrorists spouting off hate in her home state. One staff member at her office, when asked what their boss' thoughts were on the KKK rally said:
"She doesn't have an opinion on it yet."
Kay Bailey has...no...opinion on the KKK. Really. I'm...speechless.
Luckily, her successor in the US Senate had plenty to say about the Klan. This was her press release on July 30: http://www.radnofsky.com/...
Statement of U.S. Senate Democratic Nominee Barbara Ann Radnofsky:
The Ku Klux Klan has announced its intention to rally on immigration issues on August 5 in Amarillo at City Hall. I condemn the Klan's message and history of hate and violence and terrorism. I condemn the Klan's application of its hateful activities in the context of immigration reform and its planned rally in Amarillo, a fine city with concerns including water and drought, with inadequate federal relief due to wasteful government spending and misplaced priorities. I call on my opponent to also denounce the Klan. [Note: That was five days ago]
I oppose the latest impossible immigration proposal by my opponent, the fourth in a series of expensive, unworkable proposals by our senior senator, who has voted against each of the Senate compromise immigration solutions. The "self deportation" immigration plan proposed by my opponent this past week relies on major waste of our tax dollars and an impossibility of human nature: She hopes people will self deport, return for years of stay in their home country, subjected like cattle to tagging and waiting an eternity for the U.S. President to certify, after spending billions and billions of our tax dollars, that the U.S. borders are "secure" so the immigrants might then return. The Hutchison plan, which has no chance of passage, also seeks to privatize our immigration and security in a vastly expensive and unworkable series of private centers built at U.S. government expense by private corporations in foreign lands. They will require massive U.S. funded security.
It's a hugely expensive process which will waste our taxpayer dollars even more than the waste we've seen to date, while creating ill will and easy targets in foreign lands.
The solution: economic improvement on both sides of the border and a comprehensive strategy encouraging fair trade, a workable registration system which includes an arduous path to citizenship, and integrated homeland security with U.S. personnel running our sea ports, strengthening post-graduate requirements at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy to include port service obligations.
A video press release on this issue is now posted at www.radnofskyvideo.com.
You see, That's how a US Senator ought to respond; she not only shows the scoundrels for what they are, but discusses the problem and the solutions behind the immigration debate. And Kay Bailey? Umm...she'll get back to you on that.
If a US Senator isn't going to stand up for her constituents on such a black-and-white issue (no pun intended), what is she doing in Washington anyway?
Of course, she could always just lie to them...
Issue 2: KBH and the Paris Hilton Tax Cut - Lying Between Her Teeth
If she had said this under oath, it would have been perjury."
Why would Barbara Ann Radnofsky say this? Well, it turns out that Kay Bailey Hypocrite thinks it's unfair for millions of hardworking Americans to be denied a $7.25/hour minimum wage unless any family with an estate of over $10 million gets their taxes cut by $268 Billion. Apparently that's agreeable for Kay Bailey, who previously couldn't vote for a minimum wage increase. She voted against in March of 2005 and in November of 1999, along with the Republican majority.
Now, she's joined them again in holding the average American hostage until Paris Hilton can haul her fat wads of cash into her private jet and fly off to tax-free Bermuda for it to add interest. Too bad that fuel costs prevent the ordinary American from even taking flights nowadays, due to higher ticket prices.
Yeah, that's a bit of hyperbole, I grant you. But then again, so is this whopper of a statement by Kay Bailey:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Republicans said Democrats were choosing partisanship over policy and were stalling the measure to allow them to attack the record of the Republican-led Congress. "It is an excuse to make it a do-nothing Congress," Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, said. "And we are turning our back on the middle-class and poor people in this country who depend on the minimum wage and death-tax relief." [Emphasis Mine]
Really, Senator Hutchison? A family making $45,000 a year (which is, without checking, roughly the national average) depends on the Estate Tax getting repealed?
Give me a break. This statement by Hutchison not only doesn't pass muster, it's a blatant lie. And Barbara Ann called her on it.
Now, you may be asking yourself why Barbara Ann chose to use "perjury" in her statement. Well, here's why. On October 23, 2005, Kay Bailey was on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, and was asked about the White House's refusal to "take care" [Bush's words] on any leaker in the Valerie Plame scandal. Here's the actual transcript:
(Videotape, October 7, 2003):
MR. SCOTT McCLELLAN: They are good individuals. They're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you. And that's exactly what I did...
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hutchison, you think those comments from the White House are credible?
SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
That's the exact transcript of what was said. Barbara Ann's response:
http://www.radnofsky.com/...
"No elected official should tolerate or excuse perjury. I call on Kay Bailey Hutchison to renounce perjury. She should resign if she tolerates it."
Alas, Senator Hutchison has neither apologized nor resigned because of her outrageous hypocrisy. But, as 13 years in the US Senate have shown, that's par for the course for Kay Bailey: she's running again in violation of her term limits pledge in 1994 to run only twice.
And if Senator Hutchison can't renounce perjury, or the KKK, or even renounce tax giveaways to the ultra-rich, then what good is she as a US Senator?
If you want to know more about the US Senator who will succeed Kay Bailey in 2007, go to http://www.radnofsky.com . She's running radio ads currently, and has a number of videos, podcasts and issue statements on her site. Take a look - you might like what you find!

OH GOP to Ted, Frances Strickland : PROVE You're Not Gay

Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 11:52:25 AM PDT
As we all know, Ohio may well be the epicenter of corruption in state politics, and Ohio voters are sick of it. Indeed, recent polling has shown Congressman Ted Strickland well ahead of Secretary of Stealing...err, State, Ken Blackwell, and Congressman Sherrod Brown leading Senator Mike DeWine in the statewide races (Strickland for Governor, Brown for US Senate). So while things are looking pretty bleak for the Buckeye GOP, they do know a thing or two about what it takes to win. And that means slinging as much mud as possible at Congressmen Strickland and Brown until voters throw up their hands and stay home.
But now Ken Blackwell's campaign has hit a new low. Or, rather, it's an Ohio GOP staffer, who once belonged to Mr. Blackwell's camp, and who once served the fundamentalist Ohio Restoration Project's boss who hit a new low. And now his ex-boss at the ORP is "reserving judgement" on this new low...unless the Strickland family takes the matter to court.

SHAME ON THE REVERAND RUSSELL JOHNSON; SHAME ON GARY LANKFORD, JOHNSON'S AND BLACKWELL'S EX-STAFFER; AND SHAME ON THE OHIO GOP!
http://www.ohioelects.com/...
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/...
http://www.dispatch.com/...
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/...
The first link is from the Columbus, OH Dispatch, which says in part:
The e-mail, obtained by The Dispatch, was sent to an undisclosed group of GOP supporters -- with instructions to forward it to others -- by Gary Lankford, whom the party hired in July as its "social conservative coordinator." He was paid $16,000 as a "voter contact consultant" for the primary-election campaign of GOP gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell before taking the party job.
Among other things, the e-mail says Strickland married his wife, Frances, at 46, has no children and lives apart from her. It also links readers to an Internet blog that directly questions the sexual orientation of both Stricklands and notes accusations he is "soft on those who sexually assault children."
This has been blogged about before, including Ted Strickland's strong retort:
"They are scared to death of me," Strickland said. "The only way they can beat me is to destroy me. I've dealt with these kind of people. I worked in a maximum-security prison that was full of liars."

Strickland is a practicing psychologist, in case you're wondering why he worked at a prison. His job was to evaluate convicts there - although, knowing the GOP, they'll probably claim he was a prisoner "in a maximum-security prison that was full of liars" in the future, just to muddy things up some more. After all, the Ohio GOP has not only gone down the slippery slope of vitriol, they're trying to get their faces in the dictionary for that definition.
SHAME ON THE REVERAND RUSSELL JOHNSON; SHAME ON GARY LANKFORD, JOHNSON'S AND BLACKWELL'S EX-STAFFER; AND SHAME ON THE OHIO GOP!
The second and third articles continue the saga, as the Ohio GOP fired the staffer, Mr. Lankford, for the e-mail, which was sent to numerous GOP activist groups. This was after their initial denials of culpability in the affair:

----------------------------------------------------------
Standing over the body with bloody knife in hand, the Ohio Republican Party pleaded innocent.
It didn't kill the candidate it had just stabbed to death, the party said. And if it did stab the candidate, it didn't know it was stabbing him. Most assuredly, the party protested, it would never condone stabbing the candidate it had just stabbed.
Only a political Houdini could rationalize that twisted logic. Still, that was the GOP's explanation -- for a couple of days, anyway.
By Thursday, state Chairman Robert T. Bennett knew the party had been caught red-handed and issued an apology to the victim, U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, the Democratic nominee for governor...
...After appalled recipients of Lankford's e-mail forwarded it to news organizations, including The Dispatch, and reporters began asking questions, the GOP went into its Houdini act. The party didn't know about Lankford's attempt to assassinate Mr. and Mrs. Strickland's good name, a spokesman said. That is not a strategy the party would ever contemplate. Certainly, the party would never condone Lankford's tactic.
But emerging details about Lankford's connections make it difficult for the party to disavow knowing exactly who it was getting when it hired him. Lankford was less than two months removed from serving as a paid "voter contact consultant" for the primary election campaign of Republican gubernatorial nominee J. Kenneth Blackwell.
And before being hired by the GOP, Lankford worked for the Ohio Restoration Project, a conservative religious group that has been accused of violating its tax-exempt status by favoring Blackwell at its meetings. The group is headed by the Rev. Russell Johnson, a staunch Blackwell supporter and pastor of the Fairfield Christian Church in Lancaster.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So it appears that Mr. Lankford has been around the block a few times within Ohio GOP circles. From the "Ohio Restoration Project", which openly smears Democrats as the 2nd coming of Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate combined, to Ken Blackwell's nasty, hate-filled campaign to the OH GOP, he's been shuttled around to peddle this message of outright lies, innuendo and hate. I wonder how he sleeps at night!
As it turns out, the messenger may have been taken out, but the message is still being promoted. Now Reverend Johnson is peddling a new idea: let the Stricklands PROVE they're not gay!
In an interview Thursday, Johnson perpetuated the rumor by suggesting that the Stricklands file a lawsuit and go to court to prove they are heterosexuals. If Lankford's claim is untrue, Johnson said, "It's slanderous and they've got a case. I'm withholding judgment until the facts are in."
So, let's see if I've got this right...
The Stricklands are being accused of being gay - an outright lie, one almost immediately disproved and condemnded by every honest Ohioan (including the Republicans who leaked the e-mail to the Dispatch).
The Ohio GOP initially denies they sent the e-mail through Mr. Lankford, then apologizes. Meanwhile, Mr. Lankford's REAL organization - the ORP's Chairman, Russell Johnson - suggests that the "burden of proof" is with the Stricklands, not Mr. Lankford.
Last time I checked, people are innocent before proven guilty in this country. Are politicians exempt from this? Well, they shouldn't be. Are politicians' WIVES exempt? They should damn well be.
SHAME ON THE REVERAND RUSSELL JOHNSON; SHAME ON GARY LANKFORD, JOHNSON'S AND BLACKWELL'S EX-STAFFER; AND SHAME ON THE OHIO GOP!
I had the honor of talking with Congressman Strickland in Washington last summer, when Congress was in session. In fact, it's been 368 days exactly. I spent a half-hour with him, and I can tell you plainly that he is an honorable, courageous and competent leader. Ohio will be well-served with him as Governor. And for the GOP to sink this low, to slander him and his wife - neither of whom deserved this - is a moral outrage.
If you're as outraged as I am, then there are a couple of things you can do about it:
1)Contact Russell Johnson at rjohnson@ohiorestorationproject.com or call his organization at 740-654-6211 [both methods are on the front page of the ORP's website], and tell him to REPENT for what he and his minion Mr. Lankford have done to Ted and Frances Strickland's reputation. Ask him (if you reach him) how he sleeps at night, knowing that he is slandering a Baptist minister and his wife.
2)Go to Ted's website, http://tedstrickland.com/ and send a few dollars not earmarked for Connecticut his way. If there were only five candidates who I could have win this year, he'd be one of them. He'll need that money to combat Ken Blackwell's army of extremists, and to restore sanity to Ohio.
3)Recommend this diary, so that more people get to see what kind of campaign our opponents are running.

NJ-07 Democratic Reunion: Corzine, Stender and 100+ activists!

Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 10:03:31 AM PDT
Hey Kossacks,
I'm currently typing this at Linda Stender for Congress Headquarters, a 2-story HQ located right next to a gas station in Scotch Plains, New Jersey. Every day that the staff comes here, the high prices next door remind them just what's at stake in this election; the high cost of living; the terrible costs of Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthy; the unfair estate tax holding the minimum wage hike hostage; and most importantly the atrocious cost of witholding the promise of stem-cell research from needy families. That's what Mike Ferguson, my pitiful excuse for a Congressman has done to us, and that's what Linda Stender, my next Congresswoman will work to correct.

Pictures to be added later, due to my typing this at Stender HQ and not at home - sorry!]

It's currently about 95 degrees here in Scotch Plains, not including the humidity outside, but it hasn't deterred over 100 volunteers from all over New Jersey's 7th Congressional District from gathering at 211 Park Avenue. I had the opportunity to attend this rally, which is being followed by canvassing of "low-itensity" Democrats; that is, Democrats who usually only vote in Presidential years. Our goal is to make sure they know that this election matters just as much as a Presidential one.

We were fortunate to be joined by our Governor, Jon Corzine, Linda herself and DNC CFO Philip D. Murphy (a New Jerseyan himself)at the rally. The Governor and Mr. Murphy worked at Goldman Sachs together, and you could tell that all three of them were getting along famously. A number of press corps members were here as well.

Corzine, Murphy and Linda energized the crowd (photos will be added later, once I get home and put it up online) by calling for change in Congress and for Mike Ferguson to be fired ASAP. Corzine got loud cheers when Linda saluted him for taking on the property tax crisis, which is a terrible burden on New Jersey taxpayers. Linda roused the crowd when she pointed to the gas station next door and said:

"THAT is what's wrong with the direction of this country!"

I also met a number of my old friends, and made some new ones, too. They are people from all ages, all colors, all backgrounds; but they all have a common vision: to take this country back!

*A woman from New Providence, Mary DeFillipis, age 83, a 60-year veteran of Democratic politics, a candidate for town council at 81 and a wonderful lady. She is frail now, but still fiery, and made her way to Scotch Plains to show her support. She drew a big hug from Governor Corzine at the rally.

*A couple from South Plainfield, the Rudys, who have a young girl who they want to see free from the national debt that will plague the next generations of Americans unless eliminated; they brought her, too, to show their support.

*A teenager from Princeton going into college this fall, who's worried about the high costs of public education, who wants to make sure he has a good-paying job when he gets out of college; he was here, too, to show his support.

*A lady named Deb Huber, who fears the possibility of The War on Terror, initiated by Bush's imperialism, will bring terrorism fully to America's shores, who's been keeping peace vigils since October 2001, who worries about the effects of "shock and awe" on the environment, who knows we'll be dealing with the consequences of this for generations to come; she was here, too, to show her support.

These and many more people showed up today to win voters over to our side, in the name of holy democracy and 'vox populi vox dei': "The voice of the people is the voice of God".

I'll report more on the campaign as it continues. I hope everyone is enjoying YOUR Democratic Reunion as well.

Texas: Aging Prom Queen fails to mediate airline issues

Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 12:07:28 PM PDT
[Note: I am a friend of Barbara Ann Radnofsky, who's running to replace the "aging cheerleader", Kay Bailey Hutchison in the US Senate from Texas]
"Politics," Hubert Humphrey once said, "Is the art of the possible." He meant that while you must never compromise your beliefs, you must compromise to get legislation passed on occasion. And then there's Kay Bailey Hutchison (R/VA...err,TX), who apparently has warped that statement into "Politics is the art of making a fool out of yourself."
You see, Kay Bailey - the aging prom queen of Texas - has been trying to broker a compromise between the deuling lobbyists of American and Southwest Airlines. Her proposal to repeal the "Wright Amendment" (after ex-Speaker Jim Wright)has sadly (for her) been annihilated in Congress.

The Justice Department just released a statement saying that Hutchison's Wright bill *"would be hard-core, per se violations of the Sherman Act," according to the AP.http://www.wfaa.com/ (for article)
In other words, the compromise is DOA. And KBH has failed Texans again.

-----------------------------------------------------------
[Original Article]You see, Barbara Ann Radnofsky (her opponent) is a mediator - by training. She knows how to bring people together, resolve their problems and have both sides agree to bury the hatchet. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a cheerleader and rubberstamp by training, has tried to one-up Barbara Ann by attempting to mediate between the two rival airlines fighting it out in Texas.

THE WRIGHT AMENDMENT ISSUE

The issue at hand is both financial and political. In 1979 Congressman (later Speaker) Jim Wright, a Democrat got an amendment passed that would limit long-haul flights from Dallas Love Field. That shifted the balance of power in airline lobbying to American Airlines, which flies its planes from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, and who was a big supporter of Wright.

27 years later, Southwest Airlines has made Dallas Love Field its home, but wants to make more money off of their investment. Accordingly, they are now lobbying Congress to have the Wright Amendment repealed, which would result in Southwest making mucho dinero in Texas, at the expense of American Airlines.

Naturally, American Airlines' lobbyists are opposing the repeal every step of the way. And since both airlines are duking it out for power in Texas, and John Cornyn is too busy being invisible, that left Kay Bailey Rubberstamper to sort things out.

Btw, here are the dueling websites for the dueling corporations: http://www.setlovefree.com/iswrightwrong.htmlhttp://www.keepdfwstrong.com/THE COMPROMISE - A LEGISLATIVE DILEMMA
One of Barbara Ann's knocks against Kay Bailey is that she is ineffective as a US Senator. Sadly, Kay Bailey has proved her right yet again, this time spectacularly in the form of her "compromise" between the airlines.
The problem for Hutchison is that she had to settle between losing support in Dallas or losing support in Fort Worth, for jobs and revenue are at stake with the Wright Amendment. If the Amendment stays, Fort Worth benefits and Dallas suffers - and by getting involved, Kay Bailey gets blamed by Dallas for it. If the Amendment dies, then Fort Worth won't forgive Kay Bailey for taking away some of its jobs and revenue. Either way, Kay Bailey can't win.
So what's her solution? None of the above! She brokered a deal that would allow the Amendment to last another eight years; by that time, she'd be either Vice-President (she wants to be the VP nominee in 2008) or out of the Senate entirely (as based on her indecision on running for Governor in 2005), so she wouldn't have to deal with the issue again. Ta ta, lobbyists!
This isn't solving the problem - it's punting it. And it didn't sell with the other members of Congress.
LEGISLATIVE DEBACLE
There are three problems with the bill proposed by Hutchison on the Wright Amendment:
1)It hurts other airlines by immediately reducing the number of flight gates to 20 at Dallas Love Field, which means that jobs are lost with ALL the airlines who serve passengers there.
2)It immediately allows flights throughout the country, while keeping the service maximum intact for eight years. That means that it will cost more to fly in and out of Texas if you're not on Southwest Airlines, which angers airline companies like Jet Blue.
3)The bill potentially violates antitrust laws by allowing American Airlines and Southwest Airlines to dominate the Texas airlines market for the eight years given in the bill, blocking out other airlines from competing effectively in the state.
For reasons 1 and 2, Senator Chuck Schumer is opposed to the bill, and Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont is against the bill for reason 3. Leahy, who sits on the Judiciary Committee has the power to block the bill, and has sent for the bill to be reviewed in Judiciary. Schumer, who has had difficulties with Hutchison before may also choose to block the bill. And Hutchison has not helped matters by criticizing Jet Blue for "influencing" Schumer into opposing the bill! http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-wright_22bus.ART0.State.Edition1.15a39e7.html
So, you have two US Senators who are opposed to a poorly written, open-ended bill, and one of them will probably ensure that the bill does not see the light of day. But at least the House will pass it, right? Make those nasty Democrats obstructionists, right?
Oops. Turns out Kay Bailey forgot to get the bill passed there before lobbying the Senate. http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/15116595.htm
According to the article, her bill is not even on the docket to be voted on before Friday's recess! Apparently there's more "pressing" issues at hand to be voted on, so the bill will have to wait until September. Never mind that by the time September comes along the bill may be entirely forgotten in the GOP's rush to put controversial, divisive bills on the docket.

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

This bill was a compromise, an attempt by Kay Bailey Rubberstamper to show that she can get things done in the US Senate. It was also supposed to be a "gimme" piece of legisation - so much so, in fact that the House was supposed to vote for it without amendment (which is reserved for non-controversial bills).
Kay Bailey's poor legislative skills have resulted in the bill not even seeing the light of day. Instead, it will likely die a solitary death in the Judiciary Committee. And that is a tragedy for Texans. Jobs and revenue were on the line for the people of Texas, and Kay Bailey Hutchison - their senior US Senator, their advocate - failed them.
What I am complaining about is not the bill itself - although there are many flaws that deserve its defeat. Rather, the issue is Kay Bailey's inability to get things done in the US Senate. She is not a "problem solver" Senator; she is a "problem make-worse" Senator.
I guarantee you Senator Barbara Ann Radnofsky - a professional mediator - would not make commit legislative stupidity as Hutchison has. Kay Bailey has a track record of sponsoring idiotic legislation, you see; last year, for example, she proposed a bill to allow local police officers (without border training experience) to patrol the Mexican border as "Officers of the Peace", a form of vigilantism that never saw the light of day, either.
And just today Hutchison has tried to meddle...err, mediate in the immigration issue again, this time proposing this inanity of a bill with hardliner Mike Pence:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/15119114.htmThis and the article abridged below discuss her bill, which will again not see the light of day.
The Washington PostImmigration proposal aims to bring Republicans togetherJuly 25, 2006

WASHINGTON -- In an attempt to strike a pre-election Republican compromise on immigration, two conservative lawmakers will unveil a plan today that would allow most of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States a chance to work here legally but only after the government certifies that U.S. borders have been sufficiently secured, two congressional aides said.
The proposal -- sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. -- would pressure illegal immigrants to "self-deport" to their home countries within two years of the law's enactment and apply for a new kind of visa that would allow them to return to the U.S. quickly and work legally if a job awaits them. They would have to work here for 17 years to be eligible for citizenship.
The plan is aimed at unifying Republicans on an issue that has bitterly divided them for months and threatened to damage the party in future elections.
Hutchison and Pence consider it the foundation for a possible compromise between the Senate, which voted for a plan that would provide a new path to citizenship, and the House, which has demanded that Congress focus on securing borders...
For one thing, the immigration bill requires "the President's agreement that the border is secure." Bush is supposed to agree that the border is secure? Hello? Any brain cells working, Kay Bailey? Didn't think so.
------------------------------------------------------------
So, there you have it; a US Senator who claims she can pass bi-partisan legislation, and yet can't even get her own state's concerns passed through her own party's Congress. It's humiliating for her and for Texas that their senior Senator can't deliver on her promises.
If Texans give Barbara Ann Radnofsky the chance to serve them, starting in 2007, they'll have a true-blue mediator who can broker agreements between warring parties in Congress, get bills passed and help Texans in their hour of need.
And plenty of Texans are seeing that. The trend towards Barbara has been favorable. Since March she has cut Kay Bailey's lead from 39 and 31 points (Rasmussen and Zogby) to 19 and 15 in June and July. And she hasn't even begun her media campaign yet! Her radio ads will be starting at the end of this month, and you can hear them at http://www.radnofsky.com .
I certainly learned a lot about airline legislation from researching for this diary. I also learned that KBH actually stands for "Kinda Bio-Hazard" when it comes to helping the people of Texas. I think BAR can do better than that.

9/11 victim's brother is terrorist sympathizer, says opponent

By Stephen Yellin
Earlier this month I did an interview with Andrew Rice, a dynamic young progressive running for the State Senate in Oklahoma City (District 46). His website is http://www.andrewforoklahoma.com ,fyi. Andrew, a 33-year old Democrat lost his brother in the World Trade Center attacks, and since that time has been heavily active in public service. He currently is a leader with "September 11th Families For Peaceful Tomorrows", a strong anti-war activist in Oklahoma and the former director of the Red River Democracy Project. My interview with him is at http://www.dailykos.com/...
Tomorrow Andrew faces the voters in a primary battle against two opponents. One of them is Drew Dugan, a leader in the local Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Dugan appears to have decided that the only way to defeat Andrew, who has won the endorsements of the Sierra Club and the AFL-CIO, among others, is to call him a terrorist sympathizer. And he's getting tips on how to do this from a Republican "smear firm" that worked against John Kerry and Stephanie Herseth in 2004.

IMG]http://i38.photobucket.com/...[/IMG][IMG]http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e138/StephenYellin/Dugantradecenter_2.jpg[/IMG] This is the mailer sent out today into the mailboxes of OKC Democrats. It is a smear piece by Mr. Dugan, for although it doesn't mention his name, it has his mailing address on it. It cynically uses September 11th and Andrew's progressive (and courageous) stance on Iraq and the War on Terrorism to label him as a terrorist sympathizer. The blatant use of the Pentagon on 9/11, Bin Laden and Zacharias Moussaoui along with two phrases taken out of context from a post written by Andrew in 2004 on the "Families" website is utterly despicable. It leaves the reader to assume that not only were the comments made immediately after 9/11 (they were not), but that Andrew is ignoring his brother's death in his statements - and that is utterly untrue and mean-spirited to say the least. This is what Andrew actually said:
http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/...

It is a post written by a young man who struggled with the death of his brother, knowing that he had died at the hands of terrorists, yet realizing at the same time that violence against the Middle East was not the right response. Andrew Rice is not a terrorist sympathizer - and if you read that article, you will see what he truly is - a good and decent man with a passion to serve and the desire to do good in this world. And Drew Dugan should be ashamed of himself for using Andrew's late brother as a weapon.

But why should he? After all, he's getting his tactics from the Republicans! You see, over the weekend a marketing firm called RDI Marketing Services in Cincinnati, Ohio called (some live, some not) hundreds of OKC Democrats all day, telling them the exact same b.s. as the Dugan mailer. One Rice supporter reported this:

"Hi, Andrew. I'm sure this is old information for you, but I wanted to share it if that is not the case. Suzanne answered a live call from a guy reading a script. He said your website shows you support terrorists. He said you are in favor of illegal immigration. When Suzanne tried to interrupt, he hung up. We called back the number 800-295-7193. The number takes you to a recording that says "contacted for marketing research or a sales call." Kurt Hochenauer, Ph.D. University of Central Oklahoma" [This was e-mailed to me by Andrew. I'm not ashamed to say that I support him 100%]

RDI is well-funded by the Republican Party, which has given this firm between $250,000 and $350,000 a year for services rendered, according to the DCCC in 2004.

http://www.dccc.org/...In Stephanie Herseth's 2004 special election race (which she won), RDI tried a reverse-psychology method on South Dakotan voters, saying that Herseth's opponent would hurt college students with his votes if elected. It turns out, as Jesse Lee reported then, that RDI sent out the calls, calls that were paid for by the RNC (according to their FEC reports).

http://www.opensecrets.org/...

RDI also helped to attack John Kerry in the Minnesota Caucuses in 2004:

http://www.therochesterdemocrat.com/...

This was done the day before the primary...just like Andrew Rice is being smeared the day before his. In both cases RDI did NOT leave an identifier of who they were, which is a violation of FEC law. "The Rice campaign will file a grievance with Attorney General Drew Edmondson after the primary," Andrew wrote me, and since Mr. Edmondson is a Democrat I'm sure this will get some legs. Already Oklahoma Democrats are writing about it, even those who do not support him:
http://www.demookie.com/...

The GOP has sunk to new lows in trying to stop Andrew Rice. They know that if he is elected, he will be a powerful voice for change in Oklahoma, and someday the nation. Just read these two articles to see why:

http://www.colby.edu/...
http://www.edmondsun.com/...

Like I said, the primary is tomorrow. Andrew's polling showed him above the 50% needed to avoid the runoff, but today's mailing may change all that. So there are two things you can (and ought) to do:

1)Call Drew Dugan's campaign office at (405) 521-1112 or e-mail him at drew@votedrewdugan.com , and tell him to issue a public apology for this awful attack on Andrew's family and character. 2)If there is a runoff, you can bet this campaign will get even nastier. Plus, there's a (real) Republican opponent waiting in the general election in this lean-Democratic open seat. So any contributions you can send to Andrew (http://www.andrewforoklahoma.com) would be greatly appreciated by them.

The Rice family deserves better; Oklahoma City families deserve better; we, the American voters deserve better than the Atwater/Rove slime tactics that Drew Dugan is using. I hope that this diary is recommended, or at least mentioned in the "missed" diaries tomorrow, because it's THAT important. Thanks for reading.

Meet the candidate who turns $1 into $20 - and hear her ads!

(Disclosure: I've been friends with Barbara Ann for two years now, but my opinions are NOT the campaign's. Just so you know. :)
As many of you know, Texas' US Senate nominee in 2006 is Barbara Ann Radnofsky, whose campaign slogan says it all: "Tough name, Smart dame". Barbara Ann is a lawyer, a professional mediator, a community activist and a mother of three who plans on "Raising the BAR" in Washington for serving the public. She faces Kay Bailey "What's perjury between friends?" Hutchison in November, and currently trails her 53-34% in the polls; which, considering that KBH led 64-25% in March isn't that bad. You can check out her website at http://www.radnofsky.com .

Now, you may be wondering, "How the heck does a candidate turn $1 into $20?". Well, let me tell you how. You see, Barbara Ann and I talk frequently, so I know a lot about her style of campaigning.

She sleeps in her friends' houses, not fancy hotels.

She drives her own car, unlike her limousing-riding opponent.

She doesn't use DC consultants, relying on a close circle of loyal staffers and volunteers for advice - including me, I should say.

Her website hosts videos, podcasts, webcasts and issue charts that can be disseminated for free across the nation. Oh, and the website was designed and created by a loyal volunteer.

Meanwhile, Barbara Ann raises money - over $1.1 million so far - and by saving so much on expenses is able to get her message out at maximum quantity when it matters.

For example, after the primary on March 7th Barbara was ahead 43-37% over "Gene" Kelly, a perennial candidate with wide recognition (that name, you know?), and she was in danger of losing the runoff. THAT'S when she unleashed her direct-mail and GOTV operations, for now her campaign knew where she needed votes for the runoff.

And she won that runoff with 60%. You can view her victory speech at http://www.radnofsky.com/... .

Barbara Ann also is pretty creative. Since Kay Bailey Hutchison has relocated her primary address to Virginia (where Tom DeLay was trying to escape to), Barbara bought herself a "Welcome to Virginia" tote bag, complete with Alaska salmon cans (to represent KBH's support of Ted Stevens' "Bridge to nowhere" bill). If she ever gets to meet KBH, Barbara Ann plans to give her opponent the tote bag.

As you can see, Barbara Ann doesn't approve of waste, as her denunciation-by-sarcasm of Stevens' bill shows. (You can view her speech to the TX Democratic Convention, complete with tote bag at http://www.radnofsky.com/... . It's on YouTube also) One of the issues that she and I talk about the most is how the government is wasting taxpayer dollars on so many stupid projects, while many urgent problems are given short shrift (see "Katrina, Hurricane" for proof). And government waste is the message that Barbara Ann's about to unveil on the radio!

At http://scottradio.com/... (Scott Perault is another friend of Barbara's on the campaign) you can listen to Barbara's ads for yourself. They each direct the viewer to Barbara's website (http://www.radnofsky.com), and she gives this statement:

"I'm Barbara Ann - that's Barbara Ann Radnofsky - and I approved this message; but I do NOT approve of government wasting OUR tax dollars!"

When you turn a campaign in such a "red" state away from the ideological and towards issues that every voter agrees on - like wasteful spending and corruption in Washington - you may well be able to topple an "unbeatable" incumbent. And when you gear limited financial resources towards such issues, you do indeed "turn $1 into $20".

Of course, every campaign needs money, and Barbara Ann's is no exception. In fact, considering Hutchison has raised over $8 million for her campaign, BAR could really use our support. There are two ways for you to do this:

1)Go to Barbara Boxer's PAC for Change site (http://ga4.org/...)and vote for Barbara Ann to get Boxer's donation opportunities. The other candidates ahead of her (Bob Casey, Claire McCaskill and Sherrod Brown) will all be well-funded for November, whether it be by themselves (Casey) or with the help of the DSCC (McCaskill and Brown). After all, those are top-tiered races.

In BAR's case, however, the Senate race is not going to be funded by national groups UNLESS WE MAKE IT COMPETITIVE. Should Barbara Ann win Boxer's poll, she will be the likely benificiary of thousands of dollars - dollars that KBH will be forced to counter in Texas with her own. And that means less money from KBH to Rick Santorum, George Allen and Jon Ensign. So if you don't mind, go to Boxer's site and vote for Barbara Ann if you haven't voted already. The vote ends on Friday.

2)If you want to contribute directly, you can go to https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=z7qyVhq2MxdLwP5iP42cYg==
and send what you can afford to BAR directly. She'll be glad you did, and so will you.

After all, she makes every dollar you send him turn into twenty.
http://www.radnofsky.com

A Prayer for the Middle East, and the World

I'm not an avid synagogue goer, I admit. But I am a person of faith, of deep conviction that humanity will be good and decent in the future, that peace and prosperity go hand in hand, that my children and grandchildren will live in a better world than mine.
And that faith is being tested by the crisis unfolding in the Middle East right now. What happens there, obviously, will affect all of us all over the world; as I type, the Stock Market is plummeting, oil prices are rising fast and America (or at least, its government) is on high alert.
And so at this time of what appears to be a world crisis, I want to offer up a prayer to God. I hope that whatever faith you have (or even no faith), you will agree with me that it may be one of the few things we can do at this hour. It's not Armageddon - yet. But it could very well turn into a war that will test our hearts and our consciences in the days to come.

Here is my prayer; feel free to change it to make it relavent to your God, dieties or something else.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Almighty God, Creator of the Universe, Ruler of All Things, hear this humble prayer from your people:

We urge you, o Lord, to seek out the hearts of the people of Israel, of the Gaza Strip, of the West Bank, of Lebanon; have them rise and stand against war, unholy war, in this time of distress. Let them come together of all faiths, all ideologies and beliefs, so that the land you blessed your people with shall not be charred and blackened with the sinews of war.

We urge you, o Lord, to seek out the hearts of the leaders of Israel, of the Gaza Strip, of the West Bank, of Lebanon; have them come to the truth that war cannot solve their problems, that in the words of the Prophet Isaiah:
"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they use war anymore."
And that, o Lord, you may turn their hearts from the sword and to the ploughshare, as you promised so very long ago. Turn their thoughts to negotiation, to the settlement of old disputes forever, and to the end of suffering and hardship on all sides.

To we, your people, o Lord, it matters not wherein this peace will require. Do it, o Lord, so that the trumpets shall no longer blast hate, that the drums no longer rumble of bombs, that the rockets scream no longer of death. Grant us peace, o Lord, so that we can fulfill your commandments and make our land one of milk and honey once again.

We urge you, o Lord, to soften the hearts and steel the minds of the world's leaders, many of whom meet even now to discuss this danger. Give them the strength to deal with all this calmly and without malice in their minds, to work with their fellow leaders fairly and without bias, to set aside all differences and to guide a course to peace in your troubled land.

We urge you, o Lord, to single out one man in particular at this time. Bless the President of the United States with wisdom and clarity, with honor and compassion, with courage and strength; all this, o Lord he may not have had before, and so we urge you to grant him all this now. Indeed, o Lord, may he use this strength you have given him to see your light and your truth, and to change his and his country's course for the better, and to your good guidance.

We urge you, o Lord, to reach out to those who kill and maim in the Middle East as we speak, from the Holy Land to Iraq and elsewhere. Soften their hearts; have them throw away their instruments of death and embrace their foes, to give each of their lands peace and goodwill.

And finally, o Lord, we urge you to prevent this from ever happening again; prevent those who would use your name in sowing death; prevent those who would manipulate your people; prevent those who would claim their right to exist better than others; and prevent those who would leave us with no world at all.

We urge all this, o Lord, knowing your infinite power and strength, knowing your compassion and justice, knowing that when you blessed us, your people many years ago you meant for us to teach the world the lessons that have failed to have been learned. Forgive us, o Lord, and grant us the strength to learn anew, to teach anew, and to make a better world for all possible anew.
Baruch atah Adonai, Eloheinu Melech Haolam, amen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know it cannot all be realized. The slaughter will go on, the leaders will rattle their sabers, the hate and prejudice will sear the hearts of many, and the world will continue to decline.

Or it may not. Perhaps we will be able to listen, to learn from our mistakes, to build again on bloodstained soil and on crumbled stones - and this time not let our buildings fall. Perhaps we will have leaders to be proud of, and countries to work well with, and war shall be a distant memory.

Perhaps it is up to us, after all.

There's a new US Senate candidate in CT - and it's not Joe

From the files of "And just when things couldn't get any more interesting...")
As we all know, Joe Lieberman (like him or not) is running as an Independent in November, unless he wins his primary against Ned Lamont on August 8th (which I give a 40% chance of happening right now). However, it looks as if Joe's going to have some company in the Independent area, for a NEW candidate has entered the race, and it's not a no-name fringe one either.

Her name is Diana Urban,(http://www.housegop.ct.gov/...) and she's a Republican State Representative. And she's running as an anti-war candidate.
Yeah, that's right. An anti-war Republican legislator is joining a pro-war Republican, a pro-war Democrat/Independent and an anti-war Democrat in the race for the Connecticut US Senate. Hey, at least the Nutmeg State's voters have choices!

This was from the Hotline On Call earlier today:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/...
"As Connecticut Turns:
This just in from our guy in CT, Hartford Courant's Kevin Rennie:
Just when you thought the Connecticut race for the U.S. Senate could grow no odder, Republican state Representative Diana Urban today took out petitions for an independent run, creating the possibility of a four way race should Democrat challenger Ned Lamont defeat Senator Joseph Lieberman in the August 8th primary. Lieberman has also taken out petitions. Urban, 56, will be running as an anti-war candidate and in a brief telephone interview sounded like a Republican version of Cindy Sheehan.

The three term state legislator, claiming the Bush administration possesses a "flat learning curve", says America went into Iraq for the wrong reasons. She says she was heavily influenced by recently published account of the war, Cobra II. On a more philosophical level, she cleaves to the Sun-Tzu's Art of War, declaring that her campaign strategy comes from him: "The path will reveal itself to you."
Claiming "a number of women asked me over and over again to do this", Urban is not giving up her race for re-election to the state legislature, for which she is unopposed from her affluent southeastern Connecticut district, previously represented by Iraq war enthusiast, Congressman Rob Simmons."

Regardless of whether Ms. Urban is a "Cindy Sheehan" type or not, the fact is that Connecticut Republicans who are opposed to the Iraq conflict now can vote for a Republican who agrees with them on that, plus everything else.
What does this mean? Well, it's bad news for Lieberman's Independent candidacy. Why's that?

It's a matter of numbers, really. The last Rasmussen Reports poll had Lieberman at 44% in a 3-way battle with Lamont (29%) and Alan Schlesigner, the GOP nominee (20%). Needless to say, Lieberman was pulling both Democratic and Republican votes away from the "nominees" at the time. However, consider three things:

1)The Democratic base is much larger than 29% in Connecticut. Even when then-popular GOP Governor John Rowland won reelection in 1998, his opponent won 35%. Therefore, should Lamont win the nomination he can expect to earn AT LEAST that much in November.

2)The GOP base is greater than 20%, and Lieberman is stealing from that as well. Even Jack Orlucci drew 34% in 2004 against popular Democrat Chris Dodd for US Senate. So at minimum Lieberman needs to hold Schlesinger to 30% to win.

3)And that's not even including Urban's sudden candidacy. With 77% of Connecticut voters opposing the war, there's enough Republicans and Independents out there to give Urban a decent showing (if she stays in and doesn't implode, of course). She, Lieberman and Schlesinger will all be competing for no more than 65% of the electorate.

So, here's how a potential situation would play out:

- Lieberman loses primary, runs as Independent.- Urban joins him as Independent, splits the Indy vote- Schlesinger and Urban split GOP vote on pro/anti war basis. - Lamont wins by holding on to the Democratic base, plus some anti-war Independents.

In this 4-candidate race, the winner is going to be whoever can hold their party's base together. We're seeing this in Texas, where Governor Rick Perry is winning with just 40% of the vote, because his three opponents are splitting the rest almost evenly (go Chris Bell!). And we'd see this in Connecticut if Ned Lamont can win the nomination.

So August 8th really becomes THAT much more important. If Ned Lamont beats Joe Lieberman, then Lieberman faces the difficulty of not one, but TWO Republicans drawing votes from the right and center, while Lamont would have the left to himself.

I don't see this developement as anything, but good for Ned Lamont. Let me know if I'm wrong, of course.

Interviews With Young Candidates - Elesha Gayman, Iowa

As some of you may know, I'm currently conducting a series of interviews with young candidates across the nation. I've already conducted interviews with Andrew Rice in Oklahoma (http://www.dailykos.com/...) and Patrick Schmitt in Rhode Island (http://www.dailykos.com/...), and there's several more planned in the next few weeks.
Today, I'm happy to present my interview with Elesha Gayman, a 27-year old Democratic activist who's running for the Iowa House of Representatives (http://www.eleshagayman.com). Elesha's family settled in Scott County (where her district is) in 1840, and so her name is well-known in the area; in addition, she has the strong support of Iowa's Democratic Party in a race that may well decide who controls Iowa's lower legislative branch (it's currently 51-49 for the GOP!). She's was one of DFA's first 2006 endorsements this cycle, after having worked for Howard Dean's 2004 campaign in Iowa. So, without further ado, allow me to introduce you all to...Elesha Gayman!

INTERVIEW WITH ELESHA GAYMAN, IA-84.
1. Tell us where you're from, and what your background is. Did your background influence your plans to run for office?
I am from Davenport, proudly born and raised. I earned a degree in political science from the University of Iowa and then went to work in the non profit sector. Currently I work juvenile offenders at a non-profit where we help them with their GED, life skills and job training. I am also currently working on my MPA (Masters of Public Administration) with Drake University. In addition, I worked for Kerry/Edwards in 2004 as a field organizer overseeing four counties and have worked two separate legislative session in the Iowa Senate.
2. When and how did you first get involved in politics? Who inspired you to get involved, and how was he/she an influence?
I had a wonderful 8th grade teacher, Mr. Albers, who identified my passion for politics. He happened to be looking for a student to nominate for a youth city council and I happen to fit the bill. I was only thirteen when I addressed the city council for the first time, and I have been in love with the political process ever since.
3. What led you to decide to run for office?
Currently Iowa ranks 49th in the nation for keeping and retaining college graduates and also ranks among top in the nation for highest debt loads carried by graduates. I am proud to be from Iowa and would not trade my experiences here for anything but young professionals in Iowa face a dire situation. Faced with paying their bills or family, our graduates too often have to choose paying their bills. This is not a choice anyone should have to make. To make the situation worse for those who stay, Iowa has one of oldest per capita populations in the nation, begging the question of who is going to be able to pay for a lifestyle our seniors deserve.
I have decided to run for office to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I want to honor our past with a vision for our future; creating and attracting quality job, making health care accessible to all, and working to make higher education an affordable option for all Iowans.
4.Describe the type of office you are seeking, and how that office affects the people around it. (Ex: US Senator serves entire state, votes on federal issues etc.)
The Iowa House has 100 members. Currently it is 51 to 49 in favor of Republicans. With a tie in the Senate 25 to 25 and an open Governors race this cycle will be highly competitive. My district (#84) consists of just over 20,000 registered votes and includes urban and rural areas. I am running against a 65 year old Republican incumbent who has been rumored to be on the Republican watch list for vulnerable candidates.
The Iowa Legislature oversees the well being of more than 3 million Iowans with a budget of just over 6 million dollars. The Legislature oversees funding for schools, security and safety of citizens, as well as regulations on agriculture, environment, and other programs intended to better Iowa.
5. How have party leaders viewed your candidacy? Did your age play a role in this?
I have been embraced by local party leaders who are ready for some "fresh blood." While I was not the obvious candidate that the state party would have liked to recruit after demonstrating my willingness to work hard (door knock and raise money) I have received nothing but support from those in the party.
Currently in Iowa there are at least 6 candidates running for the Iowa House in their early thirties or younger. It is possible that at 28 I could become the youngest women Legislator in Iowa's history.
6.What issues are you concentrating on the most in your campaign? Why? And have those issues resonated with voters?
A good 75% or more of people I have talked to have been impacted by a young person they know leaving Iowa. So immediately they have found a way to connect with me and my message. But if young people leaving Iowa are the problem our solution is in three major areas.
- We must work to create and bring quality jobs to Iowa.
- We must work to make healthcare affordable to all Iowans.
- We must work to remove the cost barriers around higher education.
7.Has your age been an issue with voters? If possible, describe some episode where your age either helped or hurt you while campaigning. I feel my age has acted more as a strength than a weakness. I look even younger than I actually am so I usually make a point to joke with people about my age or young look. I often tease that I really am old enough to vote!
8.If (re)elected, what are your top 3 priorities? See number 6.
9.How is your opponent campaigning? Do you feel as if your age influences his/her strategy? My opponent has not been too active on the campaign trail or raising money. Perhaps he underestimates my ability due to my age. But thus far we have not seen a lot of activity.
10.What advice would you give to future candidates who would like to run for office as a young person? (Like me, for example!)
I would tell other young people the same thing my mother told me growing up, "You aren't better than anyone else, but no one is better than you." Believe in yourself and know that when you are sitting in a room with the Governor or the single mom working three jobs to put food on the table you are running for the same reason, because you can make a difference!
------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, Elesha is a candidate with a specific plan to make a difference in Iowa, and with the ability and determination to make a real difference. And she can make a real difference politically, too; with Iowa's legislature essentially deadlocked (51-49 GOP in the House, 25-25 in the State Senate) and with a close Gubenatorial race (go Chet Culver!), every single race there counts. If you want to learn more about her, go to http://www.eleshagayman.com . Thanks again, and stay tuned for my next interview!

Interviews With Young Candidates - Andrew Rice, Oklahoma

(Part I of a series)

As I wrote a few days ago at http://www.dailykos.com/... , I've begun to interview a series of young candidates running for office. I want to thank those of you who offered suggestions, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond on time (family stuff, y'know?). Anyway, on to the first interview!
Andrew Rice is a 33-year old Oklahoman who is running for the State Senate. When I first read about him, I was amazed. Andrews has led a life full of remarkable service to this world, from helping AIDS victims in Thailand to beocming an activist for progressive values (in Oklahoma, no less!) to his expertise on religious issues that allows him to combat the growing trend of fundamentalist extremism in our country. Plus, he's a Kossack! His website is http://www.andrewforoklahoma.com , and I urge you all to read more about him.

I sent a list of questions to Andrew earlier today, and he was impressive in his responses. You can read them for yourselves here:
1.Tell us where you're from, and what your background is. Did your background influence your plans to run for office?
Andrew: I was born in Oklahoma City and grew up here. I went to college in Maine and grad school in Boston, and then lived in the northeast until moving back home to Oklahoma City in 2003 (via 1 ½ years in Austin, TX). I was not raised in a political home. My parents were moderate Republicans who never spoke about politics. All the children in my family were encouraged to attend college out of state so we could be exposed to multiculturalism and the rest of the world. Interestingly, all of us ended up becoming progressive Democrats because of this and because of the progressive values my parents instilled in us, even though they were for the most part unaware that the values they raised us with were more progressive than conservative. My background did influence by decision to run in that I was raised with a deep respect for what I call "community-based self interest", that my well-being is connected to the well-being and vitality of the larger community I live in. My parents did not want us growing up feeling we could isolate ourselves away from the world at large.
2.When and how did you first get involved in politics? Who inspired you to get involved, and how was he/she an influence?
Andrew: I first became in involved in politics through activism in college. I was very active in a group that was concerned with financial aid issues at our college, which was Colby College in Maine. I was not on aid, but had several good friends who were. There was a sense that the school did not fully appreciate the demands put on lower-income students, many of whom were sending a lot of their work-study income home to their families to help pay the bills. The majority of the student body was affluent, and we felt the administration needed to become more sensitive to the difficulties for lower-income students in an elitist environment. I also was involved in campus activism around the assassination of the Israel Prime Minister Rabin and the Rwandan Genocide. I was in college during the Clinton years, so there was some apathy that came with the prosperity and peace time.
In grad school at Harvard I was involved in a living wage campaign for the cafeteria and part-time custodial staff. Throughout these years however, I was not involved in electoral politics at all, just progressive activism.

3.What led you to decide to run for office?
Andrew: My decision to run was very personal. I left grad school and made a documentary and moved to New York to work on documentaries. My sister Amy already lived there, and about a year after I moved there my older brother David moved there from Chicago. David was transferred there by his investment firm and they had an office in the World Trade Center. He was killed on Sept. 11th, he worked in the North Tower. After about a month, I realized that we were in for a very unsettling period in our country because of the attacks and the Bush administration's initial response to them. I knew that despite the initial unity, that we were headed toward becoming a deeply divided country and we would be tempted as a country to against some of our most basic and important democratic principles.
I became very involved in a September 11th family group called Peaceful Tomorrows. Our larger mission was to try and have a voice for an authentic dialogue about how we can best combat terrorism over the long term, and not just give into our most reactionary impulses. We really became mobilized when it became apparent that the Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq and use 9/11 as a justification. I began traveling to DC to speak with members of congress and think tank analysts and it was clear that Iraq was unrelated to 9/11 and that this was a major exploitation of a very personal loss for me. I became more and more political around post-9/11 issues of concern to me: the 9/11 Commission, the Patriot Act, Bush's exploitation of 9/11 in his re-election campaign. I found myself being pulled deeper and deeper into electoral politics and the legislative process, and away from advocacy work, because I kept experiencing first-hand the power of government and the limited power (especially in a post-9/11 world) of advocating from the outside.
I essentially decided to run so I could cease having to keep knocking on representative's doors from the outside, and instead have a seat at the table on the inside, and have the power to take bold stands for the progressive values this country needs, and on which this country was founded.

4.Describe the type of office you are seeking, and how that office affects the people around it. (Ex: US Senator serves entire state, votes on federal issues etc.)
Andrew: I'm running for State Senate (District 46) in urban Oklahoma City. It is a relatively progressive and populist district, and therefore a unique one in very "Red" Oklahoma. It is funny, over the last 8 months I have knocked doors in every precinct in this district and people either want to talk about federal issues or very local issues like their trash being picked up; very rarely do people want to talk about state government. However, State government has an enormous impact in Oklahomans' lives: tuition increases, tax-cuts that impact state services, etc...
The gist of my platform is that I will take political risks for the good of this district and the state. It is the anti-"overly cautious" politician campaign. From time to time the best legislative decision is also the most politically "risky" according to the conventional wisdom of the day. What I find is that voters are apathetic because there are so few authentic leaders who will demonstrate that they care more about good government than playing it safe and their next election. People want something different and it cannot be easily classified as either conservative or liberal, they want public servants who will level with them and respectfully challenge the widely held perceptions that are getting us nowhere in this country.
This seat has grown accustomed to progressive and very independent-minded leadership for several decades. It is a good fit for the type of candidate I am.

5.How have party leaders viewed your candidacy? Did your age play a role in this?
Andrew: I think there was hesitation early on among Party leaders. Oklahoma is a red state where many Democrats running for office run very fast away from the "liberal" label and too often don't take stands even on issues where the public is with them. Given my very public background against the war and that, among other things, I was awarded the local ACLU civil libertarian award, I think some party leaders were scared I was going to be "bad" for the state party. But I have worked hard and gotten great momentum, and I have shown that my aggressive campaign approach is really about showing people where you stand and being proud of your convictions. Most voters respect your convictions and disrespect someone who is trying to see which way the wind is blowing and plays it safe. I understand and accept that we have more conservative Democrats and districts in our state than the district I am running for. I just ask that Democratic politicians here find their core set of principles and don't compromise them.
My contention is that Oklahoma voters are not accustomed to having Democratic candidates respectfully challenge the ridiculous right-wing talking points here, and when we do challenge them, we win votes. I have not had one voter tell me on their doorstep that they are for the massive tax-cuts being approved on a national level and state level after we talk about the devastating effects they are having on our economy. When they realize that these tax-cuts are shrinking government down to the size to where Grover Norquist and these radicals can drown it in a bathtub, and what that means for their aunt with no healthcare, or for their children's public school or the road in front of their house, they are with us, not the Republicans. The more we get out their and speak passionately with them about their concerns and real-life problems and show them that the progressive platform will do something about it, then we can win. I spoke with working class Republican woman yesterday who is on assistance from the state. One of the Republicans running in the other primary put a sign in her yard. I was asking her about what she thought about him. She said she did not know much about him and was confused about him wanting to do away with something called the "death tax". We talked about what the "death tax" really was and about what the Republican party stands for, and that if conservatives had their way, government assistance would be eliminated. She had never been confronted about these things. So we need a respectful, but aggressive local Democratic party and candidates who take these issues head on.
My age has not been a concern. Oklahoma is a state where someone like David Boren was elected governor at an age younger than me. People here are comfortable with young politicians. I am 33, which is the age Brad Carson was in 2000 when he was first elected to Congress from eastern Oklahoma.

6.What issues are you concentrating on the most in your campaign? Why? And have those issues resonated with voters?
Andrew: See the answer to question #4.

7.Has your age been an issue with voters? If possible, describe some episode where your age either helped or hurt you while campaigning.
Andrew: If anything, my age has helped me with voters. Many people feel like too many politicians stay too long in public service. We have legislative term-limits in Oklahoma now, and that is how this Senate seat has opened up. Most voters say they are ready for "new blood".

8.If (re)elected, what are your top 3 priorities?

Andrew: 1.Fiscal Responsibility (i.e. adequate funding of State Programs and investments in our infrastructure has to take place before any talk of tax-cuts)
2.Standing up for the Separation of Church and State and therefore the religious freedoms that ensures all Oklahomans can keep government out of their religion, and vice versa.
3.Complete transparency and accountability. I will offer myself up to the highest levels of constituent accountability and government transparency.

9.How is your opponent campaigning? Do you feel as if your age influences his/her strategy?
Andrew: My age is not an issue. I have a big primary in 3 weeks (July 25th). I have 2 Democratic opponents: a woman who is a recent law school grad and a guy who works at the local Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber guy is being bankrolled by big Republican money because this seat is seen as a safe Democratic seat. The Democratic primary winner is considered the clear favorite in the general election. So the local Republican funders would like him in there to advance their agenda that is anti-labor and pro-tax cuts. We expect him to come after me and smear me for being progressive in hopes of scaring Democratic voters that only a conservative, DINO can win the general election. It is funny though, John Kerry did not win one county in Oklahoma in 2004, but he won a majority of these State Senate precincts. This is a progressive seat for Oklahoma and actually a DINO is exactly the type of Democratic candidate who could lose the seat to a moderate Republican. There are 2 Republicans running in the other primary: one is your typical religious right candidate, the other is a bit more moderate.
It has not become a nasty Democratic primary yet, but it could become one in the next 3 weeks.

10.What advice would you give to future candidates who would like to run for office as a young person? (Like me, for example!) Andrew: My only advice is this: make sure you are thick-skinned, and be very clear with yourself about what you are willing to compromise and what are your are not willing to compromise. The voters respect someone who shoots it straight with them and is equally respectful of their beliefs. Local, retail politics races are where we as progressive democrats should be running in. You have the power to go out and meet each voter and have control over your image, unlike the larger races that are fought out on TV and Radio with smears. Local races are where we will build the farm team of the new progressive movement.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I learned a lot, actually, from Andrew's responses. The main message I got from them is this: that if you stand up for what you believe in and campaign with ideas and integrity, then age should not be an issue at all. I'll have to see if that is true with my future interviews as well; for now, I want to thank Andrew for answering my questions in such a timely fashion. His primary, as he said is on July 27th, so if you want to help him out now would be the time to do it!
My next interview will be published later this week.

Some Thoughts on Hillary Clinton - And How We Should Treat Her

Before I begin, I want to make clear that this isn't an article about Hillary '08; should that happen, however, then the points I am about to make will be even more relevant. While a campaign for the Presidency in 2008 may seem inevitable, there is always plenty of room for any candidate to decide against a bid, and Hillary is one of many in that regard. Rather, what I want to discuss with all of you is some thoughts I've had in recent months about Hillary Clinton - not just on "Hillary the possible President", but "Hillary the Senator" and "Hillary the Democratic symbol" as well.

We should remember that while more and more Americans are reading political blogs every day, the vast majority of Americans, even most political activists, do not read DailyKos, MyDD and so forth. We should also remember that as the forefront of political activism, what we on the "left" (to fit the media narrative that will dominate politics for some time to come) say and do will be of dramatic importance in 2006, 2008 and beyond. I will explain why this relates to Hillary below.

What follows, then, is a selection of thoughts I've had on the 800-pound gorilla in the Democratic Party today (for lack of a better term). I know that many of you have lukewarm feelings at best towards Hillary Clinton; I urge you to put aside those emotions for a brief time and read what I have to say. This is NOT an endorsement of "Hillary `08", let me be clear about that; it is simply what I feel needs to be said in the blogosphere on this topic. With that in mind, here we go:

HILLARY AS PUBLIC FIGURE

Rarely, if ever in the history of American politics has a woman exerted so much power in government, with so much influence and potential to achieve fame or infamy. Eleanor Roosevelt certainly had that influence, as did (in some ways) Abigail Adams; it is not a surprise, then, to learn that they along with Hillary Rodham Clinton were wives of Presidents. It is also not a surprise that wife as well as husband were often lambasted in the media and by the opposition as the devil incarnate, with all the flaws and errors of the country tossed onto their shoulders. Abigail Adams was described as a "harpy" in mass-distributed pamphlets in the 1800 Election (according to Adams vs. Jefferson, a new book that I recently finished); Eleanor Roosevelt was mocked for her mannerisms, hated by the right for supporting minority groups and was even drummed out of DAR for protesting Marian Anderson's 1939 exclusion from a DAR event; and Hillary...

Has there ever been a woman in modern times more hated than Hillary Clinton? Sure, the left hated Thatcher in Britain, and extremists loathed Indira Gandhi in India; but I have not seen the level of visceral rage exhibited towards Hillary on the right - and sometimes ON THE LEFT - shown towards any other woman currently in public life. While this attention is largely deserved - after all, she may well become America's first woman President - the hatred towards her, particularly from the likes of an Ann Coulter or a Rush Limbaugh can only be compared to "ER" and Abigail. And none of that anger is justifiable from a rational perspective.

Yet people are frequently irrational, and are especially so when it comes to their public officials. George Bush's reelection in 2004 (whether legitimate or not) was proof of that. Yet the same minority of radicals, fundamentalists and big business leaders who push the Bush agenda onto America also happens to dominate the media narrative of American life. And therein lies the danger of someone like Hillary Clinton; she threatens to deter - no, destroy - that media narrative that hides a white-males-only club of political and economic dominance.

Remember 1992, when the Clintons first came onto the political stage? When Hillary made her (in?)famous comment that as First Lady she wouldn't "sit around at home and bake cookies", the media had a field day over the "fact" that she had insulted every housewife in America. Bill got his good share of mauling as well, from Jennifer Flowers to his time as Governor to his "hippie" youth - but Hillary was often unfavorably compared to Barbara Bush in the media, according to Newsweek's 1992 book on the campaign. Perhaps Clinton got lucky; after all, he was running against a kooky Independent and a President who was largely believed to be out of touch with the American people.
Together, the Clintons represent a modern-day successful American family, one in which both parents work, are ambitious, have love-hate relationships and raise their children well, while dreaming of a better tomorrow for their kids. In short, they stand for everything people like James Dobson, Pat Buchanan and Michelle Malkin fear - a cultural change in the country. And they will never stop perpetuating that myth - "Hillary the Devil Incarnate" - until the media narrative is ended for good.

The constant barrage of attacks on the Clintons, and especially Hillary has continued unabated since 1992. From the health care debacle to Whitewater to the Lewinsky saga, from her movement to New York to become a US Senator, the media has never ceased its Hillary frenzy. It is a testament to both Clintons' political skills and drive to succeed that neither is doing too shabby right now - and that Chelsea is out of the limelight.

My final thought on "Hillary as public servant" would be to say that for Hillary to act in public as a raging reformer would only intensify the media attention on her. Her "shift" rightwards on the political spectrum, whether intentional or no (maybe she truly changed her mind - who are we to guess?) will never calm the storm around her. And whenever we attack her from the left (for good reasons or ill ones), we feed into that media narrative.

HILLARY AS SENATOR

This leads me into my next thought - that of Senator Clinton, D-New York. In her nearly six years as a US Senator, Hillary has accumulated a record of relatively liberal positions, placing her just below the "mid-point" of Democratic US Senators on votes. According to the National Journal's 2005 Vote Ratings, Clinton is ranked as "more liberal" than about 80% of her colleagues. Joe Lieberman, by contrast is at 65%, or the lowest for a Democratic Senator from a "blue state" by far. Again, that's not a bad rating for a Senator representing a state that had Alfonse D'Amato in the US Senate until 1998. http://nationaljournal.com/...

But I digress. Hillary's record as a US Senator is on the public record, just as it is for every other US Senator. Her vote is just as important as the other 99 Senators in that august chamber of our government. Then why when a vote is taken does the question "How did Hillary vote?" come up almost immediately? This, again returns us to the issue of celebrity and reputation. If Hillary Clinton had been, for example a Congresswoman before making it to the US Senate - and not First Lady of anything - she would be a backbencher of relatively little importance to the media, albeit from a media-heavy state. Perhaps she would still be able to eclipse Chuck Schumer in the political consciousness, but how many Americans know who Chuck Schumer is, anyway? 5%? Maybe 10% at most? So at best for this hypothetical Senator Clinton, she is along the same lines as Barbara Boxer in being a blogosphere figure - and at worst, she is a Maria Cantwell or Debbie Stabenow for her presence here.

But Hillary Rodham Clinton WAS First Lady of the United States, and IS a household name all over the world. As such, no matter what she does, the media's narrative will always focus on her votes as a US Senator, and not Maria Cantwell's or Debbie Stabenow's. And when we in the blogosphere hype up Hillary's votes, we are just as guilty as the mainstream media in perpetuating the "Hillary myth".

Why is it that Evan Bayh or John Edwards (pre-2004) don't get the same criticism for voting the same way? Why is it that Hillary is singled out for criticism while 30 other Democratic Senators voted against even a timetable for Iraq (to say nothing of pulling out immediately, which many Americans support)? And why is it that when the Democratic Governor of Wyoming refuses to have Governor Dean come to his home state than nary a peep was heard, but every comment by the Clintons on Dean, Gore etc. no matter how vague is immediately poured over by the blogosphere for clues?
Because Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton, that's why. And as a Democrat known around the world, her votes in the US Senate "count" more than the rest. And when we bash Hillary for whatever vote it may be that we find fault with, we feed into that media narrative of "Hillary the Ultra-Liberal" that Americans fear.

HILLARY THE CANDIDATE (MAYBE)

This brings me to my third and final thought on the issue: how should we treat Hillary as a prospective candidate for the Presidency? It is still not a certainty that she will run; however, she would undoubtedly be the frontrunner if she did (and no, I don't think Al Gore will ultimately take the plunge). Her national reputation, oodles of dollars and years of connections almost guarantee her the nomination, whether it be a quick win or a longer, drawn-out struggle with an "anti-Hillary" candidate. Already, the media narrative is in place: Can anyone stop Hillary? And can she win?

The answer to both questions is yes, in my opinion. However, I view question #1 as less likely than #2. While it is true that Clinton has a much higher "negative" rating right now than the other Democratic candidates, it is also true that all, but about 5% of that rating is solid. In other words, 50% of the country likes her, and about 45% hates her guts. It should be noted than the exit polls in 1992 gave Bill Clinton a 50% NEGATIVE rating, yet he still won his 43% and the Presidency. And Clinton started his campaign with nobody knowing who he was!

The important thing to remember here is that even with a "fresh face" nominee like Warner, Richardson or Feingold, they are still going to be up against a formidable opposition: the Republican Party, Karl Rove and a hostile media. We saw what the media did to Gore and Kerry in the last two elections, fueled by right-wing missiles of lies and hate. That is why even after six years Gore remains as unpopular as the Clintons, and why Kerry is even worse off in some polls. If I were a betting man, I would cast my chips that whoever the Democratic nominee is will be tarred and feathered as a liberal, a baby-killer, a Godless Communist, a weak-need surrender monkey AND as a tax-raiser. It won't matter who we nominate, frankly, because the Republicans will toss that at us.

But all this has been said about Hillary Clinton already - AND SHE'S STILL THERE. Even after nearly 15 years of constant bombardment over her values, her beliefs, her ideology and her words - much of it false - she's still a major leader in America, and would start her Presidential campaign with essentially the same national support she would end the campaign with. And with the GOP in as much trouble as it is, she would probably win, too. In short, she is a survivor, and can survive a Presidential campaign, too. After all, she's been in two already. Short of Bill himself, you couldn't find a better-prepared candidate to run and win.

But what does this have to do with us, you may ask? I'd like to paraphrase a quote from the blogosphere's least favorite Democrat - and it's not Zell Miller, either: "We undermine Hillary's credibility at our nation's peril." Regardless of who we want to be the Democratic Party's nominee (heck, I don't even know at this point), the likeliest outcome of the primary season is for Hillary Clinton to be our nominee. And to continue to criticize HER for what she says and does, while leaving other candidates (who are just as equally guilty of pandering) fresh as daisies in our eyes, is an enabling of the media narratives to perpetuate themselves in America.

CONCLUSION

So, what is my suggestion to you, the reader? As I said before, the blogosphere is a small part of American politics. When you talk to your friends and family outside of the Internet and politics comes up, DON'T ATTACK HILLARY - OR ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT! * When you campaign for your Congressional candidates in 2006, and if Presidential politics comes up, DON'T ATTACK HILLARY - OR ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT! * And when we all choose our candidate for the primaries, and we're off talking to the voters - KEEP IT CLEAN. DON'T ATTACK THE OTHER CANDIDATES, INCLUDING HILLARY. * Because one of those candidates is going to be our nominee - and any and all attacks on them to an average voter could swing votes to the Republican Party come November 2008.

Above all, we need to save our government from Republican ruin. Hillary Clinton may not be the "best progressive" or the "best reformer" - but I'd be damned before I voted for Rudy, or McCain, or Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich over her. And I know that's the case for all of you, too.

So, a few major points in summary:

Hillary is a national figure, and by attacking her online we add to the attack on her across the nation.

*The media narrative is hostile not only to Hillary, but to nearly the entire Democratic Party in general.

*As a survivor of this atmosphere, Hillary may well be better positioned to win than any other "fresh" candidate.

*We give Hillary too little slack in how she votes and acts; if she is treated as equally well as the other Democratic candidates/Senators/public figures, then we can help to change the media narrative on the "poor" state of our party.

*The media narrative will not change before 2008; only by resisting it in our campaign efforts can we blunt its impact and elect ANY Democratic President.

*Keep your eyes on the prize, everyone - any Democratic nominee MUST be preferable to four more years of Republican rule.

* means "Joe Lieberman need not apply for Summer 2006"

I thank you all for taking the time to read this far. I hope that I've made some good points here, on a topic that I plan to discuss more as the year continues.

I will NOT abandon this again

Dear reader,

You may have noticed that my blog has not been updated for 390 days (to be exact), during which time the "trash" comments have accumulated. I urge you to ignore them until I get them deleted; for now, I am pleased to announce the return of "The Yellin Report"! Here, you will read about what I'm doing in politics, the latest analysis from yours truly on the top (and sometimes not-so-top) races of 2006 and beyond, and also some personal memories of mine from five years of political activism so far, both online and offline.

Yeah, I know, you've heard that before, how some blogger is going to make his blog the best in the world, and then abandons it two months later. Well, friends, as you can see by the title of this, I will NOT abandon this blog again! And if you see me not posting after a few days at a time, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE feel free to contact me. I promise you'll get an answer soon afterwards.

With that in mind, I thank you for taking the time to read this. The first "new" article for this site will be up later today.

Stephen Harry Yellin, June 30, 2006

A Message from Barbara Radnofsky

To the Blogosphere,
Greetings from South Texas. My family and I are driving back from Padre Island. It's a 8 hour drive home, and I'm writing this from Brownsville (southmost part of Texas).

We've left Refugio, stopped at a Dairy Queen eating Blizzards. It's 97 degrees. You've probably heard that South Texas population growth and economic development is projected to make massive demands on the water supply in the reservoirs feeding the Rio Grande Valley. People are talking about the relative merits of desalination (paper reports $505.51 per acre foot), water rights to Rio Grande ($542.74) and reclaimed water ($705.89). Many areas are burdened by unfunded mandates, including tremendous educational system demands. Health care is of vital concern, with Texas leading the nation in uninsured children and adults.

These are some of the issues I want to tackle as a US Senator. My name is Barbara Ann Radnofsky, and I'm running for Senate in the Lone Star State, Texas, in 2006.

As you may know, I'm primarily mediating now-a-days. I'm a professional problem solver, and it's true I'm not a professional politician. I want to serve in the Senate to make a positive difference-a difference a politician couldn't achieve.
I've been traveling the state, listening and learning and raising money. I've raised 440,000 to date. I've kept track of more than 100 trips this year and more than 90 last year, and started blogging in earnest when I filed for the US Senate seat in Jan of this year. The notes and photos are found at "rad-note-skys" at www.radnofsky.com and at the volunteer blog http://radnofsky2006.blogspot.com. Many people who know me have provided information on the volunteer blog. Btw, the campaign staff - manager, events directors, volunteer coordinator, issue committee dircetors, webmaster, database administrator, head of technology - are primarily volunteers.

There have apparently been some questions raised about my line of work and moderate positions on some issues. I'd like to answer them for you (my note: these were raised at Mydd.com, not here)

As far as the inquiry about my work as a lawyer, my plaintiff's consumer protection and plaintiff's personal injury practice at Vinson and Elkins is the focus of a Texas Lawyer article "Double Life" on the right handside of the webiste www.radnofsky.com (it's the earlier of the two Texas Lawyer articles, from 2003). It describes my work as both a lawyer and consumer activist, and the article mentions I filed the petition with the consumer product safety comission which successfully obtained a finding that bar b que lighters with inadequate child resistance were dangerously defective. I also asked the lighter be placed on the "roundup recall" list.

My Fifth Circuit win (after the article was written) is described in the reported case of Brown v Scripto Tokai, and it describes the evidence we brought forth on the dangers of the lighters.

My other plaintiff's work for children and women is listed in the article. I've spoken out many times against many aspects of tort reform, specifically describing how it wouldn't solve the problems of insurance: insurance regulation is the answer, not denying citizens access to the courts. I have faith in an independent judiciary and the collective wisdom of jurors.
I admire many Congressmen and particular stances, but note a certain lack of major legislation and inability to find common ground nowadays. I really greatly admire Barbara Jordan, and think she's a good role model for me.
I have Republican friends and suporters who know I'm a fair minded person who wants to make a change for the better. We need to welcome independents and republicans who want to see positive change.

I understand that I look "corporate" to many people. It is understandable. After all, I also represent defendants and companies as well as represent individuals, victims, families and plaintiffs. I try to do the right thing. What I told the West Houston bloggers who have been asking these questions was this:
I know how to represent people. I know how to fight for people. And, I know how to bring people together.

(My note: some Kossacks and Mydders have noticed that Barbara works at the same firm, Vinson and Elkins that Alberto Gonzales did. Barbara has made it clear to me that, due to not having been given access to all evidence regarding Gonzales that Hutchison had in early 2005 as a Senator, she can not state that she would have voted to confirm or deny Gonzales as AG. I take that as a sign that, as with all she does in her life, she wants to see and hear everything before making up her mind.)

The fact that I have bipartisan support - that Liz Carpenter, former president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association Jan Fox, former Congressman Mike Andrews, and Richard Morrison, the courageous lawyer who was the Democratic nominee against Tom DeLay in the last election cycle, have endorsed me as have farmer Loy Sneary and prominent defense lawyers like John Serpe and Jeff McClure - and that I have a conservative look about me is not a negative, imho.

What it makes me is.......electable in Nov 2006.

I will win by continuing to listen, learn, speak out, raise awareness and not try to be something I'm not. This has stood me in good stead for 25 years of law practice, as a mediator and problem solver, and in teaching mediation to a decade's worth of wonderful students. I will win by raising the money I need and not forgetting the activists and volunteers who've helped me get this far. And, we've concentrated on the internet and technology. We know we need it, and this would not be possible without it.
All the best,BAR

Barbara Ann Radnofsky for US Senate Committee, Inc. www.radnofsky.com
P O. Box 550377 Houston, TX 77055-0377
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there you have it, folks. That's Barbara in her own words, and you'll have to take it or leave it as she is. She's not a liberal, she's not a household name-but she's a winner in the making. You can go to http://www.radnofsky.com to see what I mean. And yes, we WILL have issue stances coming to the website soon. I would urge you all to check her statements in the interviews linked to the top of her blog for some of her issue stances. Thank you very much.

Electing a Progressive in NJ : Jun Choi for Edison, NJ Mayor

Note: I am not officially involved with Jun's campaign. However, I am a big fan of his campaign, and so I was asked to write this for Jun. The election is this Tuesday, June 7th, so time (if you wish to help) is of the essence)

This Tuesday, a few voters (it's a primary, after all) will trek to the polls in New Jersey to cast their vote. The GOP has a fun primary-if you're a Democrat- and US Senator Jon Corzine (D) will be our nominee for Governor. Does that mean that we Dems can turn on the snooze button on Tuesday morning in the Garden State? NO! Because there's a golden opportunity to elect a progressive to one of the state's biggest Mayoral seats in the state-Jun Choi, in Edison.
(http://www.junchoi.com)

Some background on this race: New Jersey Democrats are currently on top almost everwhere in the state, but most of that power comes from county machines that tend to concentrate power away from the "little people". In New Jersey, I am one of many Democrats attempting to reform the party before the GOP recovers its winning ways and takes over the state again (as they did in the 1990's). One such "machine" is in Edison, New Jersey, about an hour from yours truly.

The current Mayor, George Spadaro, leads an administration that has generally ignored voter concerns on a variety of suburban issues-sprawl, education, and Walmart. That's right-Walmart. Not even a heavily Democratic, urban city is safe from Walmart now. Mayor Spadaro had the Town Planning and Zoning Board fast-track plans to build a gigantic (300,000 square feet!) Walmart store smack in the middle of Edison, which would cause massive congestion and traffic problems for the city. The plan has met with strong opposition from many good government groups, who have teamed with labor unions to take on Walmart. Their candidate, and ours? Jun Choi.

Jun's a remarkable public servant (at 34, he has a bright, bright future ahead of him) with a real committment to progressive issues. He was part of the Clinton Administration's OMB (when fiscal sanity existed), and then went up into politics in 2000, working for fellow Jerseyan Bill Bradley in New Hampshire and California as a field coordinator. Since 2000 he has been a leader in New Jersey educational reform, and currently works in Governor Codey's administration as Director of the Student Achievement Task Force created in 2004. He's a community activist in the Edison area, and co-founded a "future leadership" organization to encourage and help young-uns like me get involved. In short, Jun kicks ass in public life-and he's good-looking too! (check out his website, http://www.junchoi.com/ to see what I mean)

This race has shaped up to be a real battle between the reformers (such as DFA, which has endorsed Jun) and the establishment (with Spadaro calling for aid from every major Democratic official). Spadaro has spent considerable sums personally attacking Jun (you know the drill-radical, "not one of us" all that crap), which from what I hear hasn't done much to change the race's dynamics. In fact, the attacks caused Bill Bradley to emerge out of political retirement to personally endorse Jun and condemn the attacks. Jun has responded by bringing up the Walmart issue as well as promoting real reforms to clean up corruption (such as ending the hideous practice of play-to-pay, which is a serious problem for both parties). It's going to be a close race on Tuesday, and I promise you that Edison Democrats are going to vote in big numbers.

So, how can YOU help make a difference? There are three ways:

1)If you live in New Jersey, and are willing to work tommorow and Tuesday, drive down to Edison to 25 South Main Street, Suite 2 (At Woodbridge Ave) and hit the streets (or make the calls)!

2)If you live in New Jersey, but can't make it to Edison, consider making a donation to get a real Democrat into office (http://www.junchoi.com/), or if you know any Edisonians just give 'em a call and let them know.

3)If you're not from New Jersey, you can either contribute if you really feel like it, or you can visit Jun's beautiful website (http://www.junchoi.com/) and see for yourself why he's the real deal. Trust me on this-if Jun Choi is elected Mayor of Edison, one day the whole state, and perhaps the whole nation will hear about him. He's going to make a real difference, and we can help make that possible.

Texas 2006: KBH To Run for Governor

Let the GOP gotterdamrung (pardon my awful German) commence!

Look for US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) to announce her candidacy for Governor on June 6th. She'll be taking on Governor Rick Perry in the GOP primary, and (if she wins) ex-Congressman Chris Bell in the general election, along with quirky independent Kinky Friedman. Of course, "if she wins" is going to be the sticking point regarding the primary. After all, when a popular US Senator challenges a party-popular only Governor, bloodletting with naturally follow. Especially when the Senator has been tarred by the Governor as the Texas version of Hillary Clinton, and the Governor has been tarred by the Senator as a incompetent bully. Perry and Hutchison simply don't like each other at all, and a primary will bring out the worst (best for us Dems) in both of 'em. The GOP is going to get hurt by the primary bigtime.

Not to mention the enjoyable game of musical chairs/hokey pokey that will ensue with Hutchison's decision. Will Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, AG Greg Abbott, Congressman Henry Bonilla, Congresswoman Kay Bailey Granger and multi-millionaire place-your-name-here (c'mon, every rich guy or gal in Texas is going to take a look at this race!) all run? And if so, who will run for their positions? And thus the domino effect totally transforms the Texas GOP. The more contentious primaries the better, I say.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have a much smaller candidate list-the obvious results of being whooped in the state since 1994. Currently, the Democratic frontrunners for Governor and Senator are ex-Congressman Chris Bell and attorney Barbara Ann Radnofsky, respectivelly. Both are strong candidates despite their lack of statewide name ID, and if the GOP gets weakened enough, both could win. I'm currently blogging for Barbara, so I'll keep this site updated with the latest Radnofsky reports when I can. For now, sit back and prepare to enjoy some MAJOR fireworks.

http://www.radnofsky.com

Chafee to Get Primary Challenge- RI US Senate

It looks as if Democratic chances to pick up Senator Lincoln Chafee's seat (RINO-Rhode Island) will be improving very soon, after a period of downgrading on this site. Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, a conservative with strong GOP grassroots support (think of him as a GOP version of Howard Dean, minus the experience)will be announcing his candidacy as early as next week, according to various sources. Laffey, 43 is also an investment banker with ambition in spades. Stu Rothenburg had an article on a possible primary challenge last week, and here's what he said:
(Courtesy of RhodeIslandFuture's blog)

"Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) has a problem. No, it isn't that he is a Republican in a Democratic state; he has faced that challenge before and overcome it. It's that he may face a formidable GOP primary opponent. And that could be the test that Chafee fails.
The 52-year-old moderate and the son of the late Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.) may well find himself facing Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey in next September's Republican Senate primary. It's a prospect that's already giving some party strategists indigestion.
Laffey's candidacy would surely appeal to conservatives - both nationally and in the state - all of whom see Chafee as a liberal with more in common with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry than President Bush. (In fact, Chafee stated publicly that he didn't vote to re-elect the president last year.)
And at this point, it appears unlikely that Chafee could defeat Laffey. "The day after Laffey announces his candidacy, Chafee is an underdog," agreed one Republican backing the incumbent Senator.
I haven't yet met Laffey, but people who know him use words like `intense,' `smart,' `energetic' and `maverick' to describe the mayor, who was recently re-elected in the very Democratic city of Cranston.
"He gets the media," one Republican told me, adding that the fast-talking Laffey, a graduate of Bowdoin College and Harvard Business School, is filled with ideas about both public policy and self-promotion.
People who have met him invariably use use the word `ego.' "He loves the limelight, loves the fact that his name is mentioned for higher office," said one admirer. Those less sympathetic call him arrogant.
Although Laffey has not yet made a final decision about taking on Chafee, it's clear that he's ready to move on to a new challenge after working to turn the city of Cranston around.
"He's very, very ambitious - I mean, very ambitious," noted an observer, adding the extra `very' to drive home the point.
A run against the state's sitting Republican Senator would seem to be the big test that Laffey is looking for. (State Republicans have signaled to Laffey that he could be GOP Gov. Don Carcieri's running-mate for lieutenant governor next year, but the mayor hasn't exactly jumped at the offer.)
If Laffey runs, he'd surely seek the support of the Club for Growth, which has backed a number of insurgent anti-tax conservatives against established GOP politicians. The group hasn't even started to evaluate Laffey as a possible candidate to support, but it is watching."
The Providence, RI Journal reports that 85 GOP leaders in Rhode Island have signed a petition asking Laffey to run. In addition, a member of Laffey's staff-ey (pardon the lame joke) has registered laffeyforsenate.com , meaning that this primary challenge will soon be on.
-----------------------------------------
Now, what does this mean for us? Simply put, Chafee would have had a tough fight anyway against either ex-AG Sheldon Whitehouse or SOS Matt Brown, as the National Democrats would have thrown everything and the kitchen sink at the Rhode Island RINO (Republican in Name Only-after all, he didn't even vote for Dubya, casting his vote as a write-in for Bush Sr. instead!). However, a primary challenge hurts both Chafee and the GOP badly. Laffey has the grassroots support to knock off Chafee in the primary, but his conservative views (the Club for Growth will NOT play well in Rhode Island, and neither will moderates play with Laffey after he ends the political career of one of their own)may backfire in this deep-blue state.

In a world with Laffey as the GOP nominee, either Whitehouse or Brown would have the edge for a pickup. WIth Chafee, we can't guarantee that, so let's root on Mayor Laffey as he begins his quest (next week sometime) to give us a US Senate seat. Or, if you want, take a look at either Brown or Whitehouse's websites (Whitehouse's is under construction):
Brown: http://www.mattbrown.org
Whitehouse: http://www.whitehouseforsenate.com/

Democratic Candidates Coming Out of the Woodwork: 2006

(Posted on May 24th, 2005)

While the nation's (and the blogosphere's) attention has been largely fixed on the Senate filibuster battle (which, in my opinion, was a victory for us-after all, JFK's agreement on the Soviet Missle Crisis saw the US pull back some of its abilities as well. If we avoided nuclear disaster there, so too will we avoid a kind of nuclear war in the Senate, mark my words), a great deal of campaign activity has been going on outside of the Beltway. Most of it has been quite good, as a number of strong Democratic candidates have jumped into the 2006 midterm elections. With that in mind, allow me to introduce some of them to you:
(Note: I don't have any current connections with these campaigns-however, I am trying to get on board with two of them)

Jon Tester, Democrat for US Senate, MontanaWe all know that GOP Senator Conrad Burns is one of the most vulnerable GOP Senators up in 2006. One reason has to do with his being completely out of touch with both his state and with common sense. For example, he was once asked on a radio talk show (by a ultra-conservative nut)how he could afford to live in DC with black people (the N-word was used). His response? "It's a hell of a challenge." (See RemoveRepublicans.com for more) Regardless of Mr. Burns' lack of decency, he also has significant ties to Jack Abramoff, which makes him a nice poster boy for GOP corruption.
Enter Burns' anthesis, Stage Center. Jon Tester, the Montana State Senate President is throwing his cowboy hat in the ring. And when I say cowboy hat, I mean it. Tester's the real deal-a wheat farmer, a definate straight-shooter and with great popularity amongst Montanans for his gregarious personality and active work for farmers and ranchers. Essentially, he's a populist, and with the ability to kick some serious GOP backside. But don't take my word for it-ask Bob Bringham from Swing State Project:
"Tester could beat Burns with a third as much money, because he is the real deal. I know people say that often about candidates, but few measure up to Big Sandy's Jon Tester.
I remember watching the crowd in the Montana Secretary of State's office on the day of the filing deadline to run for the legislature in 1998. Everyone had heard of this Tester-guy who was running for a very Republican state senate seat up on the Hi-Line. People seemed in awe when they finally saw him, he owned the room. Imagine a high school basketball team showing up on game-night with a seven foot center, that is how people looked at him. And since then, his stature has only grown as people have watched him excel as a legislator. He is the real deal, he's ready for prime-time, and his populism will make this a race to watch." (May 22, 2005)
Tester will have a primary first, as State Auditor John Morrison and businessman Clint Wilkes are already in the race. It should be positive, and with Governor Schweitzer in charge the party will be united to take on Burns in 2006.

Monica Lindeen, MT-At Large, 2006 Speaking of Montana, a strong challenger to Congressman Denny Rehberg (who claims to be a cowboy himself)could be in the race by next month. State Rep. Monica Lindeen, who previously served as House Minority Whip from 2003-2004 has expressed interest in running, and is heading to DC to talk it over with the DCCC and other major groups (such as Emily's List). Rehberg narrowly won in 2000 (when it was an open seat) in a weaker year for Montana Democrats than 2004 (and likely 2006). He hasn't had a strong challenge since. Look for Lindeen (if she runs) to change that.

Colorado-04: Who wants to take on a bigot?
Three people, that's who-and all are current or former State Legislators. State Rep Angie Piccione (an evangelical liberal, believe it or not), State Representative Wes McKinley (a rancher and a moderate) and ex-State Senator Peggy Reeves have all recently expressed interest in taking on Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (yeah, THAT bigot, not Tom Tancredo). Musgrave, best known for her anti-gay rants won a suprisingly narrow victory in 2004 (51% to 49% for the Democrat+ Green candidates). With the DCCC taking a good look at the race this time, look for one of the three (they're currently talking amongst each other as to who will run) to be in a competitive race against Musgrave.
Pennsylvania-Two GOP Incumbents Now in Trouble.
The Keystone State is not looking good right now for the GOP. Not only has Rick Santorum further damaged himself with his "Democrats = Hitler" tomfoolery, but two strong Democratic candidates have made their intentions clear to run for the House in 2006. Their opponents would be Congressman Jim Gerlach in PA-06 and Mike Fitzpatrick in PA-08 (Ginny Schrader's seat). Meet them both:
Lois Murphy, PA-06: Lois (so as to differ from the other Murphy, running against Fitzpatrick and also GOP Congressman Tim Murphy, PA-18) drew 49% in 2004 against Gerlach, losing by just 7,000 votes in a competitive race. She'll be making her announcement later this week, and by all indications Gerlach will find himself in deep doodoo. Why? Tom DeLay. Gerlach has been a strong supporter and a reciever of cash from the Hammer, and so the DCCC is making him a top target. Lois' website is http://www.loismurphy.org

Patrick Murphy, PA-08: To be honest, I'm a sucker for idealistic young candidates with military records-and that's a good thing. With Patrick Murphy, a West Point graduate and professor who recently returned from Iraq after a year's service, I've found a gem of a candidate and a person indeed. Murphy, whose website (http://www.murphy06.com) features a quote by JFK plus a description of why he selected it (proof, I think of his values)has a progressive message (just look at his site) and several ways for the reader to be active (his "supporters" section doesn't feature any politicians, but rather ways to organize meetups and house parties). Fitzpatrick, according to PoliticsPa.com has been having problems with his staff and with a conservative voting record, leaving him in trouble as well. While Ginny would have made an awesome Congressman (I know, as that's why I wrote about her when Jim Greenwood dropped out, causing Blogosphere Day), I know that when it comes to representing, Patrick has the right stuff to serve as well.

Join A Young Candidate with an Amazing Accomplishment on His Record: Ben Shuldinger in NY-19
I first found out about Ben from a friend of mine, Ally Giard. When she explained to me how great Ben is, and how he'd make a kick-ass Congressman, I was initially skeptical, to be honest. But after reading more about Ben, and visiting his website (http://www.ben2006.com), I really think he has what it takes to be a great Congressman.
Ben suffers from hemophilia, as he has all his life. But he hasn't let that stop him, as he's gone on to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard. His battles with that disease of the blood (where it doesn't clot properly when you bleed) have taught him that life is precious, and that you've got to help others to climb up in society with you. That's why in 2003 he organized a high school in Upstate New York for gifted high school students who were being hampered by the public education disaster that is New York State. At 23, he was the nation's youngest High School Principle. The results have been stunning-a 97% passing rate on the Regents exam, 94% attendence (one of the highest in the state) and active social programs to encourage students to help others in need. In 2004, 1400 students applied for 108 positions-proof that Ben's experiment has worked beautifully. That's why he's been a finalist for the Jefferson Scholarship, a prestigious award for gifted leaders under 35.
Ben's running against Congresswoman Sue Kelly, who hasn't done much in Congress, as far as I can tell (I couldn't find much legislation at all under her name, and before it shut down PoliticsNY labeled her as one of New York's worst Representatives). With his drive and vigour, I know Ben would make an awesome Congressman for New York-19. His website is http://www.ben2006.com, just so you know.

Well, there you have it-just some of the great Democratic candidates coming out of the woodwork just this week. Stay tuned as more great candidates emerge, including Lt. Governor Lucy Baxley (running for Governor in Alabama) and Colleen Rowley (the FBI whistleblower who may take on John Kline in MN-02). See you then!

Texas HAS a US Senate Candidate-Meet Barbara Radnofsky

(From May 16th, 2005)

A few weeks ago, I noticed (much to my chagrin) that all the talk concerning the soon-to-be open Senate seat in Texas consisted partially of this line: "It doesn't matter, 'cause we don't have a candidate and we can't win anyway." Both of these assumptions are WRONG. We DO have a US Senate candidate already in the race, raising money left and right (literally) and reaching out to the Texas grassroots- and she CAN win. She has liberal and conservative credentials-the first from her activism as a Democrat and experienced mediator, and the second as a Biblical expert. So, allow me to introduce Barbara Ann Radnofsky:
http://www.radnofsky.com

I got to know Barbara through my cousin, a trial lawyer down in Texas who's worked with her in the past. Mike (my cousin) told me she was exploring a Senate run, and I was intrigued. So, I met up with her at the DNC in Boston last summer. Well, let me tell you, I was politically lovestruck by Barbara. She was passionate, enthusiastic, honest-and she paid the dinner bill, too! She told me of her deep desire to help the people of Texas, who for so long have been shafted by Bushes and Perrys and DeLays. So I've been helping her ever since. In January 2005 she officially filed her candidacy, and she's been off and running ever since.
Barbara has an extraordinary record in the private sector. After graduating from the University of Houston at age 20 (she entered college at 16!), she became a lawyer, litagator and mediator. She's been recognized nationally as one of the nation's top lawyers, and in 2003 was named "Texas Superlawyer" by Texas Monthly Magazine. She currently works with Vinson and Elkins, LLP (where Ron Kirk currently works at), and is very active in helping students learn peer mediation techniques. For this, she's been recognized as Chief Arbitrator by the Internation Court of Arbitration (based in Switzerland) in 2002, and in 2004 served as President of the Texas mediation program. She's also served on the boards of the Anti-Defamation League and the Friends of World Aids Research and Prevention organization.
With her resume, Barbara has an extensive private sector background, especially in health care and education issues. She also has developed a remarkable scholarly knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and frequently lectures on them to Texan religious groups (this works REALLY well with religous voters who would vote Democratic if not for the "values" issue). All together, Barbara has the ability to serve as a great US Senator.
But what about as a candidate? Can a Jewish woman get elected in the heart of Jesusland? Than answer, I truly believe, is YES. There are a number of reasons why, but I'll start with the political climate. With Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison almost certain to leave her seat open, the GOP will be having a contested, almost certainly bloody primary. Congressman Henry Bonilla, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and Attorney General Greg Abbott are only the first of many names that spring up for the seat. You can add several other GOP Representatives, Comptroller Kathleen Strayhorn and any wealthy CEO (take your pick) to the list of possible candidates. This adds up to a car wreck of a primary, and not even Karl Rove (for all of his evil genius) can straighten them all out. Meanwhile, Barbara is the ONLY Democrat in the race so far, and will likely stay that way for a while. Chris Bell is running for Governor, Nick Lampson is running against DeLay, Martin Frost and Ron Kirk are privately behind Barbara and Henry Cisneros has never said yes before (including the open seat in 2002) to a Senate run.
Now, as to Texas itself. While it may seem unlikely that a Democrat can win in Texas, it is indeed quite conceivable-just not a John Kerry Democrat. In 2004 the Democrats picked up seats in the House-the first time in decades that they had done so. This was even with Bush winning the state with over 60%, so in 2006, without coatails, we can expect do even better. Not to mention that the GOP is neck-deep in corruption down in Texas. DeLay is only the worst of them-you can add Speaker Tom Craddick, Governor Rick Perry and Congressman Joe "Smokey" Barton as prime examples of political decadence. As a result, the Texas legislature's poll numbers are pitiful, and Perry has fallen to 38% in a new Survey USA poll (48% disapprove). when you add in a resurgant Democratic grassroots effort and the rapid growth of Latino voters (who are still leaning towards the Democrats), and you have the potential in 2006 for a resurgance.
As for a concrete strategy to win 50%+1, we will rely on a combination of urban areas like Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, plus the Rio Grande area to get most of those votes. Barbara's specialty is getting those extra votes needeed for victory. She's already won the support of a number of conservative voters in northern Texas, and her ability to do well in the heaviest GOP areas (not win, but do decently) will be key. Ron Kirk lost because he failed to do well at all in those conservative areas, partly (alas) because he's an urban minority. Barbara, as a moderate Jew has a much better chance with those voters.
Barbara's also been eager to reach out online. Off the Kuff, Burnt Orange Report, Irregular Times, Greg's Opinion and many other small blogs have covered her campaign. In addition, Barbara has a frequently updated blog of her campaign, as well as an independent blog run by a supporter. Here are some of the links:

You can read for yourself what they think of Barbara. Trust me, they're worth it.
Barbara's stances on the issues: Pro-Choice Responsible Gun Rights Opposed to Gonzalez, Would have confirmed Rice (along with all, but 12 Democratic Senators) Preserve Social Security by the 1% option (rolling back the millionaire's tax break to secure the funding)Gradual decrease of US troops in Iraq Her numero uno issue in Health Care reform
If you want to know more in detail about her issue stances, I urge you to go the links above and read the interviews. They cover the issues very nicely.
So, there you have it. We DO have a US Senate candidate and Texas, and she CAN and WILL win, as long as we do what we can to help her win. I urge you all to go to http://www.radnofsky.com/ , and see for yourself why she will take a Senate seat from the GOP homeland in 2006.

Ode to Chuck: Why I’m for Pennacchio

(From April 3rd, 2005)

I've been involved in politics for the last four years of my young (17 next week!) life. By my count, I've worked and written for 26 candidates, from State Assembly in New Jersey to a Presidential campaign that will be remembered by all who lived during it. But of all of those candidates, only two have inspired me to go against the odds and work for them when higher opportunities were available. The first is Barbara Ann Radnofsky, of whom I hope to tell much more of in the year to come. The second is Chuck Pennacchio.

It's hard for me to believe, but just over a month ago I was a die-hard encourager of Bob Casey, Jr. to run for the US Senate against brainless, shameless Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania. Then I got a call from Tim Tagaris, a blogger friend of mine from 2004. He's the campaign manager/guru for Chuck Pennacchio, who at that time I had no clue existed, let alone running for the US Senate. But Tim convinced me to talk to the Professor (he teaches political science and history at the University of the Arts), and I scheduled fifteen minutes for myself to chat. I ended up speaking to him for forty minutes, and would have gone longer had the prospect of a heavy cell phone bill not ended the call. You see, I had stumbled onto an extraordinary man and an exceptional public servant in the making.
Many of you may have seen my various calls for money or support for candidates in the last few years. I've done all this for various reasons, the main one being that they needed money and volunteers and figured that I, the loyal blogger would be a good messenger. I'm not asking right now for people to do that for Chuck (although it would be nice). I'm writing this because I believe in what Chuck stands for-a philosophy, an idealism, not a series of pragmatic stances-tailored at best, lied about at worst-to win votes. Chuck answered all of my original questions honestly, directly and with the conviction of a man who passionately believes that our country can be far greater than we are now. His chief issue is not health care, not education, not terrorism, not even Iraq-Chuck's bottom line is making our democracy stronger.
I'd never heard a candidate speak so forthrightly on the rights of the "common man" in our society today, and what we need to do to make our voices heard clearly and forcefully in our country today. It certainly wasn't the answer I was expecting, and it was music to my ears. I'd been getting tired of hearing the same things (you name the liberal issue, they're for it), and to hear a candidate talk about our country in such a honest way made me very intrigued, to say the least.
Never before had I spent half of my conversation with a candidate on what I believe in-most candidates don't ask me what my experience is, let alone what I believe in. Never before had a candidate offered me positive, constructive advice on how to run for office (I'm running for office in a high-school political organization called JSA-more on that soon). Never before had a candidate been as open to me as to what needs to be done, and how. And never before had I been so taken with inspiration from a candidate-until Chuck came around.
By the time our call was over, I'd signed on to Chuck's campaign train-the little engine that could, per say. This came just five days before the Casey campaign offered me a blogging job-I turned them down. I've realized that oftentimes the candidate most likely to win your vote isn't the vote that's most likely to win your heart-and in this campaign of hearts and minds, Chuck beat Bobby Casey in a landslide. So now I'm working alongside many a blogger, many a good Keystone denizen to push the little campaign that could to Washington. The twin peaks of Mount Casey and Mount Santorum loom ahead-the first strong and steep, the second jagged and rough. Yet I know that when all is said and done, whether or not we reach the Potomac, that Pennacchio for Pennsylvania will be a success. How do I know this? Take this as an example-next Saturday, when my election for JSA office is held, Chuck will be our convention's keynote speaker. I asked him to do it, and he accepted. Next Sunday, there will be 350 students from across the Mid-Atlantic who will be newly inspired to lead on to a new beginning for this country. In that alone, I know that this campaign is far from in vain.
And when all is said and done, I will remember this campaign, too, for all the many years of political life left in me.
http://www.chuck2006.com

Never Mind...

So much for THAT idea. It kinda reminds me of that old phrase, "If a tree falls in a forrest, and nobody hears it, does it make any sound?". As my last post indicated, I attempted to transfer my website to LiveJournal. Well, that went over about as well as a Jerry Falwell joke at a Christian Coalition rally-I don't think that anyone even saw my article announcing the switch! And after I realized that the problem wasn't this site, but my unwillingess to crosspost articles (what was I thinking, anyway?), LiveJournal went out the window. So, I'm back, and I hope to get things moving here again asap. I'll shut down LiveJournal soon, and I'll get back to posting here.

Stephen "Mr. Liberal" Yellin