On To November

(Political cartoon by Jen Sorensen and published 6/6/2012 at Daily Kos. Click on image to enlarge and then return. Please.)

OK, I've got nothing further to say about Tuesday's recall election in Wisconsin (at least for the time being), and I'm ready to return to November's general election. We've seen the lengths that the Masters Of The Universe are willing to go to keep progressives out of office. It's now time to fight back (there are, after all, 99 times more of us), and I have a few suggestions.

The first suggestion, and it's a big one, is that we should not be sending money to the DNC or any of its subcommittees. They are only going to send it to the favored few who hew to the party line of protecting the wealthy. Instead, I recommend we send whatever money we have after paying the bills to candidates who will represent us. If we don't have money, and many of us don't at this point, we should consider volunteering to assist in their campaigns.

I've got three candidates who come to mind for such support. There are undoubtedly others, and I would appreciate your listing them in the comments section. I'll follow up in a future post.

The first is Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate for the Senate from Massachusetts. Jen Sorensen has done a mighty job of showing why she should represent the Bay State (and I would urge you to click on the link and to read her comments appended to the cartoon). She's a noob, having never run for elective office before, but it's clear she scares the shorts off The Powers That Be. She has been the target of unremitting attacks from her opponent (incumbent Scott Brown) and from the mainstream media since announcing her candidacy. The latest is a really sad and tattered complaint that she got her job as a college professor because she claimed to have Native American heritage. I guess she would've been given a pass if she claimed to have been related to Strom Thurmond.

At any rate, here's a little about Ms. Warren from her web site:

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Elizabeth served as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Her independent and tireless efforts to protect taxpayers, to hold Wall Street accountable, and to ensure tough oversight of both the Bush and Obama Administrations won praise from both sides of the aisle. The Boston Globe named Elizabeth Bostonian of the Year in 2009 for her oversight efforts.

She is widely credited for the original thinking, political courage, and relentless persistence that led to the creation of a new consumer financial protection agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She led the establishment of the agency, building the structure and organization to hold accountable even trillion-dollar financial institutions and to protect consumers from financial tricks and traps often hidden in mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

If you've a mind to contribute money or time, here's the place.

Next up is Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin. Ms. Baldwin is currently a member of Congress from Wisconsin and is running to replace Sen. Herb Kohl, who announced his retirement. She has the backing of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, as well she should, given her record in the House.

From her bio:

In 1998, Wisconsin’s 2nd Congressional District shattered the state’s glass ceiling and elected Tammy Baldwin as the state’s first female member of Congress and the nation’s first openly gay challenger sent to Congress.

Shortly after she was first elected to Congress, at a time when both parties were supporting de-regulation of the financial industry, Tammy stood up for Wisconsin taxpayers. She voted against letting Wall Street and the big banks write their own rules — one of only a handful of members of Congress who voted no on repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.

Since then, she has stood with other women in Congress on issues crucial to the health and well-being of all women.

Here's where to go for contributions to Tammy Baldwin.

Finally (for today) is Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York. She filled Hillary Clinton's spot by appointment and then by special election. She is running for a full term in November.

From her bio:

Kirsten was first sworn in to the U.S. Senate in January 2009 and was elected in November 2010 with more than 63 percent of the vote to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's seat. In 2012, Kirsten will run once again, this time for a six year term to serve as New York’s US Senator.

Even in the face of steep challenges, Kirsten hit the ground running – leading efforts to bring more transparency and accountability to Washington and helping pass landmark legislation to repeal the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that bans gays from serving openly in the military, and provide health care and compensation to the 9/11 first responders and community survivors that are sick with diseases caused by the toxins at Ground Zero.

Ms. Gillibrand also has been leading the battles on women's issues, including reproductive freedom and equal pay. To assist her in her re-election campaign, go here.

There. That's a start.

Again, if you have some other candidates worthy of our attention, dollars, and hours, let me know in the comments section.

It's time to fight back.

New Face?

The news that Arlen Specter has decided to run as a Democrat during the next election was, at first blush, rather a stunner. The Pennsylvania senator was quite candid in his remarks, however, admitting that one of the major reasons for his party switch was that he would be in the fight of his life during the GOP primary and might very well lose to a very conservative candidate. So he cut a deal with the Democratic leadership, and while the details of that deal have not been officially announced, enough of the details have emerged to conclude the deal looks remarkably like the one offered "Independent" Joe Lieberman to keep him in the Democratic caucus after he was beaten by a true liberal in Connecticut for the Democratic nomination in 2006.

Still, a lot of party loyalists are cooing and crowing over the move, suggesting that once Al Franken is finally seated as the Senator from Minnesota, the Democrats will finally have that magical 60 seat number in the Senate, enough to stop any GOP filibuster. Doyle McManus, columnist for the Los Angeles Times isn't quite so sure that the Democrats should be celebrating just yet. He also notes the high cost of the defection to the Democrats.

Obama and the Democrats, to win Specter over, offered him an amazingly good deal. The president promised to support him in Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary next year. (Presidents don't normally intervene in primary contests -- at least, not so openly.) Gov. Ed Rendell, the most popular Democrat in Pennsylvania, promised to help too. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada allowed Specter to keep the 28 years of seniority he has amassed as a Republican -- meaning he'll replace some unlucky Democrat of longer standing as chairman of a major committee.

So, not only will Sen. Specter emerge with greater power as head of a major committee (the Senate Appropriations Committee?), thereby kicking a more loyal Democrat to the curb, he also will have the support of key Democrats during the election campaign, thereby dashing the hopes of any liberal running for the seat. Remind you of Connecticut, 2006?

And just what will the Democrats be getting for their generosity? According to McManus, not as much as they think.

...60 seats can be a mixed blessing. With 60 seats, the Democrats will have no excuses, no one else to blame, any time they can't hold their big caucus together. Their most independent, unpredictable members will enjoy massive power -- not just Specter but also Lieberman and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, another centrist. [Emphasis added]

I dispute the designation of either Nelson or Lieberman as centrists. Both are a bit to the right of center on most major issues. What is more important, however, is the shift of power to all three men who will now have the leverage to get what they want when they want it every time a vote is called. None of them are really mavericks, just men who like being senators will all the perqs that involves.

And it's not like Sen. Specter has been sympathetic to the Democratic agenda all along. According to Congressional Quarterly, his record shows otherwise. As a Republican, his record at the end of 2008 shows a Party Unity score of 62%. In other words, he voted with Republicans nearly two-thirds of the time. Is that now going to change? I somehow doubt it.

So, the leadership of the Democratic party has decided to bank on Sen. Specter for that elusive 60th vote by offering him the moon and shutting out other Democrats, both now and during the 2010 election.

Interesting strategy, that. Interesting and absolutely nuts.

Some Tools

I've been going on and on, here and elsewhere, about how we as citizens can't just expect that after the votes have been counted our jobs are done. NTodd keeps reminding us that this is when the real work starts, and he is absolutely right.

The problem as I see it is that we don't actually know just what it is our Congress critters are up to at any point, and we certainly can't depend on the mainstream press to keep us informed. Fortunately, the internet is filled with all sorts of resources, including emails from groups that have the resources to keep track of things, to blogs which deal with progressive issues, to web sites which carefully analyze each congressional vote.

Some wag at Eschaton yesterday linked to this site over at Congressional Quarterly. It's a dandy. It summarizes how each Congress critter in the 110th Congress voted in terms of acceding to the Unitard's will, party unity, and just showing up to vote. The charts are easy to navigate (the whole page is) and is very informative. Here are the explanatories:

The three principal studies involve:

The frequency with which lawmakers vote with the president when he clearly indicates his preferences (Presidential Support).

The frequency with which they vote with their party, on occasions when a majority of Republicans oppose a majority of Democrats (Party Unity).

And the frequency with which they show up and cast "yea" or "nay" votes (Voting Participation).

OK. I started off by asking for the chart for the Senate, and then I checked out my two Senators:

Barbara Boxer: Presidential Support-30% Party Unity-99% Participation-99%

Dianne Feinstein: Presidential Support-39% Party Unity-91% Participation-99%

No surprises there.

Now for some other Democratic senators:

Daniel Inouye: Presidential Support:46% Party Unity-83% Participation-88%

(No surprise, but certainly disappointing.)

Claire McCaskill: Presidential Support-45% Party Unity-81% Participation-94%

(WTF? I contributed to her campaign!)

Here, however, is the biggie:

Harry Reid: Presidential Support-43% Party Unity-85% Participation-99%

For crying out loud, Harry Reid is the freakin' Senate Majority Leader and he only voted 85% of the time for the Democratic position? And voted 43% to give the GOP President what he wanted? There is something dreadfully wrong with this picture.

Now if you really want to get steamed, check out Joe Lieberman's record. He's listed as an Independent, but because he caucuses with the Democrats, his Party Unity score is configured that way. And the Democratic leadership let him keep his prestigious committee chairmanship. Sweet, eh?

OK, I've done some deep breathing.

Here's what I suggest. Check out your reps, regardless of party, and start targeting them if you are unhappy. Let them know how unhappy you are with their records and advise them you will be shopping elsewhere in the next two to six years if they don't shape up. Then keep at it with every important bill that comes up.

In the coming months, I'll try to locate and post other resources to keep us up to speed. I will, of course, be very grateful for any suggestions, either via comments or an email.

Oh, and Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. May the New Year be better for all of us.

Oh...And Those Other Guys...

Last Wednesday, in a fit of anger, I posted the list of incumbent Democratic senators coming up for re-election in 2010. A friend of mine read the post and suggested that that I consider posting the Republican senators coming up for re-election as well ...you know, fair and balanced and all that nonsense.

Well, on reflection, I have to admit she is right. There are lots of seats coming up, and the Democrats aren't the only rodents who have screwed up. So, here's a broadening of the brush for the folks of the 109th and 110th Congress.

Once again, the list and pertinent comments are from Wikipedia. Please feel free to annotate in the comments section.

Richard Shelby of Alabama
Four-term Senator Richard Shelby is a former Democrat who switched parties in 1994 when Republicans took control of both the House and Senate.

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
First-term Senator Lisa Murkowski narrowly defeated former Governor Tony Knowles in 2004, with 49% of the vote.[10]


John McCain of Arizona
He's announced his intention to run for another term as senator.

Mel Martinez of Florida

Johnny Isakson of Georgia

Mike Crapo of Idaho

Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Sam Brownback of Kansas
He has announced he will be retiring due to "self-imposed" term limits.

David Vitter of Louisiana
First-term Senator David Vitter was elected over Democratic representative Chris John with 51% of the vote in 2004. His reelection may become complicated, however, by a prostitution scandal revealed in 2007.

Kit Bond of Missouri

Judd Gregg of New Hampshire

Richard Burr of North Carolina

George Voinovich of Ohio
A November 2007 poll put his approval rating at 44%, with 46% disapproving

Tom Coburn of Oklahoma

Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania

Jim DeMint of South Carolina

Bob Bennett of Utah

There are a lot of targets in this list as well, and, given the success of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy (which Barack Obama took and ran with), there's still some hope, but only if voters see the possibilities.

Good News/Bad News

Yesterday, the liberal voters who worked hard to get Democrats elected got some good news and some bad news. Good news: Mark Begich has defeated incumbent Ted Stevens in Alaska. Bad news: Democratic senators voted to allow Traitor Joe Lieberman to keep his committee chairmanship, proving once again that the Senate is an exclusive club which takes care of its own under every conceivable scenario. Our euphoria last just two weeks.

Well, back to work, folks. In 2010, a number of Senate seats currently being held by Democrats come up for election. Here's the list, with pertinent notes (as supplied by Wikipedia):

Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas

Barbara Boxer of California

Ken Salazar of Colorado (may be under consideration for a cabinet post)

Christopher Dodd of Connecticut (announced to the Federal Election Commission in 2007 that he would not be seeking re-election, presumably to facilitate transferring campaign contributions to his presidential campaign)

Joe Biden of Delaware (he will shortly resign his Senate seat to assume the Vice Presidency and the Democratic governor will appoint his replacement who will hold the seat until the 2010 election)

Daniel Inouye of Hawaii

Barack Obama of Illinois (he has resigned his Senate seat to serve as President of the United States and the Democratic governor will appoint his replacement to who will hold the seat until the 2010 election).

Evan Bayh of Indiana

Barbara Mikulski of Maryland

Harry Reid of Nevada

Chuck Schumer of New York

Byron Dorgan of North Dakota

Ron Wyden of Oregon

Patrick Leahy of Vermont

Patty Murray of Washington

Russ Feingold of Wisconsin

Now, I'm not suggesting we dump all of these people. Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, and Barbara Boxer usually come through for us, but the rest of them continue to forget we exist the day after their elections are certified. I suggest that we start looking now for the alternatives, and that we let them know we are doing so and the reasons why.

Morons.

Some New Faces: California

Yesterday folks were already discussing the next election cycle, which elicited a groan from me. They were, however, correct to do so. If we are to get more and better Democrats into Congress, we need to start looking over potential challengers to the "Blue Dogs" and "DLC" types who are, for the most part, nothing more than Republican Lite, and that process has to start now.

I began looking at some of the candidates who might be ready for a shot at Congress, and I didn't have to look too far. The current Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa will be running for a second term as mayor this March, and he should have an easy time of it because the one challenger who might have made it a real race, developer Rick Caruso, has pulled out because he didn't feel it would be in the best interests of his family, especially his younger children. [Note: strictly speaking, the mayoral slot is non-partisan, but Mr. Villaraigosa is a Democrat.]

The Los Angeles Times had a pretty decent article on the Mayor, his first term, and the upcoming race for a second term:

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa finishes his first four-year term on a perch that any big-city politician would envy -- no strong opposition, cash in his campaign coffers and a City Hall that is closely in sync with his agenda.

His most formidable potential challenger, billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso, announced Friday that he would not run for the city's top office this year. While Caruso was explaining that decision, Villaraigosa was in Chicago appearing onstage with President-elect Barack Obama. ...

A second term would give Villaraigosa the opportunity to make further progress on goals he set out in his 2005 mayoral campaign, some of which have not been achieved. As he seeks reelection March 3, he will be in a position to strengthen his hold even further on L.A.'s political institutions -- ones with the power to shape policy on crime, education, transportation and the environment. ...

Even though he was a national co-chairman of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, Villaraigosa landed a coveted spot Thursday on Obama's economic transition team. Two days earlier, he helped secure passage of three local ballot measures that will pour up to $50 billion into new transit projects, public schools and community college buildings.

His work on behalf of those tax hikes -- Measures J, Q and R -- drew high praise from business leaders who had said they were critical to rebuilding the area's infrastructure.

When he hit road blocks during the early part of his tenure with respect to control over the schools, he worked hard to get sympathetic people elected to the school board. It's possible that after the March election, 6 out of 7 members of the board will be Villaraigosa allies.

When he had difficulties in realizing his goals for public transportation, (the mayor serves on the MTA), he smoothed over difficulties with another member of that board, County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.

The current city council pretty much goes along with the mayor's broad policy agendas, quibbling only occasionally over the details. Two of his closest allies on the council right now are strong contenders for City Attorney and City Controller. He takes good care of his people.

He also has a broad range of political experience. He served as a State Assemblyman and quickly rose to become a successful Speaker of the California State Assembly (a job akin to herding cats), and left that position only because of the state's term limits law.

So what's next after term limits once again puts Mr. Villaraigosa out of a job? Well, he has two possible paths. The most likely is the one that leads to the governor's mansion, although he has been reticent to the point of coyness when this possibility is discussed. His stint as Assembly Speaker certainly gives him plenty of name recognition in the northern part of the state, something past Southern California candidates have had problems with.

Or, depending on what Sen. Dianne Feinstein decides to do, he might even consider a run for the Senate. He has been busily building ties to national party leaders, as evidenced by his work on the Clinton campaign and then, amazingly enough, the Obama transition team. If he can get through the primary, he should get party support and dollars.

So, there you have it, the ideal candidate: experienced, a slick politician with a proven track record on progressive issues, a Latino in a state with a growing Latino population. Is there any downside?

Well, sadly, there is. Mayor Villaraigosa suffers from a common male politician malady: wardrobe malfunction, as in he can't keep his zipper up. He lost a lot of time, energy, and political capital because of an extramarital affair in his first term which ultimately ended his marriage. Will that handicap him in the future? It's hard to tell. It certainly doesn't appear to have hurt him when it comes to the current campaign, but he really doesn't have a strong challenger at this point. A state-wide race may be another matter. He has a couple of years to put that behind him with a strong, effective second term, assuming no further lapses in judgment.

If that happens, he just might be ready for Prime Time.

Note: I'd like to make this an ongoing feature, so if you have a local or state politician who's also ready for Prime Time, write it up and email it to me. I'll post it.