Manlove lost!

A little back I wrote a post about John Manlove who is seeking the Republican nomination for Texas’ 22nd Congressional District. And… in a more than immature way… I poked fun at him simply because his name was “Manlove”.

Well upon looking at this race more in depth, I learned that some interesting stuff has happened in Texas’ 22nd Congressional District in the past two years.  

In 2006, Rep. Tom DeLay resigned from his seat (for being a corrupt SOB). Texans voted on Nov. 7, 2006 casting two ballots: one to fill the remainder of DeLay’s term, and the other to determine who will serve the next term.

Republican Houston City Councilwomen Shelley Sekula-Gibbs won the special election to fill DeLay’s seat for the remainder of his term, however Democrat Nick Lampson won on the general election. Lampson most likely beat Sekula-Gibbs because her name wasn’t on the ballot. In a last ditch effort to stop the Democrats from taking a safe-Republican seat, the RNC pushed a voter education drive to learn how to spell Sekula-Gibbs name to write her in on the ballot. They failed.  

In 2008, it looks like Rep. Lampson is extremely vulnerable. Up to a week ago, there were 3 (of an original 10) Republicans vying for the opportunity to take the Republican nomination to defeat Lampson. Among those was John Manlove, a former businessman and missionary. They all seem to be flexing their conservative creds, and so I have no idea how Lampson can be anything in Congress other than a Democrat in name only if he intends on keeping his seat. It’s normal to have a wide array of primary challengers in a contested election; it’s not so normal to be the only moderate in the race and have every other guy vowing to uphold strict conservative principles (and stand a decent chance of winning).

Manlove dropped out of the race last week, and the field has been narrowed to two. It’s been getting contentious for the Republican nom… probably because Republicans feel they can beat Lampson in this district by a significant margin no matter what happens. The RNC probably believes, possibly rightly so, that Lampson’s victory was only a fluke.

But let’s get to the real story: there won’t be a Congressman Manlove (R-Texas). Oh well… it’s upsetting I know.

But in January of 2008, there might not be a Rep. Lampson either.

Foster Wins!

On Saturday’s Special Election, Democrat Bill Foster beat Republican Jim Oberweis, 51-49.A few reasons why this is such a remarkable victory:

1. IL-14 is an extremely conservative district in the heartland of Illinois. At it’s center, Dixon, IL is the home of iconic Republican president, Ronald Reagan.

2. In 2004, President Bush won reelection by a 56-44 margin.

3. THIS WAS FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER DENNIS HASTERT’S SEAT!!!!

One final note here, I would like to express my discontent with the Chicago Sun-Times. I learned that they endorsed Oberweis for the 14th District. This upsets me because the Sun-Times is supposed to be left leaning, and the Trib is supposed to be right. Why the hell is my Chicago Sun-Times endorsing a Republican congressional candidate? Especially a rank and fine one? If they wanted to endorse a Republican, there are plenty of Illinois Republican candidates who are more moderate and not sleeze-bags.

Dennis Kucinich could lose his congressional seat Tuesday

I feel kind of bad for him. He was very snug on the stage of presidential contenders last March and I’m sure he was fairly confident with the relationship he had with his OH-10 residents. But now Kucinich finds himself in the battle for his political life. This Tuesday, he could lose his party’s nomination for Ohio’s 10th Congressional District seat. His challenger: Cleveland City Councelman Joe Cimperman.

During his presidential campaign, Kucinich missed 139 votes. The mayor of Cleveland and the Cleveland Plain-Dealer have endorsed Cimperman, citing Kucinich’s increasing national profile and decreasing concern for the people of Ohio’s 10th district.

Read the full report in the Washington Post.

Congress needs Manlove

This is really immature, but I find it all too funny. There is a Republican minister & businessman in Texas running for Congress by the name of John Manlove.

Check out his campaign website.

His campaign theme: Rock Solid Conservative. Here are some bumper sticker themes I’ve come up with…

“Texas wants Manlove!”“I support Manlove!”

“Congress NEEDS Manlove!”

“Congress could benefit from some Manlove.”

As much as I disagree with this guy on almost everything, I think it’d be worth electing him to office. Who knows, maybe one day Speaker of the House Manlove? It says something about the people of Texas… in that they’re not all perpetually 10 years old and get a kick out of a man’s gay sounding last name.

Bill Foster: A Moderate Voice for Illinois’ 14th District

Democrats… it’s time to take Dennis Hastert’s old seat!

Illinois will have a special congressional election on March 8th to fill the seat of former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Illinois’ 14th district is a conservative bastion resting in the North Central heart of Illinois. It’s rural, traditional values Republicans who sent Denny Hastert to Capital Hill. Geographically, the 14th district touches the Chicago Democratic congressional strongholds to the east, and spans the width of the state to the Mississippi River in west. It starts in the outskirts of the Northwest suburbs (a few miles from my old home in Barrington) and is gerrymandered southeast.

This year is about change is Washington, and guess what? A Democrat now leads a Republican in the polls in a Republican stronghold.

Democrat Bill Foster, a scientist, is leading Republican milkman Jim Oberweis in recent polls, but not by much. (Oberweis owns a famous Chicago dairy chain–great ice cream by the way…)

A Global Strategy Group poll found:
Bill Foster: 45
Jim Oberweis: 41

A narrow lead to be sure.

I met Jim Oberweis at a Republican party fund raiser two years ago during his run for the governorship of Illinois. He is indeed a great guy with a great personality, but to put bluntly, he scares me. The man is a rank and file Republican. He holds strict fiscally and socially conservative values that stand in sharp contrast to what I believe. But more certainly, I have never forgiven him for this commercial he aired in his 2002 run for the United States Senate:

Oberweis 2002 Ad.

I was in high school when I watched that commercial, and I remember thinking then as I do now, wow, what a asshole. The reality is, Oberweis is a failure. He ran unsuccessfully for both the governorship of Illinois and the Republican nomination for the United States Senate. (Losing to Jack Ryan who later dropped out when details of his sex life emerged. The Illinois Republican party would later nominate Maryland carpetbagger Alan Keyes to lose to Illinois State Senator Barack Obama).

Bill Foster is the alternative. He stands opposed to the Iraq war, for affordable health care, fiscal responsibility and for border security. He is a political moderate, neither liberal nor conservative, who won’t vote with the rank and file of the Democratic party and only with the interests of Illinois’ 14th district in mind.

Here is his bio and a commercial, check out his website for more info.

Foster for Congress ad.

Donate to Foster for Congress

Where’s the Bounce?

Hillary Clinton’s website currently says, “Keep the momentum going!” Her 3% victory gives her campaign the right to claim that she’s building momentum. But is it?

I would say (as once released in a memo by Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn following Obama’s Iowa victory) “Where’s the bounce?” Where is Hillary’s bounce after winning New Hampshire?

Barack Obama was endorsed by the Nevada SEIU and the major Culinary Workers Union that represents over 60,000 union members. Next Saturday, they will surely be a force in Nevada’s democratic primary. As it stands, they’re one of the major political aparatuses in the state of Nevada, and with their ground support working in conjunction with Obama’s all ready impressive Nevada field operation, I see a serious race building up in the nation’s first western caucus.

And today Obama was endorsed by former Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). A huge endorsement that lends the Obama campaign the support of more establishment Democrats. Adding to Kerry was the endorsement of South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson, and Rep. George Miller of California. Says MSNBC’s Chuck Todd:

California congressman George Miller (D) is also backing Obama’s presidential campaign. This is perhaps the closest thing to getting a Nancy Pelosi endorsement as you can come without actually getting it. Miller is incredibly close with her politically. He wouldn’t be doing this without her consent of sorts.

Tons of endorsements following his New Hampshire loss: unions, senators and a representative with a close connection to the Speaker of the House. But where are Hillary’s endorsements? Where’s her bounce?

Certainly not in the fund raising battle. In the first 8 days of this month, Obama raised $8 million dollars compared with Hillary’s $3 million. The morning after his loss in New Hampshire, he received $500,000 in contributions online.

And lets be honest, no one in the press wants to see Hillary win. No one wants to report that the establishment candidate trumped the little guy. It’s no wonder they hyped the polls and coverage in the days leading up to New Hampshire… it’s just not a good story.

And in the realm of poll numbers- traditionally after a victory in an early state, your candidate makes gains. Hillary’s win may have slowed Obama’s momentum, but it certainly has not killed it. He is still leading by wide margins in South Carolina and his field operation in Nevada is growing stronger. (Still no polls out of Nevada yet).

Insider Advantage, Jan. 9, 2007
Obama 40%
Clinton 33%

Rasmussen, Jan. 9, 2007
Obama 42%
Clinton 30%

Honestly, Hillary will have to destroy him with win after win to kill his momentum. She can claim she has it, but in reality, she has neither the poll numbers, nor the endorsements, nor the finances to demonstrate it. Obama is a runaway train in the Democratic party; he’s emblematic of a movement and I don’t know if the Clinton’s can stop it.

I guess we’ll see.

Tracking More from Iowa

I feel as though I spent a considerable amount of space giving credit to the DMR poll, which as I outlined below, feel was significant. With that said, there are several other indicators that paint a different picture in Iowa.

Polling Data

Strategic Vision, Jan. 1, 2008
Obama 32%
Edwards 29%
Clinton 27%

Des Moines Register, Jan. 1, 2008
Obama 32%
Clinton 25%
Edwards 24%

CNN/ Opinion Research Corp., Jan. 1, 2008
Clinton 33%
Obama 31%
Edwards 22%

Insider Advantage, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 30%
Edwards 29%
Obama 22%

American Research Group, Dec. 29, 2007
Clinton 31%
Obama 24%
Edwards 24%

Mason-Dixon, Dec. 29, 2007
Edwards 24%
Clinton 23%
Obama 22%

Quad-City Times, Dec. 28, 2007
Obama 29%
Clinton 29%
Edwards 28%

Analysis: It’s all over the place. Whoever you’re for, congratulations because they’re doing well. Above is a chart from Wikipedia monitoring all the data averaging it into linear regression. Real Clear Politics did the same thing and came up with (for Iowa only) Clinton averaging only 1.1% overall. Obama has clearly been gaining, as has Edwards at the expense of Hillary Clinton. As you see on the graph above, the number of undecideds have also come down as we approach the caucus. It’s interesting how more undecideds turned to Edwards and Obama than Clinton.

Campaign Finances
2.3 million Iowans
$40 million spent in political advertising
= $150-$200/caucus-goer in Iowa

Without a doubt, the front runners are digging deep into campaign warchests. CNN reports that Barack Obama leads the field in spending for Iowa:

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois far outpaces any other candidate when it comes to ad spending in Iowa, having spent more than $9 million on close to 11,000 spots. That’s about $2 million more than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has spent ($7.2 million), and about three times the amount that former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has shelled out ($3.2 million). Clinton has aired close to 8,000 spots while Edwards has aired 3,700.

Analysis: Both Clinton and Obama have spent millions on advertising: Obama just $2 million more than Clinton. Edwards on the other hand has only spent $3.2 million in advertising, suggesting that he is expecting traditional caucus-goers to bring him to victory. In spending $6 million less than other candidates, Edwards hasn’t been appealing to independents, or new demographics as Obama; Edwards’ support comes from those who propped him up in ‘04, and his lack of advertising suggests a reliance on ground infrastructure and retail politics over visibility.

Endorsements
Who has the most endorsements? Well, Edwards secured the endorsement of Mari Culver, the first lady of Iowa. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all secured the endorsements of Iowa’s three congressmen, respectively. And yesterday, Dennis Kucinich released this statement:
Kucinich Urges Supporters to Back Obama on Second Iowa Ballot

For Immediate Release — Tuesday, January 01, 2008

DES MOINES, Iowa — Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Sen. Barack Obama. “This is obviously an ‘Iowa-only’ recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday, where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.

“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: change.”

Kucinich’s endorsement may mean little, but in a race that is a virtual three way tie, a 1% gain may be crucial. Of course people are free to make up their own mind and chose independently without anyone demanding caucasers support any one person, but Kucinich’s following is unique in that they’re all very loyal and committed to Kucinich’s ideals.

Dennis Kucinich Announces

At the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, MA there was one man who vocally challenged John Kerry’s nomination for the Presidency of the United States: Dennis Kucinich. As the state delegations cast their votes for the nomination, Kucinich was a lonely voice of opposition amongst the largely pro-Kerry crowd. Despite the fact that he received but a few of the Ohio delegation’s votes, his opposition can be seen as symbolic. Kucinich after all represents the hard-line left of the Democratic Party- and as he prepares to seek the nomination yet again, his calls for complete and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq could possibly give him sway amongst the hard-line lefties in the Democratic primaries. Unfortunately, this is not true of the American people.

Most Americans want to see victory in Iraq, or at least says our president. But according to the December 13, 2006 Washington Post, “ Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor changing the U.S. mission in Iraq from direct combat to training Iraqi troops” reports a Washington Post-ABC News survey. The problem is this is exactly what our generals are doing. The Iraqi military is still building, but not fast enough- and while army generals work toward strengthening Iraqi security, Americans see body bags and complete chaos in the streets of Baghdad. Perhaps this is why the war has grown so incredibly unpopular, and perhaps this is why viewpoints such as Kucinich’s have become increasingly enticing.

The war is now the focal point of the Kucinich for President 2008 strategy: capitalize off the unpopularity of a war by proposing a solution.

As a congressman, Kucinich is calling for Congress to immediately cut the funding for the War in Iraq, but the incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has diluted this extreme proposal. Pelosi at least recognizes that despite the fact that this president’s approval ratings may be in the lower twenties, and despite the fact that eight in ten Americans favor a shift in strategy, they don’t want to see the lives of 3,000 American troops to go to waste. Pelosi’s recognition of this fundamental understanding puts her at an equal playing field with the president- but where they differ is what ought be named the “way forward.”

Kucinich’s proposal for the “way forward” is far too drastic. Even though he may appease the hard-line Democratic Cindy Sheehan’s in the primaries, I believe there is a sizable crowd among Democrats with common sense. For this reason I know that Kucinich won’t even be competitive in the lead up to 2008, and why I believe his campaign is destined for failure.

First of all, Kucinich simply isn’t an attractive personality. He is boring- in both his ideas and his character. His plan to cut and run is not novel and in fact presents itself as (at least) a solution, but simply doesn’t work. If American’s learned anything from Vietnam, it’s that cutting and running is a waste of money, material and most importantly, human life.

Secondly, Kucinich’s voting record is way too liberal. He is an anti-war, pro-ACLU, AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood Democrat. Consider his voting record with the following interest groups by the acclaimed, credible Project Vote Smart:

1. Abortion: Kucinich votes with Planned Parenthood 56% of the time/ NAPAL Pro-Choice America: 100% of the time (2005)
2. Federal Funding of the Arts: Kucinich votes with Americans for the Arts: 90% of the time (2004)
3. Taxes: Kucinich votes with Americans for Tax Reform (anti-tax increasing lobby) 10% of the time (2005)
4. Business: Kucinich votes with the Small Business & Entrepreneurial
Council 13% of the time (2004)
5. Energy: Kucinich votes with Campaign for America’s Future (alternative energy lobby) 100% of the time (2006).
6. Environment: Kucinich votes with the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100% of the time (2005).
7. Foreign Policy: The Citizens for Global Solutions, a lobby which “[…]envisions a future which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms, and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone” gave Congressman Kucinich an A+ rating. (2005)
8. Gun Control: The National Rifle Association gives Congressman Kucinich an F rating. (2006).

If lobbies are any prediction of how a Congressmen position themselves on the issues, it is easy too infer that Kucinich is incredibly liberal. He may be supported by some in the Democratic primaries, but ultimately a man who is more liberal than John Kerry himself will not secure the nomination because his voting record easily attests to solid liberal extremism. If Democratic delegates learned anything from the Walter Mondale campaign of the ‘80’s, it is that extreme liberals are not popular, and are easily defeatable, and for this reason gives me proof that Kucinich cannot win the nomination, nor the presidency.

So this leads me to my final reason why Kucinich cannot win the nomination: most Democrats realize that his run is more symbolic than realistic. Kucinich himself states that he is in the race because he believes the party has grown out of touch with its roots, and Democrats understand his sentiment. Inevitably, he is running to represent that hardliner liberal voice of the Democratic Party, but modern delegates (especially given the incredible rise of conservative Democrats inducted into the party in the recent mid-term elections), know that an electable president is not a Walter Mondale, but a centrist—a compromiser. Kucinich is the last throw of liberalism in a party that has an increasingly large tent- and his run in ’08 will be seen as such.

Kucinich was expected to run. He is a familiar face who (like Vilsack) announced his intentions early to gather as may resources as possible. Unfortunately for Kucinich and Vilsack, many of those resources will be waiting for Obama and Clinton if and when they decide to run. Hopefully soon.

The Pelosi Factor

It was awkward. As House Democrats emerged from their conference to select a new Majority Leader for the 110th United States’ Congress, House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi was visibly shocked. In the hotly contested race for House Majority Leader, Pelosi backed Pennsylvania Congressman Jack Murtha as opposed to Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland. In a race where both sides claimed they had a clear majority of votes to win, Pelosi-backed Murtha was defeated by a 2:1 ratio.

Pelosi and Hoyer put on a smile, waved and stood for the cameras, but this did not alleviate the awkwardness of the situation. When Murtha shook Hoyer’s hand, it was only for one moment, at which point he concededly walked away.

For Pelosi, this is but one little bump in the road for what lies ahead. One would think that being the first female Speaker of the House would be pressure enough, but the San Francisco liberal has far more to live up to. She is all that stands between a Republican White House and a Democratic Majority, and as Speaker, she will be able to subpoena administration officials (including the President) and call investigations into the lead up to the War in Iraq. She will have the digression over the direction of Congress- in whether it works on a bipartisan level or divides on party lines. It is this power, that determines whether Democrats will hold on to their majority in 2008.

Pelosi has a lot riding on her performance, and it will require her to step away from the intense liberalism of which she ascribes to actually accomplish something in this new Congress. Americans do deserve to know what the president’s intentions were in the lead up to Iraq, but they also deserve comprehensive immigration reform, better educational systems and more for our returning veterans. While it is true that I believe that a divided government is better than a united Republican government, it does not mean that I believe a divided Congress is incapable of doing anything. To the contrary, bipartisan cooperation is encouraged and though Congress’ effectiveness is diminished, legislation is more frequently passed that reflects both sides of the issue.

Perhaps now is the best time for Mr. Bush to push his Guest Worker Program. I personally, have been a proponent of this plan to allow guest workers into this country, but his own Republican party suppressed the bill, and it never was passed. Now with a Democratic Congress, Bush may be able to initiate this program, perhaps reviving his and Congress’ reputation.

Bipartisan bills and Congressional investigations: this is what we may see in the coming two years. And while American’s deserve to know the truth about Iraq, they will want action. For the Democratic Congress to be successful in these next two years, they will need to work with the president, and produce bills. The last Congress failed to pass Social Security, Immigration and Ethics Reform- and lost the trust with the American people with scandal after scandal.

What Pelosi must recognize is that her reputation will not go down in history as being the first female Speaker of the House, but whether or not she will be able to maintain a Democratic majority in 2008. Pelosi and the Democrats have a chance to prove themselves, and if they do Americans will reward them with a Democratic Congress and Executive in 2008. Failing to do so may reverse the current Congress- and so in lies the pressure Pelosi faces. It will be tough for her to work with the President when she and the Democrats are bloodthirsty for answers about Iraq, but would Americans think Congress is wasting its time investigating the lead up to war? Do Americans prefer action to answers? Pelosi has several questions to answer, interests to settle and wants to fulfill. Ultimately, her success will be incumbent upon her keeping a level head, working bipartisanly, and asking herself whether or not she wants to truly investigate the President.

The Rise of Conservative Democrats

With a Democratic Majority arising in both houses of Congress following the concession of Virginia Senator George Allen, many are wondering what this means for the Democratic Party. After all, through the last days of the campaign, Bush was on the defensive in red states- campaigning for Republicans who, under different circumstances, wouldn’t have had a problem winning. Bush campaigned in the Bible Belt, the Midwest and through the Old West, ensuring that the Republican turnout was sufficient enough for the GOP candidate to resist prevailing winds. This did not happen.

Not a single Democratic incumbent lost their reelection bid. In a country where the average incumbency rate is 96%, this last election saw tidal wave of new Democrats into the House and Senate- with a rate of about 93%. More people turned out for this midterm than any other in our nation’s history, and likewise, more money was spent in this midterm election, than in any others past.

It is amazing how the American people can essentially flush the toilet on corruption and Republican domination given these unprecedented facts. But were the new Democrats who were elected to the U.S. House & Senate necessarily “liberal?” I know Chairman Howard Dean would disagree when I suggest no.

The Democrats were on the offensive- plain and simple. The Republicans lost in districts, which before 2006 would have been considered strongholds. Fortunately, the circumstances regarding the unpopularity of a certain president shifted the tide of American thinking- and those Democrats who were once ignored in their congressional districts- were suddenly given a fair shake. As a result, in order to be competitive in their conservative districts, candidates were more moderate, and “Democrat-in-name” only. Sure, they support Medicare, Medicaid, affordable college tuition, and a potential rise in the minimum wage, but they aren’t proponents of social liberalism (gay marriage, abortion, or gun control.) They were strong on government helping people economically, while using the President and his ongoing War in Iraq to their every possible benefit. It was this strategy, coupled with Republican unpopularity that swept Democrats into the House of Representatives in districts where they never thought possible.

Now that DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel’s (D-IL) strategy worked, how will this play for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)? It is inconceivable that the Democrats wouldn’t try to push their agenda despite a Republican president, but would these new Conservative Democrats vote with the Democrats?

For instance, Jon Tester (D-MT) is Senator-Elect from Montana. I personally, love Tester’s genuineness. He’s a farmer from rural Big Sandy. He does like Washington lobbyists, nor resemble the stereotypical senator. He is a conservative in many respects, and opposed to gun control, gay marriage, and wants to keep abortion “legal, safe and rare.” By all accounts Jon Tester is emblematic of that rugged countryman, who works hard on his farm and knows the value of real hard labor; it appears his values match our conception. He supports helping the middle class, and finding an exit strategy in Iraq. However, he may be a senator whose votes will not always coincide with his party- and over the question of whether or not he’ll be a liberal Democrat is answered with a resounding no. He is a Montanan, and Montanans are fairly conservative people. He will represent his new conservative constituents, and if the Democrats are lucky- party lines.

This is true for so many Democrats who got swept up in the tidal wave of November 7th, 2006. With a new 230-some Democratic majority, there will need to be sufficient members who will vote with the majority. If anything on social issues, Republicans are benefited, and subsequently, Democrats will avoid controversial social issues. The main prospects these next two years will be on Iraq, the economy and securing America. This is how the Dems will maintain their majority, and this is how they will get bills through Congress. In 2008, all those districts where the Democrats got swept in by popular current will be prime territory to Republican attacks given their conservative nature. Hopefully, the forces of good will are able to prevail over the forces of Rove-evil, and keep the Reps on the defensive.

Congressman Emanuel, recognize that we have a new wing to our party- a conservative wing- and aid them in 2008 by avoiding bills that will be controversial in their reelection bids. I hate suggesting the delay of government action on the account of politics- but in 2008 Republicans will be on the run for several of their senate seats- and I am only thinking of what is good for my party, and within that dream, America.