Monday, July 28, 2014

Is There One Single Best Member Of Congress? Have You Met Alan Grayson?


When Blue America weighs the pros and cons of endorsing a candidate for Congress, we often find ourselves measuring them by how similar he or she appears to be to Orlando Congressman Alan Grayson. Grayson is brilliant, courageous and, more than anyone else in the House, he defines progressivism. And you know what? One Congressman can matter. A lot-- that's why we're asking you to consider making a contribution to Grayson's reelection campaign today.

You've probably heard that Grayson passed more amendments than any other member of Congress. You've probably heard that he helped pass the first Federal media shield bill through the U.S. House of Representatives. But you probably haven't heard that he exposed a plot by the banks to form their own war council with a bunch of three letter agencies. This sounds crazy, but you can read this Bloomberg article, titled "Banks Dreading Computer Hacks Call for Cyber War Council." It's right there. Under the guise of fearing hackers and terrorists, banks have been seeking a formal way to influence the NSA and CIA into cyber-attacks. Alan Grayson is the member of Congress who exposed it, because he knows that exposure is the way to stop the banks from gaining power they shouldn't have.

This doesn't show up on a vote tally. It doesn't show up in the Congressional Record. It doesn't take a majority of Congress to do this. It takes one person, who puts the time and effort in. That's what makes Alan Grayson special. As Martin Sheen said in the video up top, "Last year, when the prospect of war between the United States and Syria reared its ugly head, Alan Grayson worked tirelessly to convince both his colleagues and the American people to give peace a chance. Alan Grayson not only won that fight, but he also established a critical principle-- that when it's our blood to be spilled and when its our money to be spent, then it's our decision to make. Tireless, tough, creative, articulate, honest, poised and persuasive, Alan Grayson has become one of the bold leaders of the renewed peace movement here in America."

Grayson is doing a money bomb this week and Blue America wants to make sure all of our members know about it. You can contribute here. As Alan said:
"'Government of the people?' Well, obviously. 'Government by the people?' Who else, space aliens? But 'Government for the people'-- that’s where the real debate is. And I know which side I’m on. I know which side Blue America is on. What about you?"

A last thought from Rep. Grayson: "We need your help in the year 2014, not in the year 3114, when Hillary Clinton the XXXIII will be running against George Bush the XXXV for President. Now, not then. Oh, and just a reminder: we will be choosing one moneybomb contributor (donating $20.14 or more) to join Rep. Alan Grayson in Orlando on Election Day, or some other date that’s good for you. Come on, Mickey Mouse is dying to see you!"

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Movie Watch: "Calvary" at MoMI -- first watch the movie, then watch the writer-director and principal actor talk about it


Brendan Gleeson as Father James Lavelle

by Ken

Here's something to imagine. Imagine that you've just seen a movie that so overwhelmed and shocked you that at the end you hadn't yet had time to piece together how you felt -- a film that is so centrally built around its central character that he's a central piece of the architecture of the film (into which he had substantial input) -- and you knew that when the lights went up, the film's writer-director and principal actor would be coming onstage to talk about it!

Regular readers have probably guessed that the setting was the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens, from which I just got home with 55 minutes till my post deadline. (I should admit that I did a fair amount of mostly illegible scribbling on the long two-train subway ride home. It remains to be seen, however, how useful that scribbling will prove.) What we saw was a members-only screening, courtesy of Fox Searchlight, of Calvary, the second film written and directed by John Michael McDonagh, and the principal actor was Brendan Gleeson, who had worked with McDonagh on his first film, The Guard, which I should say I had never heard of let alone seen (though now I guess I'll have to make it my business to. Variety's Justin Chang describes The Guard as "still the most successful Irish indie of all time."

I've written a fair amount (last September, for example, and as recently as this 4th of July) about the outsize pleasure I've derived from MoMI screenings and the extraordinary discussions that often accompany them -- like tonight's. And sure enough, it was chief curator David Schwartz who introduced tonight's program and led the post-screening discussion. (It was just last weekend that David was introducing a members-only preview of the about-to-open exhibition devoted to the legendary cartoon and animated-film director Chuck Jones. That exhibition, by the way, is a collaborative undertaking that has been conceived from the outset as a traveling show, so watch for it in a museum near you.)

One thing I've learned about MoMI screenings, though, is never to read the program hand-out till after the screening. It's something McDonagh and Gleeson didn't have to think about as they talked about the film, because they knew we had all just seen it. But sure enough, although tonight's program note consisted of a really smart review by the aforementioned Justin Chang of Variety, I'm sure glad I hadn't read it before seeing the film. To my mind, it gives away much too much that it seems to viewer is meant to sort out for him/herself as the picture begins to unfold.

This much I can say. The film takes us through a week in the life of a small-town Irish priest -- a good priest and a good man. (McDonagh explained that in the conception of the film, which he was able to accomplish during the extraordinarily protracted editing of The Guard, one of the things he wanted to do was to make a film about a good man.) Father James is in a condition of imminent personal crisis, and it's a crisis that is in no way his fault. (If you're thinking that in view of the worldwide priest scandals of these growing decades priests deserve to have anything that's dumpable dumped on them, let me assure you that this is in fact the animating subject of the film.)

Writer-director John Michael McDonagh

In the course of following Father James around for that week, we are introduced to a rogues' gallery of parishioners, and here I think Justin Chang gives away just the right amount:
There's a butcher (Chris O'Dowd) who is initially suspected of beating his town-slut wife (Orla O'Rourke), until he explains that she probably sustained her injuries at the hands of her Ivorian-immigrant lover (Isaach De Bankole). There's also a vaguely sinister police detective (Gary Lydon, reprising his role from The Guard whom the priest interrupts mid-tryst with a saucy male prostitute (Owen Sharpe), a doctor (Aidan Gillen) who makes no secret of his violently atheist views; and extravagantly wealthy man (Dylan Moran) whose riches have failed to bring him any lasting happiness; a sex-starved young man (Killian Scott) considering joining the army in order to vent his violent impulses; and an aging American writer (M. Emmet Walsh) determined to end life on his own terms.

All these villagers are introduced, one after another, in a series of sharply written, compellingly acted and increasingly pointed moral discussions, during which the priest will offer his counsel  . But the richest insights here are those we glean into the character of the grizzled clergyman himself . . . whose every nugget of hard-headed wisdom resonates with bitter life knowledge.
Onstage afterward, John Michael McDonagh and Brendan Gleeson were smart and intense and funny. McDonagh explained that the climax of the film had always been part of his conception, and that in fact the exigencies of a tight filming schedule dictated that it was shot near the beginning of the film, Gleeson noted that having that already safely on film had made shooting the rest of it freer and easier for him. I've mentioned that MoMI audiences ask excellent questions, and one about the film's setting elicited the information that Sligo is where his mother's people are from, and so he had visited often growing up, and therefore knew the locations -- including a large, barren flat-topped mountain that we see a lot of in the film.

M. Emmet Walsh
Which reminds me, the film is extraordinarily beautiful, and that reminds me that both it and The Guard were shot by the outstanding cinematographer Larry Smith. McDonagh explained that early on he had been thinking that Smith would be the ideal person to shoot The Guard but that he assumed there was no way he could get him to do it -- until it occurred to him that if he didn't ask, he certainly couldn't get him. He wound up asking and getting him, now for both pictures. Which turns out to be how M. Emmet Walsh was cast as well. I think McDonagh said it was his wife who had suggested that the great character actor would be perfect for the role, and again, if you don't ask, you don't get.

Both McDonagh and Gleeson talked about how much they enjoyed working with Walsh. Gleeson mentioned that after shooting was completed, he got a note from him saying that he'd finally worked his way up to Dublin, and everywhere he ate he generously dropped Gleeson's name -- and paid full price everywhere. Gleeson also talked about what it was like working with his son, who played a seriously psychopathic murderer Father James visits in prison. He explained that after working on the scene together, they went their separate ways for a week before shooting the scene.

That's the sort of detail that you don't need to "get" the film, but that deepens your understanding of and appreciation for the kind of effort that goes into producing something of lasting value.


Can Anyone Trust Pete Aguilar?


Substance abuser and New Dem Petey-Pie lets his hair down

I don't think even someone as astoundingly incompetent as Steve Israel could lose CA-31-- the Inland Empire congressional district-- for the Democrats again this year, despite having maneuvered to get an ethics-free, corrupt ex-lobbyist,  Pete Aguilar, the nomination. After all, the district has a PVI of D+5, Obama won it both times with 57% and the Republican incumbent Israel allowed to slip in in 2012, Gary Miller, is retiring. Almost nothing short of a coke bust-- always possible considering the photo above-- or a rape will keep Aguilar from beating GOP outsider Paul Cabot, despite Chabot coming in first in the primary with 14,163 votes (26.6%) to Aguilar's 9,242 (17.4%). And a Republican came in in 3rd place as well, Lesli Gooch, with 9,033 votes (17.0%). Aguilar is counting on the 19,074 votes (35.8%) 3 other Democrats-- Eloise Reyes, Joe Baca and Danny Tillman-- got in the race. And I'm sure he'll get some of them, although Baca hates him with a passion and is telling people to not vote for him; Tillman told him to go screw himself when he asked for his support; and Reyes isn't much of a fan either, despite giving him a polite pro forma endorsement. Baca and Tillman point right to Steve Israel's heavy-handed bumbling for why they won't back Aguilar now. Even Gregg Walden, the GOP version of Israel admits that it would be next to impossible for the Republicans to hold the district.

As of the June 30 FEC filings, Aguilar had raised $1,327,366, spent $1,021,285 and was sitting with $325,729 cash on hand. Chabot had only raised $164,912 and was sitting on a pitiful $26,342. Southern California Republicans Kevin McCarthy, Ken Calvert, Duncan Hunter and Darrell Issa have promised to raise him enough cash to stay competitive with Aguilar.

There has been no outside interest from independent right-wing groups in helping Chabot so far and the DCCC and its House Majority PAC have spent $162,753 on Aguilar already and plan to spend a lot more (in a district that should be a gimme). Robert Conaway won the Democratic nomination to run in the 8th district, due north and east of the 31st. It's one of California's reddest districts (PVI is R+10) and Obama lost to McCain and to Romney with 42% each year. In 2012, the two highest vote-getters in the open primary were Cook and a deranged teabagger, Gregg Imus, andRobert Conaway's wife, Jackie came 4th after 3 Republicans with 14.3%. This time her husband avoided that came fate, coming in second with 18.7%, behind Cook with 58.1% and ahead of the second-ranking Republican, Paul Hannosh who got 13.1%. Friday, Conaway penned an OpEd in one of the local newspapers, Why I Can't Trust Pete Aguilar. Aguilar, who was never really a Democrat until he decided to front for the Chamber of Commerce as "their" appointed Hispanic on the City Council and then as their appointed mayor, is extremely tight with the Republican Machine. His conservative views mesh nicely with them as well.
On February 8, 2014, while winning the California Democratic Party’s pre-endorsement at a caucus in the Antelope Valley, I was personaly promised by Pete Aguilar that he would work with me and looked forward to working with me in Washington.

After both Pete and I earned the full party’s nomination at the California Democratic Party’s state convention on March 9, 2014 and thereafter helped each other by honoring the State Party endorsement to only support each other (despite the pressures from other democrats running against us both in each of our Districts), we both advanced in June as one of the top two finishers (Aguilar is up against Chabot and I against Paul Cook)-- with Aguilar’s supporters spending a reported $1.9 million and well my spending, well less than $5,000 (but I won by more votes and by a bigger margin-- hmm).

On July 17, 2014, long after the primary victories, Candidate Pete Aguilar shows his loyalty and trustworthiness in an interview with the Washington Post’s Jeff Simon where he says in response to “Who is your favorite republican politician?” Aguilar replies:
“You know what, I am going to say Congress Paul Cook from our area. He is a Great guy. A decorated war veteran. I’ve worked with Paul in the local government world when he was a local mayor as well and just a fantastic individual. We will disagree on a lot of issues, but if I am going to sit a plane with someone from our region, I would love to sit next to Paul Cook and pick his brain and talk about the region”
When I asked the Aguilar campaign to take the link to Facebook and campaign website link down to the Washington Post website-based interview, the campaign manager [Boris] on July 24, 2014 after a San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee meeting wanted to talk with me and after agreeing it “was an attack” and he “was present at the interview,” conditioned removal of the links on not making a formal protest of what anyone could logically consider to be an endorsement of the opposition candidate.

That the Cook campaign or one of its surrogates will run an ad or send a flyer with Pete Aguilar’s face on it and the text of his praise for Paul Cook is the next problem, as it will be a flyer that will target Democratic voters that last time had the choice between Imus (a Tea Party Republican) and Cook due to the quirk of an open primary.

Politics are dirty in the Inland Empire and while Aguilar may be new to Congressional politics, to me, he is the same ole’ sack of shit and makes me think, just maybe Aguilar thought he was answering the Yankee Stadium fans’ question, “Who’s your daddy?”
And here I always thought Aguilar's daddy was Jerry Lewis… and Steve Israel. Oh, and Herman Aguilar who he told the media had died as an excuse for losing in 2012. Herman is back from the dead and campaigning for him again this year.

Corrupt Inland Empire conservatives rally around their boy Pete Aguilar, including his pal Jerry Lewis,  Bill Emmerson,  Mike Morrell  and, of course, Gary Miller 

Labels: , ,

August Primaries


There are quite a few of them but the ones progressives have a stake in, in chronological order, are Hawaii (August 9), Wisconsin (August 12), and then a late super-Tuesday on August 26 for Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma. That same day has primaries in Alaska, Missouri, Oregon and Vermont with interesting races but no races that pit a progressive against a shill from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Up top is the brand new video from one of the most grassroots campaigns anywhere, the Tom Guild campaign for the open Oklahoma City congressional seat. Guild came in a strong first in the 3-way June 24th primary, beating non-courageous, and conservative Establishment Democrat Al McAffrey:
Tom Guild- 11,597 (42.1%)
Al McAffrey- 8,505 (30.9%)
Leona Leonard- 7,424 (27%)
McAffrey, who is being partially financed by Krumme Oil, has out-raised Guild but small contributions through ActBlue are keeping Guild competitive. OK-05 doesn't have an astronomical media market and Guild is using contributions to keep his ad on TV news shows and on a field operation and get out the vote effort.

Yesterday we took a brief look at the WI-07 primary, where a Republican right wing lunatic and gun fanatic, Mike Krsiean, switched his party registration so he could primary progressive Democrat Kelly Westlund in the race to replace Paul Ryan-clone Sean Duffy. The other Wisconsin primary to watch is in the southeast part of the state, WI-01, where an L.A.-based UFO conspiracy buff, Amar Kaleka, is challenging Rob Zerban (on the same day that a Republican marijuana activist named Jeremy Ryan is challenging Paul Ryan in the GOP primary. Republican crossbow expert Ryan Ryan says he will challenge whichever of the two Ryans wins when he's old enough to run in 2016.) So far Paul Ryan raised $6,938,372; Rob Zerban raised $494,878; Amar Kaleka raised $138,353; and neither Jeremy Ryan nor Ryan Ryan has raised enough to file with the FEC. In WI-07, Sean Duffy has raised $1,808,688; Kelly Westlund has raised $303,214; and Mike Krsiean and his 700 pound pig Barney are refusing to report their fundraising to the FEC.

There's an important primary in Phoenix, where Ed Pastor, first elected in 1991, is retiring from a super-blue district, AZ-07 (PVI D+16). Obama beat hometown boy John McCain there 65-34% and in 2012 wiped out Mitt Romney 72-27%. Whoever wins the Democratic primary August 26 will be the next congressmember. There are 4 Democratic candidates, Ruben Gallego, Randy Camacho, Jarrett Maupin and, from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, Mary Rose Wilcox. Gallego, who has been endorsed by Raul Grijalva, Dolores Huerta, MoveOn, the Sierra Club, Climate Hawks Vote and Daily Kos, is the progressive fave in the race and Mary Rose Wilcox is just another grotesquely conservative, corrupt EMILY's List pick. They're the only two who have raised any money-- $434,873 for Gallego and $335,656 for Wilcox. Celinda Lake has done the only published poll (May 22) and it shows Gallego leading Wilcox 38-32%.

Primary day in Hawaii, two weeks from yesterday, is really important and it features two races, one for Senate and one for the House, that pit shills from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party against proven progressives. The Senate race is a match-up between Senator Brian Schatz, one of the best members of the Senate-- right up there with Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin-- against a corrupt conservative New Dem, Colleen Hanabusa. Everything you need to know about the Senate primary is here. The House race is to replace Hanabusa in the seat she gave up to run against Schatz. The progressive in the race is Stanley Chang and he's being challenged by two conservatives, Mark Takai and Donna Kim. Back in May the Congressional Progressive Caucus endorsed Chang. Last week, Japanese-American congressman, Mark Takano, lied to his fellow caucus members and convinced them that his Japanese-American pal Takai is not really a conservative and railroaded them into making it a "dual endorsement." They should have known better because Takano, one of the least effective and least trustworthy members of the CPC, also went to bat for corrupt conservative Pete Aguilar (a New Dem) on behalf of DCCC chairman Steve Israel (a Blue Dog who was behind both Aguilar and Takai).

One of the CPC members I respect, even admire, sent me a note that explained how Takano had persuaded him and other members to go for the dual endorsement. I don't have permission to publish it but I will publish my own response to that member:
Yeah, I know. And Brat had no chance to beat Cantor either. So Stanley had "no chance" so you endorsed an anti-gay conservative who's slightly better on most things-- but not all-- than Donna Kim, splitting the progressive vote and guaranteeing that Kim will win. Sorry it took so long to get back to you but the electricity in my neighborhood was down all day 'til just now.

Takai talks a good game, but he's not a progressive, as I've been writing about on my blog.

Many Democrats including el presidente have "evolved" on marriage equality in recent years, but Takai's flip-flop is very recent and smacks of opportunism, which is how the press in Honolulu interpreted it. Takai voted no on civil unions twice and was in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2012. He only reversed his position after deciding to run for Congress, a few months ago. Does a "progressive" go from no on civil unions and pro-marriage amendment to yes on marriage in the blink of an eye?

Takai introduced bills to drug-test welfare recipients twice. He's terrible on choice. You mentioned emergency contraception as an issue that is important to you, but Takai has repeatedly said that he would vote for religious exemptions for hospitals that don't wish to offer emergency contraception, including in statements to the Hawaii Family Forum in 2010 and 2012. This is not ancient history.

You expressed concern about the polling, but the most recent poll (by Civil Beat) was conducted over two months ago. It had a sample size of 249 people and a margin of error of nearly 5%. This poll was in the field just 2 days after Stanley's first TV ad went live and right at the point where Stanley's campaign began ramping up their voter outreach. It does not reflect today's reality on the ground. The media in Hawaii paid barely any attention at all to this race until very recently, due to the high-profile primaries for Senate and Governor. In May, voters were not knowledgeable about the candidates and were only responding on the basis of name recognition.

Labor unions and other local organizations are notoriously risk-averse in their endorsements and tend to go for establishment figures. Stanley has gone out of his way to court labor and all the local unions like him. Many of the major unions like HGEA have decided to stay neutral in this race. The endorsement by Equality Hawaii is a joke. There was no questionnaire, no process, no interview; just a few board members getting together to back Takai. Equality Hawaii is widely mocked and hated by the progressive LGBT community in the state. Takai's endorsement by the Star-Advertiser is meaningless and they are very conservative, having endorsed the worst Democrat in contemporary Hawaii politics Mufi Hannemann (anti-equality so-called Democrat turned Independent this cycle) twice for Governor in 2010 and Congress in 2012. Needless to say, he lost both times.

I'm not sure what evidence Takai gave you for his strong ground game, but we have people on the ground in Honolulu and they are NOT seeing it. Except for Schatz, Stanley's campaign is the only one in the state that has a serious field operation. I'm talking about real voter outreach, not just appearances like sign-waving, which is what many in Hawaii mean when they talk about canvassing.

Kim said in this week's debate, when asked who she would vote for if she weren't running: "To be very honest, I would be supporting Mark Takai, because I've worked with Mark Takai for many years in the State House of Representatives. We get along very well and I respect Mark."

Takai is going through the motions to pander to the progressive community, and if you watch his talking points over the past several months you will notice this evolution. Sure, it's great that he's on our side now for some issues, but I have a hard time imagining him in the Progressive Caucus-- MAYBE the way Jared is-- and I very much doubt that he'll be a reliable progressive vote if elected. His interest first and foremost is bringing more military resources to Hawaii.

XXX, I don't expect anything better from Takano, but you got sold a bill of goods and I feel awful about it.

Endorsed Mark Takai, who has a virulently homophobic voting record, but… what the hell?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ghost of Sunday Classics: Yes, it's more Donald Adams!


Princess Ida's three "hulking brothers" are bested by Prince Hilarion and his friends Cyril and Florian in Act III of the New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players' Princess Ida.
Politics we bar,
they are not our bent!
On the whole we are
not intelligent!
-- Ida's brother Arac, in Act I of Princess Ida
by Ken

So far in this series we've heard our Donald as the army-besotted landlord Sergeant Bouncer in Burnand and Sullivan's Cox and Box and as the Usher in Trial by Jury, and most recently as the specter of the late Sir Roderic Murgatroyd in Ruddigore. And I thought we should start by finishing up with Sir Roderic, since we gave rather short shrift to the great scene in which the ancestral Murgatroyds step out of their picture frames in the great hall of the Bad Baronets of Ruddigore to torment the recently entitled Sir Ruthven over his failure to live up to the fabled Witch's Curse -- to "do one crime or more, once every day forever." After all, it was supposed to be our goal in last week's post, "When the night wind howls in the chimney cowls."

So we're going to return to the Picture Galley, then push farther into Ruddigore, and then we're going to hear Donald in another role, one he didn't have occasion to sing often, but sang wonderfully on two recordings of Princess Ida.

Read more »

Labels: , ,

Boehner Still Afraid To Whip His Obstructionist Caucus Into Line On Fixing The V.A.


Almost every Senate Republican-- even extremist obstructionists like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee and Richard Burr-- followed Bernie Sanders' lead last month to pass a bill to address the sordid situation at the V.A. It passed 93-3 with the only dissections from mentally unstable right-wingers Ron Johnson (R-WI), Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-KKK) and Bob Corker (R-TN).

The House Republicans can't quite get their shit together on the whole V.A. mess they've been desperately trying to turn into a talking point. Talking points are a lot easier for them than actually doing anything. So, Thursday evening they failed to pass a motion to instruct their conferees to agree to the original, bipartisan Senate-passed V.A. overhaul. It failed by 2 votes, 207-205, only 13 Republicans with the guts to stand up to the Tea party sociopaths and obstructionists. Every Democrat voted "yes" and the 13 Republicans were a gaggle of relatively mainstream conservatives (or Members in fear of losing in November): Jeff Denham (CA), Charlie Dent (PA), Mike Fitzpatrick (PA), Chris Gibson (NY), Gregg Harper (MS), Joe Heck (NV), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Candice Miller (MI), Steve Pearce (NM), Ed Royce (CA), Lee Terry (NE), Fred Upton (MI), and Frank Wolf (VA).

Boehner didn't vote but he knew he'd have to get the bill-- unpopular with the crackpot base only because it signals cooperation instead of anarchy-- passed. So, the following day he allowed it to be voted on again. Less than 24 hours after it failed, a dozen more Republicans crossed the aisle and voted with the Democrats for veterans. These were the 12 who voted "no" on Thursday and "yes" on Friday:
Andy Barr (KY)
Michael Burgess (TX)
Steve Daines (MT)
Renee Ellmers (NC)
Cory Gardner (CO)
Sam Johnson (TX)
Walter Jones (NC)
Leonard Lance (NJ)
Tom Petri (WI)
Bill Posey (FL)
Tom Rooney (FL)
Chris Smith (NJ)
Denham, Harper, Pearce and Wolf had voted for the veterans on Thursday but changed their minds and voted against veterans on Friday, nearly upending the whole opportunity to address the V.A. emergency.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders, the point person for the compromise in the Senate wants to allow vets to go to private doctors if they face long waits for appointments at a V.A. hospital or if they live more than 40 miles from one. His proposal would shave around $10 billion from the original Senate bill that's already passed and which House Republicans say is too expensive. You ever notice that conservatives are never concerned about the cost of sending men and women to fight in wars but then want to nickel and dime the wounded to death when they come back broken and shattered? That's part of the inherent nature of conservatism. It's what the essence of conservatism is all about. From Sanders' official website:
Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders on Thursday detailed compromise legislation that he offered to House negotiators one week ago that would reform the VA and give it the tools to provide quality, timely health care to veterans. The proposal (click here for details) would address the need for short-term, emergency access to care while strengthening VA’s capacity to address veterans’ needs in the long term.

The Senate voted 93-3 on June 11 for a bill that the Congressional Budget Office estimated would cost $35 billion. The House separately passed veterans legislation that CBO estimated would cost $44 billion. Sanders’ latest proposal-- given last Friday to House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.)-- would cost less than $25 billion.

Instead of working constructively toward a compromise, Miller unilaterally called a “conference committee meeting” to unveil his take-it-or-leave-it gambit. “This is a sad indication that the House leadership is not serious about negotiations. We don’t need more speeches and posturing. We need serious negotiations-- 24/7 if necessary-- to resolve our differences in order to pass critical legislation,” Sanders said.

“The major veterans’ organizations have been clear about the needs of the VA. It is time for the House to pay attention,” Sanders added. He was referring to a letter on Wednesday from the nation’s major veterans groups on Wednesday backing increased funding for more doctors, nurses and space at VA facilities. (Read the letter.)

Sanders said the proposal that he detailed for Miller on Monday concedes that some of the costs of this bill should be offset and would provide more than $2.5 billion in savings from within the Veterans’ Affairs Committees’ jurisdiction. “What it does not concede,” Sanders said, “is that the cost of war is expensive and that the cost of war does not end when the last shots are fired and the last missiles are launched.  The cost of war continues until the last veteran receives the care and benefits that he or she has earned on the battlefield.”
Meanwhile, 116 Democrats signed this letter to Reid and Boehner demanding that there be no congressional vacation until an agreement is readhed on the V.A. problem:

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, July 26, 2014

What Does It Say About The 25 Democrats Who Crossed The Aisle To Vote With The GOP To Amend The Internal Revenue Code Of 1986


The whole purpose of the vote Friday afternoon was, euphemistically called the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014-- and sponsored by 4 corporate shills, Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, Devin Nunes of California and Tom Reed of New York-- was to expand tax credits for wealthy families while leaving kids from poor families behind, standard operating procedure for Republicans, of course. But 5 Republicans opposed the grotesquely unfair bill and 25 of the worst conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party in the House voted for it.

Let me preface this by saying that I had a very rich and rewarding experience last week. I spent it at my alma mater, Stony Brook, getting a better understanding of their EOP/AIM program (Equal Opportunity Program/Advancement on Individual Merit). I spent my days there getting to know the administrators, the teachers and the incredible motivated students. These kids come from homes where the average household income is $12,000 a year and many of them never thought they would find themselves in a top-rated university-- with all the opportunities inherent in that. But Stony Brook goes out to high schools and recruits kids who would benefit from the program, helping them visualize themselves in college and he helping them tackle the inevitable problems that come up for their entire 4 years college experience. The program's graduation rate-- 78%-- is about significantly higher than the graduation rate from the university in general.

Friday, writing for Mother Jones, Erika Eichelberger, explained the inherent unfairness of the bill the conservatives passed, 237-173. The bill, she wrote, "changes the way the federal child tax credit works by raising the eligibility cap for married couples. At the same time, the legislation would allow a 2009 child tax credit increase for low-income families to expire at the end of 2017. Here's how that would play out in the coming years. A married couple with two children that bring in $160,000 a year would get a new annual tax cut of $2,200, according to an analysis by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). A single mother with two kids who makes $14,500 a year would lose $1,725 annually.
"The big winners would be the more-affluent families who would become newly eligible for the [child tax credit]," tax experts at the CBPP noted Tuesday. "The losers would be millions of low-income families who are doing exactly what policymakers often say they want these people to do-- working, even at low-wage jobs."

…The 2009 law that increased the child tax credit for poor families did so by lowering the income level required for a partial credit to $3,000 and reducing the annual income required for a full credit to $16,333. If it expires, 6 million children and roughly 400,000 veterans and military families would lose all or part of their child tax credit.
The 5 Republicans who voted with the Democrats against this monstrosity of unfairness were mainstream conservatives Jeff Denham (CA), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), Walter Jones (NC), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), and David Valadao (CA), all except Jones representing Democratic-leaning districts And these were the 25 disgraceful excuses for Democrats who crossed the aisle in the other direction to vote against working families:
Ron Barber (Blue Dog/New Dem-AZ)
John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA)
Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA)
Bruce Braley (cowardly Senate candidate-IA)
Julia Brownley (CA)
Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)
Bill Enyart (IL)
Pete Gallego (Blue Dog/New Dem-TX)
John Garamendi (CA)
Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL)
Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH)
Dave Loebsack (IA)
Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC)
Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)
Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
Gary Peters (New Dem-MI)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV)
Raul Ruiz (CA)
Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)
Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog/New Dem-AZ)
Every Republican, except maybe the 5 who crossed the aisle, plus these 25 faithless Democrats, are class enemies of most Americans. The medium household income in the country is $50,502. 49.5% of American families live in households where the annual income is less than $50,000 and only 4.3% of Americans live in households with annual incomes above $200,000. These conservative congressmembers think their job is to safeguard inequality and keep the doors of opportunity bolted to the children of the less well-off. Forget about party affiliation; if you're not making six-figures you shouldn't vote for any of these people. And if you are making six-figures, you should only vote for them if you hate America and want to see it whither and die.

Labels: ,

TV Watch: There's something going on in "Jennifer Falls," which makes it something of a miracle in today's TV world


"Here it comes -- blame the mother!" Jennifer's psychiatrist (Kurt Fuller) tries to conduct a repeat session with his patient, Jennifer (Jaime Pressly), and her family -- psychologist mom Maggie (Jessica Walters), brother Wayne (Ethan Suplee), sister-in-law Stephanie (Nora Kirkpatrick), and, ever so briefly, daughter Gretchen (Dylan Gelula), in last week's episode of Jennifer Falls, "Three Dates With My Mother."

by Ken

The problem with trying to write a regular "TV Watch" feature is that the powers that be seem determined to make sure they're dishing out next to nothing worth writing about. You watch new show after new show, and eventually it dawns on you that the "creative" process, in program develoment and pitching, has become something like: "Hey, here's something that could be really crappy!"

So I think it counts for something that after catching a later episode of Jennifer Falls -- having resolutely avoided the thing based on the death-defyingly horrible promos, which carry the message, "Run for your life!" -- I felt impelled to watch the earlier episodes via On Demand and then went so far as to program the DVR to preserve new ones. What's more, I've actually watched the couple of episodes that the DVR recorded. This doesn't qualify as an actual commitment, but it's something.

You probably know the premise: that Jennifer (Jaime Pressly), a career-long rising star in the financial-services industry, suddenly crashed and burned, and tail between her legs has slinked back to old home -- along with her teenage daughter, Gretchen (Dylan Gelula) with her psychologist mom (Jessica Walters), and the company of her sweet but nebbishy brother, Wayne (Ethan Suplee), his overbearing wife, Stephanie (Nora Kirkpatrick), and Jennifer's onetime best friend, Dina (Missi Pyle). Even from the promos you could see that there's an inordinate quantity of cheekbones and Hollywood hair and sitcom perkiness. The instinct, as I said, has to be to run not walk. (It's probably just as well that I didn't remember Jaime Pressly and Ethan Suplee from the few episodes I watched of My Name Is Earl, a show I found supremely repulsive.)

Still, premises are just that, premises. You can reduce Hamlet to a cheesy premise, or The Trouble with Harry, or even -- perhaps especially -- Downton Abbey. What matters is what the creative people have thought to do with the premise. And something in that first episode created a tingle of a sense that series creator Matthew Carlson has something in mind, and possibly that seeing more episodes might even reveal that he's got it going. I've noted a number of times that in cases where a show's creator(s) had something genuinely original going, it was all there from the start and I just missed it.

My classical extreme instance has long been SOAP. The first time I saw the first episode, I was appalled. I mean, someone thought it was funny to have Benson (Robert Guillaume) joke about pumping sugar into the diabetic Chester Tate (Robert Mandan)? Years later, having gotten the hang of what the show was doing via later episodes, I rewatched the pilot and was totally charmed. Even in my "for instance," the show's creative team had nailed the, er, difficult relationship between Benson and Mr. Tate. Many of the things that had initially put me off on first viewing turned out to be not only carefully conceived but fresh and inspired.

Alas, I haven't found that to be the case in my catch-up Jennifer Falls viewing, but there's still something there. I guess I'm not hugely fond of the way the show is executed, because when I can focus on the writing, it often seems to me really quite good, even outstanding.

Take this scene from last week's episode, "Three Dates With My Mother" (written by Matthew Carlson), where Jennifer had to admit to Mom that for three months she had been seeing not just a therapist but a psychiatrist, knowing that Maggie as a psychologist hates psychiatrists, in order to convey the psychiatrist's request that she bring her family in for a session. Jennifer had to do all this knowing that her mother would not merely bear her anti-psychiatrist grudge but would be convinced that Jennifer's treatment would quickly come 'round to "blame the mother."

At the beginning, Jennifer and Maggie are entering an elevator, en route to a session that her psychiatrist (Kurt Fuller) as requested with her family.
MAGGIE: I can't believe I have to do another one of these insufferable sessions. I canceled a salt scrub for this.
JENNIFER: All right, you know what, Mom? I am really sick of you being all pissy about my therapy. I mean, is it too much for you to try and help me instead of spending all your energy trying to attack my therapist?
MAGGIE: Boy, you're in a mood today. Did you skip breakfast this morning?
JENNIFER: You know what? That's it! [Reaches for the elevator control panel and engages the stop button] We are not leaving this elevator until we get to something real. You know, when I lost everything and had to move back in with you, [with crazed exasperation] you threw me a party! You know what I would have really liked more, Mom? If you would have just asked me what it felt like to fail.
MAGGIE: It was a nice party.
JENNIFER [aghast]: I failed, Mom.
MAGGIE: You didn't fail.
JENNIFER: Yes, I did. I did. I mean, why is it so hard for you to admit that sometimes bad things happen to this family?
MAGGIE [reaching to release the elevator stop button]: We're going to be late for the appointment.
JENNIFER [reengaging the elevator stop button]: No! No! We are doing this! You're going to admit it. You are going to look at me and tell me that your daughter screwed up.
MAGGIE [rereleasing the elevator stop button]: This is ridiculous.
JENNIFER [reengaging the elevator stop button]: Tell me, Mom.
MAGGIE [pulls the elevator stop button clear out of the panel, trailing a rootlike agglomeration of wires 'n' stuff]: No! Now we're stuck!
Now I happen to think this is exceedingly smart writing, and could have been turned into a really terrific as well as really funny scene, instead of what seemed to me an okay one. At least, though, the acting quieted down, and we got some sense of actual interchange between the characters rather than what always seems to me mindlessly perky, sing-songy, machine-gun-like delivery.

I have no inside knowledge, but I can't help suspecting the unhelpful influence of Network Suits. I think of Jessica Walters, for example, as a stunning actress, one who had a special talent for doing "smart" and "beautiful" simultaneously. In her later years, however, she seems to have gotten pigeonholed in her selfish-narcissistic-mother groove, which worked extremely well in the crazed ensemble of Arrested Development but much less well in her earlier TVLand series, Retired at 35. I get the feeling that no one here really wants to see what she could do for a real Maggie.

Let me stress that it's not the decision to treat the Jennifer Falls situation comedically that rubs me the wrong way. True, it could be played for Strindbergian psychodrama, but that's not what I'm proposing. (Nobody would watch that anyway.) I think Matthew Carlson is absolutely right to think that there could be comic gold in this material. He has made all kinds of utterly excellent choices -- as, for example, the basic personality Jennifer presented to the people in her high-flying-banker life, which was abrasive, domineering, and dehumanizing. It's not that these qualities necessarily brought about her cataclysm, but that her firing, far from displeasing the people above and below her, or arousing sympathy from them, seemed generally to be quite a happy development for them all.

Now that's a past-life circumstance that could be worked with from a writerly standpoint in Jennifer's humbled present circumstances. Or again, there's the basic circumstance that while Maggie is indeed exceedingly self-concerned, the fact is that when her daughter found herself so suddenly in such ghastly circumstances, Maggie welcomed her and her granddaughter back home, not grudgingly and resentfully, but eagerly and uncomplainingly. There's room for a lot of irony here in the gulf between mother and daughter.

As a matter of fact, the elevator scene brought a breakthrough of sorts for Jennifer and Maggie. As daughter recognized as soon as she realized that they were indeed stuck in the elevator, this was likely to trigger Mom's claustrophobia. Sure enough, Maggie went into a claustrophobic panic, announcing that she didn't want to die, pounding the elevator door, and crying out for help. But eventually the two of them find themselves actually talking, and Maggie recalls her mother -- the grandmother whom Jennifer remembers as a kindly, saintly presence -- openly ridiculing her every time she said or did anything wrong. Jennifer would never have seen this behavior, because Maggie learned how to prevent it. "All I had to do was never be wrong."

Afterward, Jennifer, speaking directly to us, as she sometimes does, said, "It's not like the world changed, but after that, things got a little easier between us."

Which is where last week's episode finished. I'm curious to see where we pick up this week. I know we're going to meet Gretchen's dad, Jennifer's ex. That could be interesting. It's been awhile since a TV-show episode left me curious enough about what happens next to want to see it.

SOAP's Chester Tate (Robert Mandan) and Benson (Robert Guillaume): The show's creative team, led by Susan Harris, had this hilariously poisoned relationship nailed from the get-go.


New Jersey's Arrogant, Tyrannical Slob


If you''ve been following the narrative over the last couple of weeks here at DWT you may have figured out that my new favorite book-- after Elizabeth Warren's A Fighting Chance-- has been The Invisible Bridge by historian Rick Perlstein. Maybe I'm so fascinated by it because I was living overseas for so much of the time he was writing about-- having felt living in a Nixon-led America not compatible with my personal sense of dignity or honor. I remember reading about some of the events he describes in the International Herald Tribune at the cafe in front of the Ministry of Finance in Kabul, in my van parked at a beach in Hambantota Ceylon, and in my apartment above a Chinese restaurant on the Overtoom in Amsterdam. Perlstein tells the story a lot better than the Herald Tribune ever did. Or maybe I'm paying more attention now that I'm living in the States again.

Today I was reading about a incredible display of ignorance from right-wing populists in the early '70s, one in Boston-- courtesy of racist dog Louise Day Hicks ("Joe McCarthy dressed up as Polyanna")-- and the other in Kanawha (Charleston, West Virginia)-- courtesy of a far more psychotic and deranged bigot and transient from Mississippi, North Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee, Alice Moore, who didn't join Satan in Hell until November 26, 2012, age 73. Both lived on the fumes of racial hatred, paranoia and ignorance-- and both captured the imagination of every primitive, bigoted malcontent in America. Their props: school children as they fulminated against, essentially, a world that spins and leaves morons behind. In these two cases, morons that managed to band together and cause incredible damage, death and destruction.

Education is feared by religionist fanatics, like Hicks and Moore, who are convinced that everything anyone needs to know is in the BuyBull. They panic at the idea of children learning anything more.

Forty years have passed and New Jersey has one like Hicks and Moore-- but he's not some rabble-rouser inciting violence in the street, it's the criminal governor, the pig-man in the short video up top. As you probably know, Newark schools have been under state control for almost 2 decades. Since Christie took office, his handpicked operatives have pushed every avenue to wreck traditional public schools, replace them with for-profit charters, and generally destroy any possibility of positive progress. The community isn't happy and in May, Ras Baraka, an outspoken public education advocate, won the race against a "reform" candidate, Shavar Jeffries, despite a huge influx of Wall St money right at the end.

Despite over a year of intensifying battles with Cami Anderson over her stewardship and attempts to force her "One Newark" plan in which we've seen students, parents, educators and community activists rise up to say "enough," Christie just extended her contact. The mayoral election centered on education, and the candidate who shared Cami's views, Jeffries, lost decisively to an outspoken supporter of public education. Christie is outright ignoring the will of Newark's citizens and the democratic process, and laughing about the idea that Newark might be able to best manage its own schools. Years of corporate interventions have purposefully starved out neighborhood schools and made it harder to get educational equity in Newark. It's past time for the state to listen to voters and return Newark schools to local control.

Right now there are 4 governors on the verge of being indicted-- aside from Christie, the current crop of crooks includes Nathan Deal (R-GA), Scott Walker (R-WI), and Andrew Cuomo (D-NY). And each one of them is working for Wall Street to gut public education. You think that's a coincidence? I'm becoming more and more convinced that character is an even more crucial attribute to understand about a candidate than what he or she says about policies. Character-- like in the Christie video up top.

Labels: , , , , ,

Another Entry Into The Race For The Craziest GOP Candidate-- Meet North Carolina Sociopath Mark Walker


One of the most overlooked races in the country, NC-06, had their Republican primary runoff last Tuesday. The Republican establishment favorite, Phil Berger Jr., was expected to win thanks to his money and his Dad’s connections and high name recognition among Republican voters. Instead local teabaggers powered an even crazier candidate to victory.

There are 10 counties in NC-06 but Guilford is the biggest, by far, followed by Rockingham and Alamance. The district was drawn to be safe Republican territory but there is a 6-point Democratic voter registration edge and the beloved incumbent, Howard Coble has been in there since 1984 when he narrowly beating a freshman Democrat by riding Ronald Reagan's formidable coattails. The rematch in '86 was even tighter but Coble won, 72,329 to 72,250... 79 votes! Now ailing and in his eighties, Coble is retiring this next year and November will be the first real test of what that Democratic voter registration edge actually means. Obama only garnered 41% against Romney in 2012 but… you know.

Mark Walker is a Baptist Choral Pastor who won the Republican runoff by promising to vote against John Boehner for Speaker, instead pledging his support for Trey Gowdy.  Walker is an extremist in the mold of Jody Hice or Todd Akin. He was already running a primary against Coble when Coble was taken to the hospital and soon after announced he would retire. Hice and Walker are both are anti-Jesus preachers of bigotry and Hate and both are incredibly extreme-- even for southern Republicans, far more radical than anything to do with conservative. But, like Hice, Walker ran against the privileged son of an Establishment figure-- in Hice's case, the son of ex-Congressman Mac Collins and in Walker's case, the son of the widely despised Art Pope puppet, Phil Berger, Sr., President pro tempore of the North Carolina state Senate. Right-wing populists have the sense to know the GOP Establishment is no friend of any ordinary Americans, even if they can't figure out that fascism is not the answer.

Walker is not just anti-choice, but believes women who are the victims of rape or incest should be forced by the government to give birth to the child of her rapist. Walker wants to defund Planned Parenthood, and enthusiastically supports a so-called personhood amendment to the constitution, which would ban common forms of birth control. Everything about him reeks of statism and Big Government interfering in the private lives of regular working families.

Walker has called for what he called “radical change in our current tax code,” and expressed support for combining a "fair" and flat tax, which would be one of the most regressive tax proposals currently in Congress, something that would work really well for the wealthy and shift more of the burden onto the backs of working families, while defunding government functions that underpin a modern post-agrarian society. He opposes the raising the minimum wage, and even questioned the justification the existence of a minimum wage at all.   Walker is another climate change denier steeped in profound ignorance and calling the science behind it "contested." He has called for cutting billions from the Department of Education, and even supported raising the social security age to 70. Art Pope may have supported Berger Jr., but he'll have no problem with Walker if Walker wins in November.

Voters in north-central North Carolina have a better option, and a strong Democratic candidate running for the seat, in Laura Fjeld.  She supports marriage equality, women's right to choice, and she is a passionate spokesperson for protecting and strengthening public education, her top issue:
As a mother and the daughter of two public school teachers, I know that a strong public education system is vital to expanding North Carolina’s economy in a way that will be sustainable over time. From high school, to community colleges to our world-class university system, which I was privileged and proud to serve for years, our schools are training the citizens and work force of the future for jobs that might not even exist yet. 
• Instead of prioritizing the education of our youth and our strong future, the majority administration in Raleigh has done great harm to our students, teachers and parents with drastic cuts that have increased class sizes, cut the number of teachers and teachers’ assistants, and cut pay for public school teachers. This is bad for business, communities, and all North Carolinians, and I will fight against any strategy in Washington that would weaken our public education system in North Carolina.
• Congress should prioritize the education of our nation’s children so that they are prepared for the 21st century, global economy. Congress should provide leadership and support for local school boards, teachers, parents, and students instead of instituting national tests that limit our children’s potential by wasting time and energy on test preparation. We need to support programs that will reward innovation and creativity and allow students to develop problem-solving skills necessary for success
As of the June 30 FEC deadline she had raised $581,598 with an average contribution of under $300, and had $120,363 cash-on-hand. Walker raised $325,262 and spent almost all of it battled Berger and only had $22,671 left in his kitty. Fjeld took it right to Walker on primary night, and assures her supporters she won’t be afraid to call him out on his extremism and his radical positions. It really does look like North Carolina voters can stop an unhinged extremist in Mark Walker. This is a tough district for Democrats (R+10), but Kay Hagan won the district in 2008. Its a good jumping off point to keep another Tea Party crackpot out of Congress.

Labels: , , ,

An Unstable Republican Jumps Into A Wisconsin Primary Against Kelly Westlund-- And He Has A Pig Named Barney Frank


Mike Krsiean (left) with his 700 pound Berkshire Boar (right), who he's named Barney Frank

Mike Krsiean is a Republican crackpot who envisions himself in Congress. His attempts to run as a Republican and as an independent have failed-- and failed miserably-- so he's decided to run as an anti-Choice/pro-gun "Democrat" pushing the Republican austerity agenda enumerated in Paul Ryan's budget. And he's taking his garden variety GOP ideas to a Democratic primary against progressive Kelly Westlund. Not that he's that garden variety. Even some of his fellow-right wingers find him and his conspiracy theories off the charts. And I wonder if he's the only member of the JFPO-- Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership-- to run for Congress. From an admirer: Krsiean says his "goal is to help steer the Democratic Party toward the right and constitutional integrity. Much like Ron Paul did within the Republican party… [I]f socialists can invade the Republican party and destroy unity, why can’t a constitutionalist invade the Democratic party and stir things up a bit and possibly take a primary?" I know he hates the Republican incumbent, Sean Duffy, but I haven't heard anyone ever refer to that particular reactionary Paul Ryan-clone as a socialist before.

Fortunately for residents of Wausau, Superior, Stevens Point and the rest of WI-07 in northwest Wisconsin, the Democrats are fielding one of the best candidates they have anywhere, Kelly Westlund, a young woman Blue America endorsed last year. As we noted at the time, Kelly has been an outspoken advocate for increasing the minimum wage and for expanding opportunity so that anyone can succeed based on talent and merit, not their family net worth or their ability to exploit tax loopholes. Her other Republican opponent, the one running as a Republican, Sean Duffy, refuses to support raising the minimum wage to a living wage for working people, and made a splash on the national stage by whining that he struggles to get by on his salary of a mere $174,000/year. Is it any wonder he is incapable of relating to the trials and problems of ordinary working Americans?

Kelly served on the Ashland City Council from 2011-2014. As a small business owner, she runs a consulting firm that partners with local farms, small businesses, local governments, and civic organizations to work on economic and community development projects. Westlund previously served as executive director for the Alliance for Sustainability and was an adjunct professor of sustainable community development at her alma mater, Northland College.

Last week, Norman Lear's organization, People for the American Way, announced their endorsement as well. PFAW Political Director Randy Borntrager: “Kelly Westlund is a fighter for fairness and equality, and she’s a strong voice for Wisconsin’s working families. Kelly is fighting for a  Congress that represents all people instead of just millionaires and corporations."

Yesterday, we spoke with her about one of the points she's been making in her campaign, the oppressive and dysfunctional nature of how American electoral campaigns are financed. "I've always been optimistic," she told us, "about the potential for positive change-- a political process that engages people in government to build a more equal and just society. Always up for a challenge, I like to go straight to the root of the problem. And when it comes to politics, money is the problem." Let me quote her verbatim:
I jumped into this race with my eyes wide open. I knew it would take a lot of money to win. But I come from a swing district with an average household income of less than $40k per year. There's an expectation that candidates come to the table with money in hand. I came to the table with a network of waitresses, teachers, farmers, and students-- not exactly millionaires on their best days.

But some candidates can be competitive, even if they don't have access to hundreds of thousands of dollars within the first few weeks of the campaig.

As a former City Councilor, nonprofit executive, and small business owner, I had all the qualifications. But qualifications didn't seem to matter. Instead, I was expected have significant wealth or immediate access to it. In too many cases, after all, that's what it takes to win.

It's no wonder the wealthy few have so much influence on our political process. No wonder working-class people aren't represented in Congress when both parties embrace a framework that translates wealth to political power.

It's wrong, whichever side of the aisle you're on.

Always the hard-nosed optimist, I'm working hard to show that there's a better way to do politics. I'm standing with workers, talking to voters, and taking the fight to my Tea Party congressman.

It's working. We have a solid team in place and the momentum is building every day. Polls show he's vulnerable. I'm viable, organized, and determined to lead by example. I know that we can do better, and I intend to do my part.

Having to raise funds while I'm running for office on campaign finance reform? The irony isn't lost on me. But we can't change the conversation-- in government OR political parties-- until we have different people sitting at the table.
At this link you'll find every post where we ever mentioned Kelly's name. And at this link you'll find an opportunity to seamlessly contribute to Kelly's grassroots campaign against the two Republicans running against her, pig rancher Mike Krsiean from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and Sean Duffy from the Holy Church of Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand Devotion. The second link's the more important one.

Labels: , ,