Saturday, August 09, 2008

Blue America Welcomes Dr. Steve Porter, Progressive Candidate For Congress-- Round 3

>


Last night I read that Cindy Sheehan had qualified for the November ballot to oppose Nancy Pelosi and will base her campaign on Pelosi's refusal to start impeachment proceedings against Bush and for not taking any effective action against the war in Iraq. I used to live in the district. If I still did, I'd vote for Cindy. And she isn't the only worthy independent running for Congress. Today is a week shy of the one year anniversary of our last chat with Blue America fave Steve Porter. As he did in 2006, Steve is running for the House seat still held-- if tenuously-- by Republican rubber stamp Phil English. Of course, when Steve was our Blue America candidate in 2006, he was running as a Democrat-- even if the national Democrats ignored his race.

This year, like Cindy, he's fed up with the national Democrats, didn't run in the primary and decided to challenge both parties in the November general election as an independent. Steve will be with us at Firedoglake for a couple hours this afternoon and he's eager to answer questions about his campaign and his new book, America's Dying Democracy.

Republicans and Democrats need 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot in PA-03. Independents need 2,171 and Steve filed a thousand extra, having collected almost all of them himself by walking door to door around the district and introducing himself to voters. He's says he's campaigning more vigorously this year than he did in 2006. "I'm running a more grassroots, door-to-door campaign this year," he told me. "I've walked over 500 miles so far; thousands of homes that I've been to." In nearly a third of the houses he visited, he found that the people weren't registered to vote. "It's alarming that so many people have given up on democracy and just say, when they come to the door, 'I can't stand it anymore; go away. I'm not registered; I don't vote.' In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm running for office. For me, both major parties have been derelict in their leadership... to put it mildly."

I asked him if he has a real chance to win this race-- after all, English is being underwritten by his corporate masters to the tune of around $1.5 million (so far) and if the DCCC ignored the independent minded Porter, they are lavishing support on the empty-headed cookie-cutter Democrat running this year, Kathy Dahlkemper. He told me he has a reasonable chance to win.

I think it depends very much on the level of frustration that people feel in this district and nationwide. Independent registrations have gone up while major party registrations have decreased and I think that people are in a mood to listen to an alternative voice. Neither major political party represents, or can represent, the average citizen of the United States. They're owned by special interests and I think the public is catching on to that. The lies that are being told-- by President Bush on the one hand and by Nancy Pelosi on the other-- are simply catching up to them. Polls show that the Democrats gained control of both Houses of Congress in 2006 for one overarching reason: the public believed that the Democrats would get us out of Iraq. And the day after the election, Nancy Pelosi takes the impeachment hearings off the table. The Democrats caved in and gave Bush virtually everything that he wanted. Other than raising the minimum wage they accomplished nothing. They did nothing about Social Security, nothing about health care, nothing about shoring up the economy, nothing about the energy crisis, nothing about ecology of the planet; they did nothing about our borders. Congress' approval rating is the lowest in history; I'm not surprised. I'm hoping the public will listen to an alternate voice that's not owned.

He makes the point that after running twice already, he has far more name recognition than Dahlkemper does. In 2006 over 82,000 people voted for him (to English's 104,000). English spent $1,466,487 (around $14.10 per vote) and Steve spent $63,034 (or .77 per vote).

He feels that the biggest difference since leaving the Democratic Party is that his hands are no longer tied. "I can say what I need to say. You don't get anywhere with the two major parties unless you sell yourself to them. I was willing to do that in 2006 because I still believed in their message and that they were serious about getting us out of Iraq. I really did. I was take in. I was very angry when Pelosi took all of that off the table; it was the clincher for me. The Democrats don't want people who think for themselves. They want people who they can control, just like the Republicans do. People who think for themselves don't make it in the two major parties."

In the end he knows he'll have to caucus with the Democrats if he's elected and he's aware that they might not like him. "I'm not going there to be Miss Congeniality. I'm going there to help my country and to help the people of this district... I'm not going there to whore myself out or to be anybody's ass kisser. I'm going to do the things I need to do to satisfy my own conscience and work for the well-being of our people. I'm not going to be like Kathy Dahlkemper. Kathy Dahlkemper is an idiot; she can't speak four coherent sentences in a row. She's a woman who doesn't believe in choice. But she's well-packaged and she's exactly what the Democrats want: someone they can lead by the nose."

ActBlue only collects donations for Democrats. You can give to an anti-choice candidate like Dahlkemper but not to a pro-choice independent. If you'd like to donate to Steve's campaign today, you can't do it through the Blue America site. You can do it on his own site or by sending a check to Porter for Congress, 9451 Page Road, Wattsburg, PA 16442. This weekend, anyone who donates at least $50 through Steve's site-- or who sends a check with a little "BLUE AMERICA" notation will get an autographed copy of America's Dying Democracy.

Labels: , , , ,

28 Comments:

At 10:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the man gets 5% of the vote while running as an independent, I'll be very impressed.

 
At 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Porter ran twice, and lost twice....the second time in a year that was good for Democrats. Perhaps it's not so much the message, but the messenger.

 
At 11:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's the textbook definition of insanity....doing the same thing over and over and over again and each time hoping for a different result? Like running for Congress maybe....?

 
At 11:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is, PA-03 is a pro-life district...majority Catholic. So whether you support baby-killing on not out in California is a moot point. Folks in NW PA aren't all that supportive of it....conservative, Bible-thumping hicks that they are (at least as far as liberals are concerned).

 
At 11:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrats in PA-03 would do well to support Dahlkemper over Porter. She's the best shot they have to try and unseat English this time around. Chances are very good (at least based on historical trends) that 2010 will be a good year for Republicans, thus English will be going for term number 9 at that point. Dahlkemper may not be "ideologically pure" but she's the best shot that anyone who is left of center has in this election cycle.

 
At 12:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One anonymous coward.....this from someone who uses a screen name rather than his ACTUAL NAME! The fact of the matter is, PA-03 is not VT-AL. 3rd party candidates do not fare well here. I think everyone else knows that all too well. If Porter wishes to run, that is well within his right as an American citizen. However, he will not win the general election. He is too extreme in his views for this congressional district. He should move to CA-08 or CA-09 where he might actually have a shot.

 
At 1:19 PM, Blogger Eureka Springs, AR said...

The very fact the D party has ignored more than abandoned Dr. Porter tells me the painful truth about the party I hope to changr.

I don't blame Dr. Porter, I applaud him and I know even as an Independent he will work hard to bring the conscience of our congress back to some semblance of a Democracy under a rule of law, not men. A Democracy by the people and for the people.. not the corporations and the no bid contract wars.

The D party abandoned folks like myself and Dr. Porter. different as we are. The constitution and our belief in it is what's binds us.

As an Arkansan with anti choice and Blue Dog Democrats all around.. I will not be contributing to or voting for one D in my state this year, for the first time ever.

I don't like single issue lines in the sand, but anti choice to the point of wanting to vote anti choice into law, is not a party decision I can support at all. If that's what the D's are intentionally financing in opposition to Dr. Porter.. we need to worry and act in stronger opposition to the party across the board, now.

Also, it is clear his numbers improve every time he runs (even with far fewer funds).. why is that so easily ignored and even scorned by the anon naysayers in these comments.

Thank you Dr. Porter and DWT!

 
At 1:24 PM, Blogger Eureka Springs, AR said...

Note to self. Never ever type a comment in the little box again.

Howie, I have ten dollars for the DWT blogger to word press transition fund right now. /s

 
At 1:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's easy to respond to. Porter ran twice and lost twice. In 2004 he lost by more because it was a Republican year. In 2006, he did better for two reasons: it was more of a Democrat year and there was also a candidate running on the Constitution Party ticket. Porter still lost by 12 percentage points though. Both of those times, he ran as a Democrat. Now, in 2008, he's running as an independent, and he's going to do about as well as the Constitution Party candidate did in 2006. He's not going to receive a great deal of support, his name is tainted because of the controversies surrounding his book "The Ethics of a Democracy" which came to light in 2004 (distorted or otherwise) and, again, 3rd party candidates do not fare well in PA-03. Give him money if you want...it's the equivilant of flushing it down the toilet.

 
At 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agreed with what has been said. Not only that, but in 2002, English had only one opponent on the Green Party ticket. English defeated her soundly 77%-22%. 22% is probably the best showing for any 3rd party candidate in the district. People can go into the voting booth in Pennsylvania and pull the "party lever" and vote for one party straight down the line from president to state representative. Lots of folks, very much set in their ways will do that, making it difficult for independents to have a shot. Good luck to Dr. Porter most certainly, but he's got a better shot at flying to the moon and back than he has of getting elected to Congress.

 
At 1:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

many people like the system the way it is and fear change! many democrats don't want to risk their best chance at beating english. i will be voting for kathy!

 
At 1:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am proud to say that I will be voting for Dr. Porter. He's a man of integrety and strong in his convictions which will save this country from the brink of disaster. True, I may be pissing my vote away in the process, but at least I will be taking a stand for those things in which many hundreds of people belive in!

 
At 2:20 PM, Blogger Emma said...

My thoughts have pretty much been covered by many of the previous comments. Dr. Porter does not have a chance of winning. He does not have better name recognition in PA-03 than Kathy Dahlkemper; the voters, even the Democrats, in PA-03 are not nearly as progressive as Dr. Porter; much as it pains me to say, the district is anti-abortion leaning; and Ms. Dahlkemper is our best shot at finally kicking Phil English to the curb.

Although I'm more progressive than Ms. Dahlkemper, I will be voting for her in the general election because, while she may not embody everything I believe in, she is our best chance to get English out.

As much as I'd like to see third party candidates become viable in this district, at the moment, they are not and this race is too important for me to throw away my vote.

 
At 2:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is true. The Democrats in NW PA are more conservative in nature (at least socially) than Democrats in California, New York, and Vermont. Pro-choicers do not fare well here, as most of the Democrats keep their rosaries right next to their union membership cards. They carry guns too, but that's another story. Seriously, Porter should consider moving to a more liberal state. At that point, he might have a shot at winning a Congressional seat (although he does run the risk of being branded a carpetbagger in the process).

 
At 3:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democrats hardly supported me and that is because they knew then and know now that I am not for sale.

Steve Porter

 
At 3:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Listen, folks, the insanity is continuing to elect corrupt Republicans and corrupt Democrats and then expecting that our government will change.

IT IS NEVER WRONG TO OPPOSE EVIL AND NEVER RIGHT TO SUPPORT IT, EVEN IF IT IS LABELED AS THE "LESSER" EVIL.

Steve Porter

 
At 4:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One last comment from me to the Pa-03 democrats blogging here.

I am running because it is the morally right thing to do. Being pro-choice is not be pro-abortion. What it is, is being against the self-righteous religions who are forcing government into our private lives because they can not abide a philosophical as opposed to a religious rationale for a situation in which there may be irreconcilable conflicts between the INALIENABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of mother, fetus, father, and society.

If any of you has the integrity, I urge you to read my book, AMERICA'S DYING DEMOCRACY, and to check its facts against my citations which can easily be done online. When you see that the facts are true, then ask yourselves how you can possibly justify the compliance of BOTH MAJOR PARTIES with the sale of our government to special interests.

Lobbyists have stolen your health care, your social security, your right to clean energy. They rob you at the gas pump, at the Rx counter, at the supermarket. They have outsourced your jobs, made your borders insecure, and addicted you to needless wars.

Weigh that against your penchant for labels like "progressive" or "conservative"--labels which MEAN NOTHING until they are applied to specific issues.

I don't know how much pain you are willing to endure, but if you think that any political party which has been purchased by lobbyists to the tune of $20 billion dollars is going to bring meaningful change to you, you are living in a fool's paradise.

I stand against the pilfer of the American democracy. I stand for the preservation of our constitutional freedoms. I stand for honesty as opposed to the lying rhetoric of most campaigns. I stand for the dignity of all souls.

Einstein's definition of insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results, does not belong to me because I am running against evil. It belongs to those of you who keep electing the people who lie to you--Republicans like Bush and Democrats like Pelosi --and expecting them to work on behalf of the people instead of the lobbyists who own them.

Time is running out for you to come to your senses. For those of you who have already lost your jobs and those families who have already lost your sons and daughters in Iraq, time has already run out.

Don't criticize me for standing up against the prostitution of my democracy. It is English and Dahlkemper and their respective parties who are the enemies of freedom, not me, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner people like me will be able to really work for you and really restore our government.

It also might interest you to know that of the 3,224 people who signed my nominating papers, as many were Republicans disenchanted with English and Bush as were Democrats who voted for me in 2004 and 2006.

I am hoping that all of the voters in PA-03 come to their senses and support the only honest, independent voice in this race.

 
At 4:45 PM, Blogger Emma said...

I didn't buy into the Greens' scare tactic of Bush=Gore in 2000 and I'm certainly not going to buy into the English=Dahlkemper silliness. They're not the same.

Is there anyone who really believes that we'd be at war with Iraq right now if Gore had gotten into the White House?

It's just common sense that in order to win a district, you've got to mirror the beliefs of the majority of the voters in that district. Isn't that the whole idea behind representation?

It's not the just the political party system that is going to keep Dr. Porter from winning this election, it's that his views do not mimic those of the majority of the constiuency of PA-03.

 
At 5:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agreed. But again, everyone has the right to run.

 
At 5:14 PM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

Thanks fro your comments Emma. I don't agree with any of them-- and Kathy Dahlkemper certainly doesn't strike me as someone remotely like Al Gore-- but the most important proposition you made is what I want to address.

You wrote: "It's just common sense that in order to win a district, you've got to mirror the beliefs of the majority of the voters in that district. Isn't that the whole idea behind representation?"

If that were the case we would never have political leaders like Paul Wellstone or Tom Harkin or Birch Bayh. Instead we'd have an endless array of Evan Bayhs, Norm Colemans... and Kathy Dahlkempers.

There are districts all over the country dominated by working class Catholics that elect pro-choice representatives. More often than not, a candidate need be prepared to explain his or her principles to voters honestly and with knowledge and conviction to get a pass on an issue like that.

You are certainly entitled to vote for whomever you decide best represents your interests and your beliefs. Watching the overwhelming number of battles progressives have lost since 2006, not because of Republicans, who, after all, are in the minority, but because of "Democrats" just like Dahlkemper, makes me exceedingly wary about supporting people from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. This year the congressional Democrats stand to increase their majority by between a dozen and 3 or even 4 dozen seats. It will matter very much if we get Democrats like Darcy Burner, Donna Edwards and Carol Shea-Porter or "Democrats like Heath Shuler, Nick Lampson and John Barrow. The latter 3 vote with Republicans on core substantive issues over and over and over. And this year we don't need them to guarantee that the Democrats get to organize the House.

Not many districts are offered a real choice between the two corrupt parties and an independent, un-bought idealist like Porter. You shouldn't just be voting for him, you should be volunteering to work in his grassroots campaign.

 
At 6:37 PM, Blogger Emma said...

First of all, I wasn't comparing Dahlkemper to Gore. I was comparing the scare tactic of Bush=Gore to the scare tactic of English=Dahlkemper. I thought I was pretty clear on that point.

So you're telling me that the majority of voters in Wellstone's district voted for him even though they didn't agree with him on the majority of the issues? That's just silly. People don't vote for representatives they don't agree with. Progressives are able to win in progressive districts. It's really just that simple. PA-03 is not a progressive district. Not even close. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. I have a good friend who lives in North Carolina and is very well versed in NC politics. He tells me that there is no way anyone more progressive than Shuler could have won NC-11. Period. You have to look at the individual districts.

PA-03 isn't just "working class Catholics." Look at the entirety of the district and you'll understand what we're dealing with here. They don't call us Pennsyltucky for nothing.

Dr. Porter did so well in the last election because of the "anybody but English" contingent and because he was a member of a mainstream party. He doesn't have that going for him this time and, as a result, doesn't have a chance in this district. The other commenters are quite correct...Dr. Porter would be better off running in a more progressive district.

I wish Dr. Porter the best of luck, but I will be putting my vote and my time behind the candidate that has the best chance to beat Phil English...and because of the make-up of this district, that candidate is Kathy Dahlkemper.

 
At 7:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

3 to 4 dozen seats?? What the hell are you smoking, because I want some of that!

 
At 7:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You shouldn't just be voting for him, you should be volunteering to work in his grassroots campaign."

Yeah.....no. I'm not going to be wasting my time like that.

 
At 7:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used to live in PA-03. I don't anymore, I have sinced moved out of state. Seems to me that the move to become an independent is ahead of its time. The US is still locked in a two party system. It has been since 1856, when the Democrats and Republicans first squared off. We're not quite at the phase where dominant 3rd parties can be created. Britain has 3 major parties, Canada has 4, and France has God-knows how many. It's a combination of the message and the messengers. The Republicans had a message of anti-slavery when they were created. That resonated with people, particulary in the north. 3rd parties today have not gained any traction, primarily because there are no new ideas, just worn out old ones (that have proven not to work) or extreme messages that don't resonate with people. Perhaps one day a 3rd party will emerge. But I don't see it occuring anytime in the foreseeable future.

 
At 7:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, Dr. Porter, are you saying that if we don't buy and read your book, we lack integrity? With respect, that isn't going to win you a great deal of new votes.

 
At 7:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I live in PA-03. I happen to know Kathy Dahlkemper on an informal basis. She is a very good person, hard working, honest, and stands up for her principles. She is very strong in her Roman Catholic belifs, which some here seem to think is a liability (particularly when it comes to the issue of life...yes I KNOW that "choice" is the correct PC term, so long as folks remember that that choice involves the possible termination of a human life). I have no doubt that she would do a fine job in Congress and I resent that some people would call her an idiot and claim that she was incapable of putting together four coherent sentences. Abusive ad hominems are NOT going to win you a lot of friends.

 
At 9:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

as for me, i cannot in good conscience, vote for someone who is willing to support abortion.

 
At 11:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for me, I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who votes against a woman's right to choose.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home