Why Congressional Recruitment Really Matters

This morning one of the Beltway trade papers ran a piece about how weak GOP backbencher Rodney Davis, is kicking the ass of Steve Israel's pathetic mystery meat candidate, Ann Callis, in Illinois' most swing district, IL-13. Earlier in the cycle, PPP polled the district and found Davis' job approval rating underwater and that more voters were ready to defeat him than reelect him. When informed that Davis had voted to shut down the government, 42% of registered voters said they would vote for him and 47% said they would vote for his Democratic opponent.

And that's when the DCCC and EMILY's List jumped into the primary, undermined the progressive Democrat running, George Gollin, and backed Dick Durbin's hapless and inspiring hack. She's raised about half of what Davis has-- $1,351,880 to his $2,621,132-- and has inspired no one but other partisan hacks and people who vote based solely on a candidate being a woman. The ultimate swing district-- PVI is zero and Obama won in 2008 55-44% and lost in a deadhead in 2012, 49-49%-- Callis is about to drastically underperform, as anyone with a bit of sense could have predicted. She has nothing to offer progressives… and conservatives already have their candidate. Polling shows Davis with 55% and Callis with an abysmal 36%. (In the last election, Davis squeaked by progressive grassroots Democrat David Gill with a bare thousand vote margin, 47-46%.)

So far this cycle, the DCCC has spent an ineffective $27,818 in the district and they and their ironically-named House Majority PAC have reserved $1,180,000 on St. Louis broadcast from Oct. 21 to Nov. 4 and $813,000 on Champaign broadcast and cable starting Sept. 30 to attack Davis. Now there are rumblings that Callis has run such a dreadful campaign-- doing exactly what the DCCC tells her to do-- that they may pull the ads, although no one at the DCCC is confirming that yet.

Freshman Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., a top Democratic target this cycle, had a 19-point lead over his opponent with six weeks to go until Election Day, according to a poll conducted for his campaign and provided first to CQ Roll Call.

…Democrats recruited Callis, a former judge from Madison County, and touted her as one of their best candidates.

But Davis has had a visible presence in the district since he was first elected, and the poll showed he is known by 85 percent of voters in the district, with 41 percent of those voters viewing him favorably.

Callis, who Democrats privately say has not lived up to expectations as a candidate, was familiar to 63 percent of voters and just 19 percent viewed her favorably in the poll.

This morning, Greg Sargent covered the "midterm drop-off problem" for his readers at the Washington Post, although his concern was about the Senate rather than the House-- and he didn't mention lousy Democratic recruitment and prioritization at all. (If I had been writing that column, I would have mentioned the DSCC should be helping pull Rick Weiland in South Dakota and Shenna Bellows in Maine over the hump, instead of wasting millions of dollars on virtually unwinnable races for dull, uninspiring Establishment conservatives in Kentucky and Georgia. His point-- that "core Dem groups such as minorities, young voters and single women are expected to stay home in disproportionate numbers, leaving behind an older, whiter, more-GOP-friendly electorate"-- put he doesn't go beyond the horserace aspects of the campaign to ask why.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Annenberg poll drives home the point in a fresh way. It finds that registered voters prefer a Democratic controlled Congress by 46-42. But “high interest” voters-- those who rate a nine or 10 on the intensity scale-- prefer a GOP-controlled Congress by a lopsided 51-43. Those “high interest” voters represent 44 percent of all registered voters.

...This mirrors recent Washington Post polling finding that core GOP voter groups are certain to vote in larger numbers than Democratic groups are. Other polling from CBS News offered similar findings.

As I reported the other day, Democratic focus grouping has found that midterm drop-off voters just aren’t persuaded of the stakes in this election. Democrats are throwing everything they have at this problem. They are using carefully selected issues not just to persuade voters, but to turn them out. The goal of emphasizing a women’s economic agenda focused on the minimum wage and pay equity is to motivate single women. Meanwhile Democrats hope to refine tactics designed to ensure that drop off voters are contacted again, and again, and again.

There’s a lot at stake here that goes well beyond this election. As pollster Celinda Lake has explained, shifting demographics are leaving the Democratic Party increasingly reliant on a growing coalition of “irregular” voters-- even as the Republican coalition is increasingly reliant on voter groups that do turn out in midterm years. Broadly speaking these demographic changes may portend bad news for the GOP in national elections. But they may also prove key to continued GOP success in Congress, and for Democrats, this represents a problem that may not be going away anytime soon.

Not a word about the uninspiring, even horrible, lesser-of-two evils candidates Israel has recruited (in his own Blue Dog image). And it isn't only pathetic Ann Callis. His prize recruit was virulently anti-gay, anti-Choice, pro-NRA, pro-fracking conservative Jennifer Garrison in Ohio. She has exactly zero chance to win for several reasons but one is certainly that progressives are not eager to turn out to elect the Sarah Palin of Ohio… even if she is wearing a blue t-shirt. Israel is more interested in stocking the Democratic caucus with conservative corporate shills like himself than he is is winning back the House. He will fail on both counts though… and miserably.

Steve Israel Starts Dumping His Miserable Recruits

Steve Israel and the DCCC freaked out when they realized that a progressive grassroots candidate, George Gollin, was serious about running against freshman GOP corporate shill Rodney Davis. With Dick Durbin at their side, they did everything they could to undermine Gollin and, in the end, Israel's mystery meat candidate, Ann Callis, won the primary, with 54.65%, having significantly outspent Gollin. From the moment she won the primary, the Democrats could have written off the swing district. She stands for nothing except her own career and offers no one-- except for blind partisans-- any reason to vote for her. That didn't stop Israel from earmarking $1,753,000 in attack ads against Davis for this fall. So far he's only spent $21,700 though and their are very loud rumors everywhere that Callis is one of the nothing candidates with no chance to win that he's cutting off at the knees-- and leaving to the incompetent hands of EMILY's List, who will pick over the carcass and drain whatever money she has for themselves-- while she goes down to a horrible defeat. Too bad all her eggs were in the rotten DCCC basket and she didn't build a credible campaign that could stand on its own. Or, even worse that the DCCC didn't just stay out of it and let Gollin win the primary and fight it out with Davis.

Beltway pundits now see Davis, despite his 50/50 district as a safe bet for reelection. Obama won 55-44% against McCain and was in a 49-49% tie 4 years later that Romney won by a a few hundred votes. Alex Isenstadt, sharper than most of the Beltway pundits wrote on Tuesday that "Democrats have gradually narrowed their focus to protecting jeopardized incumbents and are likely to seriously invest in only the dozen or so candidates seen as realistic contenders for Republican-held seats. At the start of the cycle, for instance, national Democrats had been talking up the candidacies of Ann Callis, a former county judge running for an Illinois seat, and Amanda Renteria, a former Capitol Hill aide seeking a California seat. Neither candidate is now seen as likely to win, and neither is receiving as much attention." The DCCC claimed, hysterically, that he was wrong about Renteria but were less definitive about the fate they have in store of Callis, who is running into money problems as Israel's interest in her campaign wanes.

And not just Callis. Another weak EMILY's List candidate, Pam Brynes is desperately fighting to maintain her backing from the fickle Steve Israel, who has told allies he's dumping her. Byrnes released two very Beltway TV adds yesterday (below). Over the course of the next month, more and more hapless Israel recruits will become victims of his terrible recruiting agenda. Kind of sad.






And The Kochs Are Also Dumping Their Weak Links

Starting in Oregon, where their mess of a candidate, Monica Wehby, is being viewed as just a big waste of time and energy by the far right. She only has $646,831 cash on hand and the Koch-run American Partners Action SuperPac has already wasted $215,750. Carly Fiorina's shady New Republican PAC wasted another $507,076, the only electoral investment they've made this cycle, out of the $1,302,104 they've squeezed from right-wing suckers. The Register-Guard reported today that "Freedom Partners’ super PAC, the Virginia-based group affiliated with oil and gas magnates Charles and David Koch, confirmed Friday that it has canceled all the television ad time it had reserved in October to influence Oregon’s U.S. Senate race."

The cancellation wasn’t the only bad news for the Wehby campaign on Friday.

Rasmussen Reports released its latest poll for the race, which found that Wehby remains 13 percentage points behind Merkley.

…On Thursday, Weh­by said she wasn’t concerned that Freedom Partners could pull back its spending, and was focused on her own campaign.

The Kochs also pulled their ads from the hapless, sinking Terri Lynn Land campaign in Michigan, although another neo-fascist, Joe Ricketts, former CEO of Ameritrade and the owner of the Chicago Cubs, has already pumped $2,153,309 into that race on Land's behalf, through his extreme right wing Ending Spending Action Fund. Just last week Rove dumped $763,962 into the race for Land, on top of the $500,000 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already put in. So far-- even without Koch cash-- right-wing groups have spent $3,505,361 smearing Gary Peters and another $838,994 talking up Land.

Will Steve Israel's PA-08 CIA Agent, Kevin Strouse, Withdraw From His Congressional Race Over The Weekend?

I wondered why Steve Israel and his corrupt operatives at the DCCC didn't jump all over the story about Republican crooks Michael Grimm and Aaron Schock illegally trading maxed out donors to circumvent campaign finance regulations. Was Israel too busy chasing Pinellas County NAACP President Manuel Sykes out of the FL-13 Democratic primary so he could run a sleazy Republican crony instead? That wasn't it and now I do know why Israel ignored that scandal-- he was directing a nearly identical scheme among-- even more shady-- his own stable of worthless corrupt recruits. Pelosi is now countenancing criminal activities from her DCCC chief, It's not just about losing House seats-- an Israel forte-- but about unethical behavior that rivals the GOPs.

Let's start with a look at a widely sourced article in the Philadelphia Inquirer by Chris Palmer and Jonathan Tamari, who fingered Israel recruit and "ex"-CIA agent Kevin Strouse as the source of the scam.

As Kevin Strouse jumped into a high-profile congressional race in Bucks County, his parents sent $10,400 last June to the campaign of U.S. Rep. Ami Bera, a California Democrat in another closely contested district.

Two days later, Strouse's campaign got the same amount, $10,400, from Bera's parents.

The pattern was repeated at least three other times last year, campaign finance records show. In each, Strouse's parents-- who had never before donated to federal candidates beyond Pennsylvania-- sent money to Democrats in tight congressional races in Colorado, Florida, and Illinois.

Days before or after, those candidates' parents sent nearly identical contributions-- usually for the maximum allowed-- to Strouse's campaign.

What Palmer and Tamari have no way of knowing is that the candidates involved in the scam are all Israel New Dem "mystery meat" recruits, more of his fatally flawed, conservative candidates like Ed Jany and Kevin Strouse-- Patrick Murphy (FL), Andrew Romanoff (CO) and Ann Callis (IL). "Exactly how," the two reporters ask, "the parents of candidates in far-flung congressional races aimed nearly matching donations at one another's children is unclear." Maybe Pelosi should clear it up for us? Is this what she meant when she admiringly called him "reptilian" when she was truing to defend appointing such a corrupt character to a high position? Israel and his den of crooks at the DCCC are, needless to say, stonewalling.

Strouse, his campaign and his parents did not respond to multiple requests for interviews, including two left at Robert and Norma Strouse's home in Glenmoore. Parents of two other candidates-- one in Illinois and the other in California-- hung up when contacted by the Inquirer. Two others did not return calls left for comment.

The only clear link between the parents is that their children are each running in House districts deemed priorities by national Democrats.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on Monday declined to discuss the contributions or say if the party had a role introducing the parents or directing their donations.

Instead, it released a two-line statement that said: "Our Red to Blue and Emerging candidates are on the vanguard of the fight to put solutions ahead of reckless brinkmanship and fight for middle-class families. As the top tier pickup opportunities in the country, these races generate tremendous enthusiasm from our allies and candidates' own networks."

Strouse, 34, a handpicked DCCC candidate who moved to the district from the District of Columbia last year, is locked in a fight with businesswoman Shaughnessy Naughton, 35, to be the party's nominee in the Eighth District.

…Strouse's parents have given $49,400 to eight Democrats running in priority House races this year - not counting $10,400 to their son. The parents of at least four of those candidates donated $28,400 to Strouse.

In almost every case, the donations were dated just days before the campaigns were scheduled to file finance reports to the FEC-- a time candidates and committees traditionally ramp up fund-raising so they can boast about swollen war chests.

In June, Robert Strouse sent $5,200 to the campaign of U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D., Fla.). (The Floridian is no relation to the former Bucks County congressman with the same name.) Four days later, Murphy's father, Thomas P. Murphy Jr., sent an identical campaign contribution to Kevin Strouse.

In September and December, Strouse's parents sent checks to the campaign of Ann Callis, a Democratic challenger in Illinois. Within days, Callis' parents sent nearly identical amounts back to Strouse's campaign.

Reached at home Sunday night, Lance Callis at first explained the donation by saying Strouse might have sent him political information he agreed with. But he declined to elaborate and hung up.

Robert Strouse also gave $5,200 - again the maximum-- to House candidate Andrew Romanoff of Colorado on Oct. 3. That was sent four days after Romanoff's mother had contributed $2,600 to the Strouse campaign.

For Romanoff's mother, Gayle Caplan, it was the first time she had given to a federal candidate other than her son and President Obama. When contacted at home in California on Sunday, Caplan said, "I don't talk to reporters," and hung up.

Bera's parents were not home and could not be reached. The Bera, Callis, and Romanoff campaigns did not respond to requests for comment Monday. Murphy's campaign declined to comment.

Strouse's parents have also donated to four other top-tier Democrats who, according to FEC records, do not appear to have given back to Kevin Strouse.

The other parents have also been generous. Like the Strouses, the Beras and Lance Callis have also given to multiple campaigns this cycle, usually helping candidates named as Democratic priorities for 2014. All three families, for example, gave to U.S. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D., Calif.).

The other gained candidates include Israel recruits Rocky Lara (NM), John Lewis (MT), and Sean Patrick Maloney (NY). The anti-fracking candidate in the Bucks County race whose campaign Israel is trying to sabotage, Shaughnessy Naughton, has asked Strouse to explain how these shady contributions were coordinated. "Was there a quid pro quo?" she asked. She also called on him to return the roughly $28,400 in parental contributions if they were part of a plan to get around donation limits. "Frankly," she said, "if it's not illegal, it certainly seems like it should be." And if it was unethical for Grimm and Schock, this looks 10 times worse. There were so many shady contributions from Strouse's parents-- one see why he became a spy now-- that I couldn't even capture them all on aq sceenshot. Here are a sample:

no progressives on this list

Politico's Alex Isenstadt Gets Slammed In The Face By DCCC Mystery Meat

Poor Sean Eldridge is getting blamed for Steve Israel's "Mystery Meat Strategy." He and his husband, Chris Hughes, have contributed so much money to Steve Israel's corrupt enterprise that, surely, he deserves better. First Israel downgraded him to a mere "Emerging Race," a bad signal to institutional donors, and now he's left Sean to rot in the hands of the high-priced, cynical and incompetent consultants who will rob him blind and leave him with… at best, a lesson learned.

When the Democrats sift through the ashes of their fake campaign to take back the House in November, I bet no one will bring up the cornerstone of Steve Israel's absurd "strategy," his "mystery meat" tactics. Israel has ordered his unbelievably bad roster of fifth rate candidates to keep their mouths shut about issues and to avoid serious reporters who might ask them substantive questions. Last month we saw Israel's horrible recruit to run against Rodney Davis in IL-13, Ann Callis, lose all the newspaper endorsements in the area by refusing to sit down for an interview with any of them. This is becoming standard operating procedure for the Steve Israel zombies. Real candidates seek out the media and push their issues and positions, trying to win over voters. Steve Israel manufactured shills hide from the media, put up asinine websites with no issues and behave the way poor Sean behaved towards Alex Isenstadt. Watch the video up top.

Back to IL-13 for a moment, where Republican Rodney Davis is probably now a lock for reelection, the Israel candidate won her primary but not before the Chicago Tribune and the State Journal-Register exposed the DCCC strategy:

When political candidates agree to sit with the State Journal-Register's editorial board ahead of an election and explain where they stand on issues important to voters, it's a unique opportunity for them to do just that-- explain where they stand.

When political candidates agree to sit with The State Journal-Register's editorial board ahead of an election and explain where they stand on issues important to voters, it's a unique opportunity for them to do just that-- explain where they stand.

The Chicago Tribune was even more explicit about Callis'-- and the mystery meat strategy's-- shortcomings. As part of their endorsement of her Democratic opponent, George Gollin, they said that "in the Democratic primary… Sen. Dick Durbin's chosen candidate is carefully insulated from anyone who might ask her a tough question. Former Madison County chief judge Ann Callis sticks to safe talking points, occasionally name-checking Durbin. Her answers to our survey are carefully scripted, heavy on promises to protect seniors and middle-class families without explaining what she'd actually do. She would not agree to be interviewed by the Tribune." The conservative-leaning newspaper went on to say "Our pick is George Gollin… We disagree with many of his positions, but at least we know where he stands."

What reporters haven't figured out yet is that the Callis and Eldridge silliness is a national phenomenon. Take CA-31 as another example, the solid blue Inland Empire district Israel botched in 2012, allowing far right Arkansas neo-Confederate multimillionaire, Gary Miller, to sneak into office. Israel doubled down this year by recruiting the same out-of-touch, corrupt, lame-brained candidate who lost in 2012, Pete Aguilar. Before I knew that Aguilar was out-of-touch, corrupt, and lame-brained, I called his office to ask him about his campaign, since there was nothing useful on his website. He wouldn't come to the phone but the guy who answered very politely said he would try helping answer my questions. Except he didn't know any answers to any questions-- even the most basic, non-invasive, uncontroversial ones. I figured he was an intern when he told me the DCCC hadn't told them what their positions are supposed to be yet but that they expected them to within a week and that they would call me back. I was somewhat flabbergasted that even an intern would be so lame as to admit that and made a note to myself to mention it to Aguilar when he called back. He never did of course… and the intern turned out to be-- unless there are two Boris' in this pathetic campaign-- Boris Medzhibovsky, the imported DCCC campaign manager. No reporter has been able to get Aguilar, who is frequently… high, to speak about the huge blunder he made in backing Chained CPI, a very conservative position that steals benefits from the Social Security cost of living adjustment and isn't popular in hard-pressed San Bernardino County, especially not among Democratic voters Aguilar needs to impress. Maybe Alex Isenstadt should try interviewing Pete too!

Standing in sharp contrast to the tongue-tied loser candidates Israel has assembled, are the candidates listed by Alternet today-- Key Progressive Politicians To Watch In the 2014 Elections. Every single one of them, though they may have to battle moron consultants trained in mystery-meatism by the DCCC, has taken on a leadership role in his or her community about the tough issues that distinguish a progressive from a conservative. These are not "ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel's dreadful array of Blue Dogs and New Dems… these are candidates eager to seek out the media and make the case for a progressive agenda. You can find the best of the best House candidates here and the best of the best Senate candidates here. The DCCC isn't helping these men and women win in November, just like they never helped Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards, Raul Grijalva, Matt Cartwright or any good progressives who needed it. So… it's up to us.

UPDATE: Isenstadt Strikes Back

Earlier today Isenstadt posted his report, Chasing Sean Eldridge. It's another is a series of devastating reports about an ambitious, fabulously wealthy, completely unprepared 27 year old outsider thirsting for political power.

Wealthy people who run for public office typically stick to the same basic blueprint: Plow millions of their personal fortunes into the campaign. Hire big-name consultants. Flood the TV airwaves with ads.

Sean Eldridge is making all of that look quaint. The 27-year-old husband of Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes has turned his congressional campaign for New York’s 19th District into a multimillion-dollar start-up-- a gambit that veteran election watchers say is as unique as it is brazen.

It has unfolded in rapid-fire sequence. After Eldridge decided he wanted to run for office, he and Hughes in 2011 bought the first of two luxurious homes in the Hudson Valley region. Soon after, Eldridge set up a venture capital firm, Hudson River Ventures, that has provided millions in loans and equity lines to local companies. And now the first-time candidate, who’s running his first business, is touting the jobs he’s created in the blue-collar district.

“I know firsthand what it takes to support small businesses and create good jobs,” reads one pamphlet his campaign is plastering throughout the area.

Like no other 2014 candidate, Eldridge is testing the limits of dollars and cents to secure a seat in the House of Representatives. The Democrat is tapping Hughes’s vast wealth-- estimated at $700 million-- to build an elaborate campaign apparatus in a district where he remains a stranger to many. In addition to his firm’s investments, Eldridge has spent more than $700,000 on his campaign, and that figure is sure to rise exponentially because he’s promised to match each contribution he receives, dollar for dollar.

His efforts are all the more striking in contrast with incumbent GOP Rep. Chris Gibson, a 49-year-old decorated war veteran and former college professor who lives in the same middle-class neighborhood where he grew up. Gibson’s financial disclosure report filed with the House lists a savings account of $100,000 to $250,000, and the Center for Responsive Politics ranks his personal wealth in the bottom fifth of House members.

Gibson does little to hide his disdain for Eldridge, whom he calls a “young man with virtually no experience.” The district, encompassing a vast swath of the northern Hudson Valley and Catskills, is one of the most evenly divided in the country. Gibson won there in 2010 on the strength of the Republican wave and secured reelection in 2012 even as President Barack Obama carried the district by 6 percentage points.

“This is about him and his political aspirations, and I think that’s going to be a problem for him. He married well, he married into money,” Gibson said of Eldridge. “But there are some things money can’t buy.”

It’s difficult to size up the person behind the polished image Eldridge and his campaign are projecting to voters. He’s been running for more than half a year but remains mostly an enigma.

Congressional challengers typically seek maximum media exposure; Eldridge allows few chance encounters with the media. His campaign frequently posts pictures on his Facebook page of the candidate out and about in the district, but local reporters say they’re usually not made aware of his public schedule ahead of time. He declined to be interviewed by Politico, and the door to his campaign headquarters in Kingston was locked on a recent visit. No one answered a call on an intercom.

A spokesman provided a statement from Eldridge that said, “Chris and I have been very fortunate in our lives, and we’ve benefited from those who took a chance on us. The Hudson Valley is our home, and we’re proud to be investing in entrepreneurship in our community.”

Even people who have spent time with the candidate aren’t sure what to make of him.

A few weeks after his September campaign launch, Eldridge sat for an interview with Alan Chartock, an influential liberal radio host in upstate New York. They talked for almost 30 minutes, discussing Eldridge’s views on the federal shutdown, environmental policy and money in politics.

“If you look at what we’ve seen in Washington recently, with more of this brinkmanship, more of the games and party politics that are really hurting our economy and hurting middle-class families and not helping anyone. I’m frustrated. I know we can be doing better than how we’re doing now,” Eldridge said in the interview.

Chartock came away without any real sense of the candidate.

Eldridge sounded like “what a young person thinks a politician should sound like,” the radio host said in an interview. “He’s right on all the issues, but what I think people are looking for is a person. He’s extremely bright, has all the assets that you need to run. But it’s cookie cutter.”

Eldridge employs a team of prominent political consultants-- including media firm SKDKnickerbocker, polling outfit Global Strategy Group and veteran party operative Anne Lewis — who carefully tend to his image. Through the end of last year, he paid the three entities a total of $241,000, campaign records show.

…For a while, Eldridge had his eye on another congressional seat. In 2011, he and Hughes, who had been living together in a SoHo loft, purchased a $5 million estate in Garrison, N.Y, positioning Eldridge to run in the neighboring 18th District. But in November 2012 that district’s Republican congresswoman, Nan Hayworth, lost reelection to a Democrat. So Eldridge looked north to the 19th District, where Gibson had just won a second term.

In Jan. 2013, the couple paid $1.9 million in cash for a 3,000-square-foot home in Shokan, N.Y., an area just outside Woodstock in Gibson’s district. “Sleek and sexy with walls of glass to showcase the awe-inspiring views of the Catskill Mountains, Ashokan Reservoir, and beyond,” the buyers were promised.

The home is shielded from public view; a “Private Property” sign warns passersby. Eldridge’s advisers won’t say how much time he spends in the Shokan house as opposed to the couple’s other two residences.

...Eldridge’s team denies that the venture capital firm and campaign are coordinated. But the overlap is undeniable.

Michael Oates, a New York businessman and CEO of the firm, is Eldridge’s campaign treasurer. SKDKnickerbocker is working for Eldridge’s campaign and doing public relations work for the investment group at the same time. Some press releases for Hudson River Ventures lavish Eldridge with praise.

Several campaign finance experts said the use of a venture capital firm to advance a political campaign was a novel tactic. They say it wouldn’t be illegal unless Eldridge was using campaign dollars to fund Hudson River Ventures, which aides say he isn’t doing.

“Candidates who employ people in the districts they’re running in enjoy some advantages. What’s so unusual about this situation is that he’s being so transparent about it,” said campaign finance expert Paul Herrnson, executive director of the University of Connecticut’s Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.

Some locals have been turned off by Eldridge’s sudden arrival on the scene. They suspect he’s using his fortune as a substitute for the hard, tedious work of running for Congress.

As the Democratic mayor of Kingston, the district’s largest city, Shayne Gallo said he expected to hear from Eldridge shortly after he moved into the district. Instead, last June, he received an email from an Eldridge staffer, asking for an endorsement. Gallo didn’t respond to the message.

“I was extremely surprised, and I was offended,” he said. “I would think it would be prudent … if not politically polite and respectful, to reach out to those who’ve gone through this process and who are local yokels and who are stakeholders in the community you hope to represent.”

“Considering that someone isn’t from the area, wasn’t born or raised in the district, doesn’t have an established record in public or private service, nor any notable achievements in our local or regional economy … I’m very perplexed by that,” the mayor said.

Gallo said the Eldridge campaign had recently reached out to him and that a meeting between him and the candidate would be taking place soon.

Others say they’re simply puzzled by what Eldridge is doing.

…Eldridge, for his part, is pitching himself as a middle-of-the-road Democrat. In interviews with local reporters, he’s come out in favor of comprehensive immigration reform while stressing the need for secure borders. He backs Second Amendment rights, but with stricter background checks.

And in an irony his GOP adversaries have seized on, Eldridge has made campaign-finance reform a central plank of his bid, decrying what he calls the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics.

“We will certainly do what we need to do to be competitive and win next year,” Eldridge said in a 2013 radio interview. “But at the same time, when I am in Congress I will be a loud and consistent advocate for campaign-finance reform.”

He repeated that position-- and, in his detractors’ view, betrayed his obliviousness-- last week when the Supreme Court struck down aggregate caps on campaign contributions. Eldridge blasted the ruling as “a disappointing step backwards for our democracy.

“Right now the voices of everyday New Yorkers are being drowned out by the big money and corporate interests in our politics,” he said in a statement. “And today’s ruling only makes that problem worse.”

Steve Israel May Have Been Born To Lose, But Why Are The House Democrats Fated To Be Dragged Down By Him?

This afternoon, New Mexico Democrat Leslie Endean-Singh ended her race to be the Democratic nominee against right-wing extremist Stevan Pearce. She graciously left the field to DCCC recruit Rocky Lara, another one of Steve Israel's "mystery meat" candidates who stands for nothing much and will inspire as many voters as Alex Sink did last night. Endean-Singh, running a totally positive campaign, never adequately made the case about why the centrist Lara isn't a winning choice for New Mexico Democrats. Her withdrawal guarantees another term for the anti-Hispanic extremist, Pearce-- in a congressional district where 47% of voters are Hispanic!

This is from Endean-Singh's concession today:

In light of the results at last Saturday’s pre-primary convention, I will be formally withdrawing from the race for the United States Congress. The delegates to our pre-primary convention have made their decision, and, in the spirit of Democratic unity, I believe it is best if we unite behind our party’s nominee, and our next congresswoman, Rocky Lara.

…Rocky Lara will be an excellent representative for all New Mexicans and I know she will be a great advocate for our party’s platform. I trust she will be a strong leader for Democrats all over the second congressional district. I am honored and humbled to have campaigned against a future member of New Mexico’s congressional delegation, and I congratulate her sincerely on her victory… Though my campaign has ended, I will not be ending the fight to bring progressive values to the people of our state.

Fair enough. I know she has a progressive vision for our people. Does Lara? I still honestly don't know what she thinks. And Endean-Signh never made the case that hiding behind DCCC platitudes isn't enough for any candidates for Congress. It's how Alex Sink failed too inspire enough support to propel her to Congress in FL-13 last night. In 6 days, another sad sack DCCC mystery meat candidate, Ann Callis, will face off against grassroots progressive George Gollin. It's a David and Goliath contest and Callis has the entire force of the Machine working for her. But if she does win next week, she'll lose the general election in November for the exact same reasons Sink lost yesterday. Gollin isn't withdrawing, not by any stretch of the imagination. And he has made the case about why he's a better candidate than either of the two Beltway Establishment candidates, Republican Rodney Davis or Democrat Ann Callis. Watch his TV ad up top. And the media has picked up on it.

In recent days, both the Chicago Tribune and the State Journal-Register have found Gollin to be a better candidate than Callis and both have endorsed him-- explicitly rejecting the absurd DCCC "mystery meat" strategy.

When political candidates agree to sit with The State Journal-Register's editorial board ahead of an election and explain where they stand on issues important to voters, it's a unique opportunity for them to do just that-- explain where they stand.

Of the three Democratic candidates for U.S. representative in the 13th Congressional District-- George Gollin, Ann Callis and David Green-- only one embraced the opportunity to offer evidence of being up to the task of going to Congress.

Gollin, a physics professor at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, provided thoughtful, well-researched and understandable support for his positions. Callis, a former judge from Edwardsville who has the support of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, seemed to lack a deeper understanding of national issues. And Green, a social policy analyst, went too deep and failed to connect.

Gollin has experience in developing higher education policy and has strong interest in fairness and justice. He knows people are concerned about economic issues, job loss, college affordability and dysfunction in Congress. But he has ideas for addressing those problems.

He supports fair trade, fair taxes and enforcement of laws that allow people to unionize. He wants to invest heavily in infrastructure-- roads and bridges, but also Internet access to households and farms. He wants to offer training programs to help people become qualified for a wider range of jobs, and he supports the idea of linking college accreditation to education costs.

Saying health care is a basic human right, Gollin also supports a single payer system, “in which fees to health-care providers are based on outcomes rather than a list of individual medical procedures.”

On immigration, he supports a path to citizenship, keeping undocumented families together and assigning more responsibility to employers for not hiring undocumented workers in the first place.

He also indicated compassion for the less fortunate, explaining he did not appreciate how rough some people have it until he began volunteering at a soup kitchen in Champaign. He supports “livable” wages for all.

“I would be out front serving people and see a mom with a couple little kids, and they're on food stamps and they need us to keep from starving. Holy cow,” he said. “These are not people who are coasting. These are folks who are scared. They are putting tremendous care into maintaining self respect, and they are very much in danger of having to choose between food, being able to feed themselves and being able to pay the rent.”

Gollin, who is accustomed to identifying problems and collaborating with others to fix them, is prepared for the partisan environment in Washington, D.C., saying his plan is to find potential allies across the aisle to work with on specific legislative matters and build from there. That's how you get things done. Gollin is endorsed.

The Chicago Tribune was even more explicit about Callis'-- and the mystery meat strategy's-- shortcomings. As part of their endorsement of Gollin, they said that "in the Democratic primary… Sen. Dick Durbin's chosen candidate is carefully insulated from anyone who might ask her a tough question. Former Madison County chief judge Ann Callis sticks to safe talking points, occasionally name-checking Durbin. Her answers to our survey are carefully scripted, heavy on promises to protect seniors and middle-class families without explaining what she'd actually do. She would not agree to be interviewed by the Tribune." The conservative-leaning newspaper went on to say "Our pick is George Gollin… We disagree with many of his positions, but at least we know where he stands."

And don't American voters deserve that? Let me predict again, if Nancy Pelosi doesn't fire Steve Israel as DCCC Chair November will see lots of repetitions on what we all watched last night in FL-13. You can still contribute to Gollin's grassroots primary campaign here. Get out the vote election day volunteers need pizza!

Winning Back IL-13-- Meet George Gollin, Particle Physicist

Last year Republican career hack Rodney Davis edged Democrat Dave Gill 137,034 (47%) to 136,032 (36%) in one of the country's penultimate swing districts, IL-13 which stretches from Bloomington and Champaign in central Illinois to Decatur and Litchfield and down to the northern suburbs of St Louis. The PVI is exactly even and President Obama won the district in 2008 55-44% and was edged by a few hundred votes (49-49%) by Romney in 2012. Davis hasn't made much of an impression on anyone and recent polling shows that a good Democratic candidate would beat him-- if he can even survive a primary challenge from Tea Party candidate Erika Harold, Miss America 2003, who was endorsed last week by Herman Cain and raised $65,154 in Q4 to Davis' $285,581.

So that brings us to… a good Democratic candidate. Steve Israel ran out and recruited a garden variety, middle-of-the-road, mushy mystery meat Democrat, Ann Callis. She doesn't stand for much outside of crude identity politics. "She's a Democrat," which means next to nothing. "She's a problem solver"; again… means nothing. She's a woman. Yeah, so is Michele Bachmann. Fortunately though, there's another Democrat in the race, an actual progressive who does stand for something-- and who isn't following Steve Israel's advice to keep quiet about putting his cards on the table. George Gollin is the newest Blue America-endorsed candidate. We asked him to introduce himself in a guest post. After you read it, please consider giving him a hand so that voters in IL-13 have a reasonable choice between Rodney Davis and someone who isn't Rodney Davis-lite.

Why I Am Running for Office
by George Gollin

Our governance is badly broken, and it is only by challenging the injustices that flex and coil beneath civil society that we can address this. We are obliged to drive our country towards greater fairness and justice; if an opportunity arises, we must act.

I teach at the University of Illinois, do research in particle physics, and disrupt (as best as I can) the global trade in fraudulent academic degrees. I have spent all of my professional life attacking complicated problems-- in the classroom, in the laboratory, and in the darker regions of higher education-- but now believe that there is more I should be doing than just this. It was spam, and then dirty money, and then a phone call from a friend that brought this home to me. I am running, as a progressive Democrat, for the United States House of Representatives in the Illinois 13th Congressional District.

A dozen years ago spamming engines began pelting the University of Illinois with messages about “diplomas delivered within days.” After months of this I called the number in one of the ads, hoping to muster enough irritation to be rude to whoever answered.

I learned that I could buy a degree in anything I wanted-- including medicine-- and then discovered that the customers of degree mills held appointments at real universities, at engineering firms, and even at my own school’s College of Medicine. So I published a report about what I had found.

The owners of “St. Regis University,” who sold degrees out of Spokane but pretended to operate from Liberia, saw my report and threatened a lawsuit. Their supporters began threatening to kill my family and bombarding my daughter with obscene messages. Within a year I had convinced the authorities to investigate the St. Regis gang, and was assisting as an evidence analyst. A year after that, armed agents hit seven sites in three states, confiscating computers, documents, and the paraphernalia used to manufacture diplomas.

We learned that the St. Regis hoods were also dabbling in visa fraud; there was child pornography and rumors in the State Department concerning a human trafficking ring. There were indictments and prison terms, and I was elected to the board of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). CNN interviewed me twice.

Betty McCollum, a U.S. Congresswoman from Minnesota, saw one of the CNN stories and began developing legislation with Representatives Tim Bishop (NY-01) and Raul Grijalva (AZ-04). McCollum’s staff asked an Oregon official and me to help with the bill, which they filed towards the end of the 109th Congress. During the next Congress the bill was inserted into the House version of the massive Higher Education Act of 2008.

Congressional hearings in 1984 and 1985 had revealed that “upward of 10,000 or one in every 50 doctors now in hospitals and private practice have obtained fraudulent or highly questionable medical credentials” and that “there may be upwards of 500,000 or one in 200 working Americans who have sought, obtained and in many instances are employed on the basis of some form of fraudulent credential.” Bipartisan hearings in 2004 had returned to the problem, focusing on “Kennedy-Western University,” one of the largest degree mills in the United States. K-W had an office in Wyoming and was even selling to federal employees who were reimbursed-- at taxpayer expense-- for their purchased credentials. So there was congressional awareness of the problem.

Each time I’d go to Washington for a CHEA meeting, I’d spend time on Capitol Hill pitching the diploma mill legislation. It was a matter of good governance, not a left-right issue, and would cost almost nothing to enforce. I hoped it would badly disrupt the $100 million U.S. diploma mill industry. What’s not to like?

The Higher Education Act sailed through the House 354 – 58, with the diploma mill language largely intact. I began visiting Senate offices, particularly those of senators on the Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. But I was surprised when a gaggle of right-wing staffers told me, in effect, that they saw no proper federal role in suppressing the interstate sale of fake medical degrees.

Here’s the part with the dirty money. Between 1998 and 2006 the owner of Kennedy-Western had contributed $12,500 to the Republican Party of Wyoming and the National Republican Congressional Committee. In most of his donations he identified himself as a Kennedy-Western employee.

By the time the Higher Education Act’s joint resolution came out of conference, all that was left of the degree mill language was a scrambled definition of the term “diploma mill.” And a technical loophole in the text allowed a mill to inoculate itself against tripping the definition.

I was furious. We’re talking fake medical degrees, folks. Perhaps the staffers who took a fish knife to the bill had not understood that the term “free enterprise” does not admit criminal fraud into the universe of sanctioned economic activity. Perhaps they wanted to preserve the flow of campaign contributions from the diploma mill industry.

It is abundantly clear that we cannot trust a political system awash in special interest cash to act in the public interest. My colleagues and I tried to move a mildly drawn piece of law, which would not interfere with the activities of legally operating for-profit degree providers. We were trying to put criminals out of business! I learned from this that a professor advocating for policy in the public interest does not have the reach to protect good legislation after it is dropped into the Congressional sausage machine.

There is more. I’ve seen good scientific initiatives, with names like “International Linear Collider” and “accelerator-driven subcritical fission” killed by incompetence and a lack of imagination in the Executive Branch. And, of course, there are the perils that fill the pages of our daily newspapers: chronic unemployment, poverty, the pre-ACA difficulties in obtaining affordable medical care.

It is clear that we have a mess on our hands.

A long time ago, when I was an assistant professor, I tried to hire a fellow who was just finishing his PhD. He got a better offer someplace else, but we’ve been friends ever since. Last year he called and explained why he thought I should run for office. There aren’t enough scientists in Congress (there are three), technology and education are central to economic growth, and other things like that. I said I’d think about it.

Because of my diploma mill work, my family has come under frequent attack for years. Politics is said to have an ugly side, and the 2012 election in my district bore that out. After two restless weeks, I summoned the courage to ask my wife what she thought. Melanie is my best friend, the love of my life, and a woman of enormous accomplishment, and she said “well, I’m not making cookies for anyone, but you should do what you want.” I took that as permission.

There is an Arthurian slant to this. In a dream, the king came upon a land in which terrible serpents had burned and slain all the inhabitants. He drew Excalibur and engaged the monsters, and though grievously wounded, slew the dragons. Arthur awoke, greatly troubled.

So here it is: when circumstance puts a sword into your hands, you are obliged to slay the beast before you.

Before I had a campaign manager, or a politics director, or a finance director, or a graphics designer, or a strategy firm, or a web designer, or field directors, or volunteers-- in short, before I had surrounded myself with people who knew what they were doing-- I was invited to speak at a Champaign County Democrats fund raising dinner.

I had never given a political speech before, and thought that I should say it all straight, and lay out the issues that mattered to me, and what I planned to do about them. I was excited about the changes that were possible, and felt that the catastrophic refusal of Congress to govern opened tremendous opportunities for transformation. I was on fire with the possibilities for change.

I explained about the diploma mill mess and dirty money, then attacked Citizens United. I spoke about education, the cost of college, and declining public support for our universities. I talked about college completion, minority enrollments, and the need to deploy breakthroughs in pedagogy. I described advances in solar cell and battery technology, and how we should generate power by transmuting radioactive waste. In the very center of the speech, at the heart of the speech, at the place where I put the things that mattered the most, I talked about jobs, social justice, poverty, and the insistence of the Right that poor people were irresponsible. I discussed income inequality, and the Progressive Democratic Caucus budget. I talked about data driven public policy, healthcare, voting rights, women’s rights, and climate change. I told the audience I wanted to talk about a breakthrough in mass transit, but would save that for another venue. From time to time people applauded.

In April 2013 there was only one other potential candidate for the Democratic nomination, an attorney who owned four houses and did not actually live in IL-13. I ended my speech by saying that she “and I come from opposite ends of the district. If we run, I expect that next year we will have a friendly discussion about who would like to be the rock, and who would like to be the hard place. Then we will come at [the incumbent] Mr. Davis from the east, and from the west, and return him to private life.” And then I told my audience that “It is our birthright to dream boldly. Together, we can change everything.”

People cheered, and told me afterwards that I am a Progressive.

In an ideal world a political campaign would be about ideas, and policy, and strategies for accomplishing the things that need to be done. Candidates would stand before engaged audiences which asked tough questions, and never shy from a conversation with someone who was not a supporter. We would go to minority churches and union halls, speak to environmental groups and Chambers of Commerce.

We would learn as much as we could about economics and labor law, and about science, and technology, and education. We would learn about corn and beans, and the tremendous social value resident in our small towns and rural areas. We would learn about our district, and about the demographics of poverty and disadvantage. We would learn about (and how to side step) the legislative process, so we could make progress in times of gridlock. We would be engaged, and we would be fearless. And we would not hide our ignorance by refusing debates and fleeing from audiences asking questions. We would not glide through the countryside in the regal and distancing embrace of an armored bubble.

The nature of the job we are seeking is to represent the interests of the people-- all the people, not just those who are wealthy, or those with whom we are at ease-- to the federal government. And we can only do this by spending time in the presence of anyone who will have us, and wants to tell us their concerns. I know that we do not live in an ideal world. The past year has taught me something about politics, and about how important it is to do the politics well in order to have an opportunity to do policy. And we have all learned from the 2012 cycle that IL-13 isn’t your typical rural/small city district: it responds strongly to a clear progressive message that is carried forth by a candidate who travels widely and actually knows what he is talking about.

We all want that which is broken to be fixed, and that is why I am running for Congress.

DCCC Has A Candidate For IL-13, Chief Judge Ann Callis

IL-12 and IL-13 are two of the nine districts in the U.S. with exactly even PVI scores. They are the ultimate swing districts-- at least by the numbers. Of the nine, only three have Republican congressmen, NV-03 (Joe Heck), IA-03 (Tom Latham) and IL-13 (Rodney Davis). And Obama won all those districts last November except IL-13, which he lost 48.9- 48.6%, one of the closes races in he country. The congressional race was also one of the closest in the country, Davis winning 136,596 over progressive Democrat David Gill 135,309. The two were evenly matched, with Davis raising $1,400,451 (7% from small donors and 46% from PACs) and Gill raising $1,325,027 (30% from small donors and 22% from PACs). Outside spending tipped the race towards Davis. The DCCC and their House Majority PAC put $3,000,927 into the race but that couldn't match a plethora of right-wing groups from Nixon Jew counter Fred Malek's American Action Network's $1,482,559, the US Chamber of Commerce's $500,000, the NRCC's $1,532,442 and a flood of money from shady right-wing organizations like the New Prosperity Foundation, the NRA, Eric Cantor's Young Guns Network, and a gaggle of anti-Choice groups. They spent $3,663,124 attacking Gill and another $189,568 bolstering Davis. Outside spending in favor of Gill was about a million dollars less. That bought Davis his 1,287 vote margin.

The DCCC was never all that comfortable with the very left-of-center Gill, an outspoken progressive. The Democratic Establishment-- both in Chicago and in DC-- had pushed hard for conservative Democrat Matthew Goetten in the primary. This cycle they weren't taking any chances that Gill might run again and got Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to appoint Gill Assistant Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health on Friday-- just as the DCCC choice for the nomination, Third Judicial Circuit chief judge Ann Callis, stepped down to run for the seat. Her official announcement came today.

Gill said Quinn had approached him a few months ago about the post, and he told the governor he'd have to give it some thought; he said he had been considering another Congressional campaign since his narrow defeat on election night. But, he said, he knew he couldn't do both.

"Ultimately it boiled down to deciding which of the two seemed to fit better for me now," Gill said. "I think I can make a significant impact in terms of helping people access health care and implement the Affordable Health Care Act in Illinois."

The DCCC had tried to recruit Callis to run in IL-12 when Jerry Costello announced his retirement but she declined and conservative Democrat Bill Enyart beat Republican Jason Plummer 51-43%. The DCCC and their House Majority PAC spent more helping Enyart-- $3,221,178-- than they spent on Gill. Callis has been a judge since 1995 and has a good reputation across the spectrum.

"Ann Callis has done a tremendous job as chief judge," said Madison County Board Chairman Alan Dunstan. "She's changed the image of Madison County a lot in terms of the judiciary. I've worked with her very well in the past and wish her the best in the future."

Among Callis' endorsements in her most recent judicial retention campaign: Shimkus, who had nominated her veterans court program for a national award. Shimkus said at the time that Callis had earned the respect of both parties for her reforms in the court system.

There are two important facts there. First off, Gill nearly won because he was so strong in Champaign County, where he beat Davis 57-43%. But he couldn't overcome the GOP tide in equally-sized Madison County, where it was Gill who wound up with 43%. That margin, with the big wins for Davis is the more rural counties and Gill lost the election. Callis is well-respected and well-liked in Madison County and should do much better there. The second fact is what a big advocate Shimkus has been for her. You might recall that Davis, who lost all his early campaigns (for state legislature and then for mayor of his hometown, Taylorville, is a total creature of Shimkus and worked as his campaign manager and then as a Shimkus congressional staffer. "Chief Judge Ann Callis has earned my respect and the respect of Republicans and Democrats alike for the reforms she initiated to improve our local court system and for the innovative programs she has launched," said Shimkus when he backed Callis' run for reelection. "I was so impressed by the establishment of the veterans court that helps troubled veterans get their lives back on track that I nominated the program for the national Paul H. Chapman Award from the Foundation for Improvement of Justice.”

People I've talked to in the district have told me Callis is a middle-of-the-road Democrat who is likely to do exactly what the DCCC tell her to do. "She's better than Davis," is the most positive comment I could find. The other Democrat in the race, University of Illinois physics Professor George Gollin, is a less conventional Democrat-- far more progressive and way too independent-minded for anyone like Steve Israel to ever support. He donated generously to Gill's congressional race-- as well as to fellow Illinois physicist Bill Foster. Callis' political contributions have only gone to Obama. She's perfect for the DCCC.

There are some who are surprised that Callis would want to run for Congress, a pay cut from her salary as a judge. She also has been mentioned as a possible federal court judge or even an Illinois Supreme Court candidate.

But she certainly would be an intriguing candidate. No one I talked to could recall a sitting circuit court judge giving that up to run for Congress.

"I think the work that she is doing (as a judge) is wonderful," Gill said. "You know, she's been doing it for a long time. Life is short. It doesn't surprise me when people look to do something else for their fellow man."

As the chief judge in the 3rd Judicial Circuit, she has name recognition in several counties in the southern end of the district, she has contacts and money (she self-funded her campaign for judicial retention last year and her father, Lance Callis, is a Granite City trial lawyer who made millions by investing in the Argosy Casino in Alton, then selling his shares in 2005) and she has a good reputation.