Elections

Ninety congressional candidates and 31 national organizations are opposing any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, no matter what unrelated measures are packaged into the same bill, what amendments are offered, or whether the vote is a "procedural vote."

The 90 candidates are from 27 states and Washington, D.C., and include 29 Greens, 24 Libertarians, 22 Democrats, 5 Independent Greens, 4 Independents, 4 Peace and Freedom, 1 Republican, and 1 Socialist.  Seventy-eight are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, and 12 for the Senate.

By David Swanson

Well this is helpful. The best candidate for Congress I know of, Jonathan Tasini, is now running against an incumbent, Charlie Rangel, who is going to be put on trial in Congress for all sorts of alleged corruption.

By David Swanson

In an interview I recorded on Tuesday with Jeff Clark, an independent candidate for Congress in Virginia's Fifth District, and the father of a Marine currently in Afghanistan, Clark told me he was opposed to putting another $33 billion into escalating the war in Afghanistan. Clark comes from the right on many issues and is often billed as the Tea Party candidate. The Virginia Independent Green Party supports him, despite his distance from them on most issues, possibly because his role is understood to be a spoiler benefitting incumbent Democrat Tom Perriello. Clark is a member of the Tea Party in Danville, but says the Tea Party is backing Robert Hurt, the Republican candidate.

Perriello has refused for months to take a position on the war escalation funding. On July 1st, the House moved the funding forward in a bizarre maneuver that avoided an actual vote on it. The vote on the Rule that created that unusual procedure was opposed by Perriello, but his explanation for voting No focused on matters unrelated to the war. If, however, the Senate now insists that the House pass the Senate's version of the war funding, Perriello may be compelled to take a position after all. If he votes in favor of the $33 billion, he will be outflanked on both peace and fiscal responsibility by Clark, someone Perriello thinks he wants in the race and in the debates in order to split the Republican vote.

In an hour-long interview Clark presented a different, or at least more nuanced picture of himself than has appeared on his website or in the media. On the one hand Clark is a global warming denier, unconcerned about the BP oil spill, believes the United States possesses large quantities of oil, thinks corporations are superior to government, denies that it is even possible to tax corporations, and frames his opposition to any government policy as opposition to government even while proposing other government policies. But Clark would cut off funding, not only for an escalation in Afghanistan, but for continuing that war at all. He doesn't buy into the nonsensical and predictable criticism of failing to "support the troops." He supports his son and doesn't want his son's life lost in a war that is not actually defending our country. Clark would reduce military spending apart from war spending as well. He supports renewable energy, opposes corporate corruption of government, wants the tax burden lifted off the poor, and is not a fan of where the Republican Party has gone. He's not a fan of the current Democratic Party either. Asked if he would mind if his candidacy benefitted Perriello, Clark replied that he would rather have Perriello for two more years than replace him with the wrong Republican, and that he thinks he'll take voters away from both Perriello and his Republican challenger.

Audio of the interview is available here:
http://davidswanson.org/sites/davidswanson.org/files/jeffclark.mp3

If you missed my interview with David Segal, read it here and you'll understand why I'm sending him $5 for $5 Friday. You can do the same here:
http://votesegal.com

By David Swanson

There are lots of ways to change Congress that falsely appear easy, that would alter the rules and patterns of behavior if only Congress were already fixed and willing to make the changes, or if we owned the television networks, or if people could suddenly hear what they're paid good money never to hear. But I've got a way to change Congress that is actually easy.

By David Swanson

Much of this country believes that ACORN, the now defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, supported prostitution, engaged in voter fraud, and caused the subprime lending crisis. Some people are aware that these lies have been more solidly disproven than Saddam Hussein's friendship with Al Qaeda. The Government Accountability Office has now joined a former Massachusetts attorney general, a federal court ruling, and the Congressional Research Service in finding no wrongdoing by ACORN. But I suspect that only a very tiny percentage of Americans has any idea what ACORN was or why we need it.

More candidates for Congress have signed a statement opposing war spending that have signed the tea party statement against all spending.  And there is no overlap between the two lists of candidates.  Clearly the opponents of government spending who receive the most media attention do not oppose the single biggest type of government spending.  Why would that be?  They have been exposed as severely limited in their fiscal responsibility, and their cheerleaders in the media have been exposed as biased in favor of war.  But the teabaggers have also been outpaced, as their roster of candidates is smaller than that of the Coalition Against War Spending.

Charlie Crist has dropped out of the Republican Party to run as an independent for the U.S. Senate. It has been anticipated for a while that he would do so, so it isn't as though many people are really that surprised or are quickly going to get payday loans to fill his opponents' coffers. (Or maybe not?) Crist has a long service record in the state of Florida in several capacities, and also the name recognition is expected to give him an advantage over his Democrat and Republican opponents.

Charlie Crist and the Republicans have broken up

Sixty-six congressional candidates and 24 national organizations are opposing any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, no matter what unrelated measures are packaged into the same bill, and no matter whether the bill appears likely to pass or not. This position contrasts strongly with that of most incumbent congress members who "oppose" and "criticize" the wars. The new Coalition Against War Spending is inviting more candidates, including all incumbents, and national organizations to join. The 66 candidates who have already signed on are from 25 different states, and include 22 Greens, 19 Democrats, 19 Libertarians, 3 Independents, 1 Republican, 1 Socialist, and 1 Peace and Freedom Party member (and more may be added to the website by the time you read this).

By David Swanson, FreeSpeechForPeople.org

The US House of Representatives may soon have the opportunity to vote on whether to move forward with a constitutional amendment to ensure that we the people, not we the corporations, control our elections.

Yesterday, Congresswoman Donna Edwards introduced a proposed amendment to the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), a bill that would require disclosure by corporations engaged in making political expenditures as a result of the US Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The Edwards language to be added to this bill would make clear that if the Supreme Court strikes down the disclosure law,

By David Swanson

Anna Janek is a Republican candidate for Congress from West Bloomfield, Mich. She says: "Socialism, Communism, Welfare-ism, Globalism, Fascism, Obama-ism…it's all the same: State control of the Human Spirit under the guise of benevolence."

Marcy Winograd is a Democratic candidate for Congress from Los Angeles, Calif. She promises to "establish a new federal agency to employ millions of Americans building rapid transit and repairing bridges, ports, water treatment plants and other infrastructure."

What could Janek and Winograd possibly agree on?

Winograd on healthcare, says: "We need Medicare for All – or a single-payer system that pays doctors, nurses, and other health care providers from a single fund."

My name is General David Petraeus and I want to be your Commander in Chief because I admire everything about you, especially that amazing and unique way you have about you.

Here's a little background on who I am, just a few highlights that I know you will be able to appreciate.

http://asskissinglittlechickenshit.com

By David Swanson

Progressive organizations set up to promote and fund progressive congressional candidates tend, as a rule, not to do so. Candidates like the Democrats and Greens listed here tend not to get support. Candidates like Joe Sestak and Bill Halter attract the lion's share of progressive backing, not because they could pass any progressive platform test (they couldn't), but because of the awfulness of the incumbents they are opposing. Give it a few years, and perhaps the awfulness of Sestak and Halter will lead to a "progressive" focus on replacing them.

Fifty-two congressional candidates and 18 activist organizations are opposing any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and inviting more candidates, incumbents, and organizations to join them.  The 52 candidates, from 21 different states, include 19 Democrats, 16 Libertarians, 15 Greens, 2 Independents, and 0 Republicans (and more may be added to the website by the time you read this).  Forty-six are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, and six for the Senate. 

They do not all agree with each other on many topics, including their reasons for opposing war spending.  But they all back this short statement:

Forty-six congressional candidates and 17 activist organizations released a statement on Monday opposing any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and inviting more candidates, incumbents, and organizations to sign on.  The 46 candidates include 16 Libertarians, 15 Democrats, 14 Greens, 1 Independent, and thus far 0 Republicans (and more may be added to the website by the time you read this).  Forty-two are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, and four for the Senate.   They do not all agree with each other on many topics, including their reasons for opposing war spending.  But they all back this short statement:

By David Swanson

North Carolina house candidate Marcus Brandon defeated a 30-year incumbent tonight, by 60% to 40%, to become the Democratic nominee in an overwhelmingly Democratic district in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Brandon has pledged to introduce a bill to create single-payer healthcare in North Carolina, and now he'll be able to do it.

Brandon has promised that the first piece of legislation he will introduce will be the "North Carolina Healthcare Act" which will provide universal single-payer healthcare to every citizen of the state.

I spoke with Brandon back in February, and he said that he remains a supporter of national single-payer healthcare and will continue lobbying for passage of HR 676, Congressman John Conyers' bill:

To phonebank for Marcy Email Bill@Winogradforcongress.com.

Vote for her here:
http://www.primariesmatter.com/elections/california

And call DFA to ask them to endorse her:
802-651-3200

Marcy Winograd held a packed and enthusiastic fundraiser tonight at Busboys and Poets in Washington, D.C., with Progressive Democrats of America. Everybody loved Marcy, and GAVE MONEY.

And she showed this video of the floor fight in which Marcy almost took the California Democratic Party's endorsement away from incumbent, blue dog, honorary Republican, bribee, and war monger Jane Harman:

By David Swanson

Congress is about to consider whether to vote for another $33 billion, not to continue but purely to escalate the level of war in Afghanistan by sending more troops and contractors. A No vote needs to be rewarded, and a Yes vote punished. So I am committing to vote for the reelection of any incumbent who votes No and against any who votes Yes. Here's a whip list: http://defundwar.org