Home / Elections
In Senate Cash Rolls In, the Rocky Mountain News updates the contributions and expenditures in the Strickland-Allard Race.
"Democrat Strickland edged out Allard, the incumbent Republican, in fund raising during the first half of October, $316,000 to $286,000. But Allard outspent Strickland $434,000 to $353,000. The Allard campaign spent about $300,000 on media, while Strickland spent about $160,000. Allard had $753,000 in the bank as of Oct. 16, while Strickland had $124,000, the filings said."
"The majority of Allard's donations came from political action committees, mostly business and political groups. Strickland took in a majority of his money from individuals, many of whom identified themselves as attorneys."
Both candidates plan a big media blitz from now till election day. Give to Strickland.
Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone
The first part of the book explains Wellstone's unlikely ascension to the Senate in 1990 after a 21 year career teaching political science at Carleton College.
The bulk of The Conscience of a Liberal lays out Wellstone's political agenda, one that included universal health care, reversing welfare reforms, pre-kindergarten education, raising the minimum wage, and campaign-finance reform.
Wellstone concludes with a call for leadership: "This is not a conservative America.... There is a huge leadership void in this country that the Democratic Party, emboldened by political courage and a commitment to the issues that made our party great, can fill."
Bill Bradley said "Read this book and feel thankful that there is a man such as Paul Wellstone in the service of our country."
Senator Paul Wellstone
1944 - 2002
Rest in Peace.
Lisa English over at Ruminate This has some excellent reasons for supporting Bill McBride against Jeb Bush for Governor of Florida. At this late date, supporting means contributing money as well as casting votes--the final tv ad blitz is about to begin and we know those ads cost a bunch.
The Denver Post gets it right again with two endorsements today--for our favorites Congresspersons, Diana DeGette and Mark Udall. In Udall Perfect Fit for the Second, the Post praises Democrat Mark Udall who is seeking his third term in Congress:
"Voters should support Udall because his political courage and pragmatism are needed to help solve the problems facing America. Udall is deservedly known for his outstanding environmental record, including efforts to protect wilderness, clean up the air and water, promote renewable energy and make cars more fuel-efficient."
"Udall was among the few members of Congress voting against the recent resolution authorizing war with Iraq. While potentially unpopular, his position underscores his political courage and willingness to make tough decisions. Udall knows Saddam Hussein is dangerous, but says the United States should go to war only if there's new evidence that Iraq presents an imminent threat. If the United States does go to war, he says, it should be as part of a broad international coalition. The nuanced position can't be distilled into a soundbite, but shows the quiet reasoning crucial to foreign policy. Udall also worries about the erosion of civil liberties in the war on terrorism."
In Keep DeGette in the First, the Post says:
"Diana DeGette has worked hard on issues ranging from protecting the environment to improving children's health care. She deserves another term to continue her work for the 1st Congressional District. ...DeGette has an impressive record of working to secure federal funding for traffic management, preserve Social Security and reduce gun violence, along with her work on environmental issues and children's health. In her next term, she promises to work on legislation aimed at improving the lives of families."
"DeGette sees the economy as a key issue. In her view, President Bush's tax cuts, fallout from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and corporate fraud combined to sour the economy and constrain the federal budget."
"A member of the House Commerce Committee, DeGette has been a leader in the congressional inquiries into Enron, Qwest, WorldCom and Arthur Andersen. Thousands of Coloradans were among those who lost life savings in the corporate scandals. DeGette vows to work on reforming accounting practices, stock-option reporting and a comprehensive pension protection program....She also pledges to continue to work to protect the environment."
"....DeGette's proven effectiveness on issues important to her constituents argues strongly for her re-election."
We agree. We have known Diana since she was a mere lawyer, and Mark since his first term in Congress. The two have been consistently responsive to our issues and we have attended many fundraisers (even serving on host-committeesof a few) for them over the years where we've witnessed first-hand their constituents' high regard and deep appreciation of the efforts made on their behalf.
Both Diana and Mark voted against the Resolution on the War in Iraq. While neither is "soft on crime," they repeatedly have demonstrated their support for the Constitution and the rights of defendants by their votes and their willingness and availability to discuss issues with us. Both have signed on as co-sponsors of the Innocence Protection Act.
We are very pleased with the Denver Post this week, first for its enthusiastic endorsement of Senatorial candidate Tom Strickland and now, of Diana DeGette and Mark Udall.
Tom Strickland is still in a dead heat with incumbent Republican Wayne Allard. This could be the race that decides whether Republicans or Democrats control the Senate. There are 14 days left to election day. Donate to Strickland's campaign and enable him to air his final media campaign-- and don't forget to let us know you did or tell them TalkLeft prompted you to give.
There are now five senate races too close to call, according to the Los Angeles Times today. Another two are expected to be won by Democrats.
In Colorado, there is Tom Strickland in a dead heat to replace Republican freshman Senator Wayne Allard. The other four hot races include a Republican-held seat in New Hampshire and Democrat-held seats in Missouri, Minnesota and South Dakota.
Democrat Frank Lautenberg is favored to win in New Jersey and a Democratic challenger is favored to win a GOP seat in Arkansas.
With a net gain of one seat, Republicans would win control of the Congress.
The seven races being watched, ranked in the order of likelihood that the seats may change hands (according to the Times) are:
"ARKANSAS: Battered by negative publicity about his divorce and remarriage to a former aide, Republican Sen. Tim Hutchinson, a social conservative elected in 1996, is considered the incumbent most likely to lose his seat. Democratic Atty. Gen. Mark Pryor has portrayed himself as a centrist and populist, mixing promises to reach across party lines with pledges to confront pharmaceutical companies and increase education funding."
"NEW HAMPSHIRE: Republicans thought the seat had moved safely into their column when Rep. John E. Sununu beat quirky incumbent Sen. Bob Smith in a primary last month. But the Democratic nominee, Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, has caught — and, in some surveys, passed — Sununu with a populist message that has attacked him for supporting private accounts under Social Security and accused him of cozying up to corporate tax cheats."
"MISSOURI: Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan was appointed to the seat after her husband, Mel, died in a plane crash just before the 2000 vote and still won more votes than the then-GOP incumbent, John Ashcroft. But she's getting all she can handle from Talent. The two seem to be battling to a draw on issues; the key may be whether Carnahan can convincingly rebut charges she's not up to the job."
"SOUTH DAKOTA: Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson and Thune have engaged in the heavyweight title fight of the election year — a 15-round struggle with relentless charges and countercharges from the candidates, heavy advertising by outside groups and inescapable national overtones. (At times it has seemed a proxy war between Bush and Daschle.) Democrats are optimistic about their turnout efforts, but this state leans strongly toward Republicans."
"MINNESOTA: Democrats remain cautiously optimistic about Wellstone's chances. But Republican Coleman, a former Democrat, was making inroads by questioning Wellstone's defense record, even before the incumbent voted against the use of force in Iraq."
"COLORADO: Sen. Wayne Allard hasn't established much of a public identity in his first term. In polls over the last two years, he has almost always attracted less than 45% support — an ominous sign for an incumbent. The state's GOP inclination could still carry him past Democrat Tom Strickland, whom Allard beat in 1996. But "Republicans are as nervous as can be," Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli said."
"NEW JERSEY: Forrester had surged into the lead amid revulsion over Torricelli's ethics problems. But when Torricelli withdrew in favor of former Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, Forrester lost his principal argument. Lautenberg quickly went ahead in most surveys by portraying Forrester as too conservative for the state. The bad taste left by Torricelli's departure has kept Forrester close, but the state's strong Democratic lean is tilting the race toward Lautenberg. Over the last six weeks, Republicans benefited from an increased focus on national security issues generated by the debate over a possible war with Iraq. But that advantage may have peaked too soon."
The Denver Post in an editorial today strongly backs Tom Strickland for U.S. Senate, see Strickland For a New Century.
"Colorado's U.S. Senate race carries profound national importance this year. Its outcome will influence not only the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, but also the philosophical orientation of our government at home and abroad. The Denver Post strongly urges voters to elect Democrat Tom Strickland to join Republican Ben Nighthorse Campbell in representing Colorado's central values - moderation, a commitment to progress and reverence for our natural surroundings - in Washington."
"We believe Strickland offers the leadership our state and our country need in this young century. While he is not a professional politician, he has prepared for leadership as Colorado's top federal prosecutor, as a lawyer with a significant business-oriented practice and, most importantly, as a private citizen who has conscientiously and consistently worked to improve the quality of life for all Coloradans."
The Post endorsed Allard over Strickland the last time around. Here's what they say about that:
"The Post's endorsement of incumbent Republican Wayne Allard in 1996 urged him "to seek compromise and moderation to keep the country moving." We've been deeply disappointed on both counts. Allard has chosen strict party-line voting rather than the Colorado-style moderation we sought - and the country, far from moving forward, is in a serious economic downturn. Traditionally, The Post has continued to stand by incumbents we have supported in the past. Our endorsement is, quite frankly, theirs to lose. To our sorrow, Sen. Allard, by failing to show any instinct for centrism, conciliation or independence, has lost our support. Indeed, on almost every major issue, challenger Strickland's positions and ideas are markedly more attuned to Colorado than those of his opponent."
We hope you will read the whole editorial, quote it on your blogs and get the message out.
Please, donate to Strickland's campaign so they can make their final media blitz. This really could be the race that keeps the Democrats in control of the Senate--and right wing judicial activists off the Supreme Court. And let us know or let them know via email to mthielen@stricklandforcolorado.com that we prompted your donation so we can go to the Don Henley benefit Oct. 27 (see our explanatory post here. Small amounts are fine, and we've made good progress since we started asking, but we still need some more contributions to be able to attend. We're looking for at least half of the requested donation and we will, with their approval, match up to the other half.
As for why we are such supporters of Strickland, go here.
Allard's dismal voting record on children's issues is here. Remember, this is a junior senator who has not distinguished himself in Congress and has voted the Republican party line on 98% of his votes. And as the Post makes clear:
"On the matter of women's reproductive rights: Strickland is clearly and strongly pro-choice, mirroring the views of a majority of Coloradans, while Allard supports a federal constitutional amendment that would essentially pre-empt a woman's choice."
The Post editorial makes another good point we haven't thought to raise before:
"Worse, by promising he will not seek a third term if re-elected this fall, Allard has marginalized even the miniscule political clout he has accumulated. In the Senate, committee assignments are based on seniority. By announcing he isn't interested in gaining more seniority, Allard has taken himself out of contention for choice committee assignments because the GOP leadership, understandably, will want to use plum posts to develop future leadership, not waste them on lawmakers who won't be around in a few years."
Again, please make a donation, and tell them TalkLeft sent you!
It doesn't look like reform of New York's Rockefeller Drug Laws will be happening any time soon. In Waiting for Drug Laws to Change, and Marking Off the Years, New York Times reporter Matthew Purdy's tone can be best described as depressed. We knew it was going to be a sad article as soon as we read this:
"Elaine Bartlett has gotten some nice snapshots of herself with big-shot New York politicians in recent months....Ms. Bartlett was granted clemency by Gov. George E. Pataki in late 1999. Ever since, she has worked to change the Rockefeller-era drug laws, the nation's toughest, which kept her locked up for 16 years on her first offense."
Ms. Bartlett's crime was delivering a package for her boyfriend that contained 4 oz. of cocaine. Her boyfriend got 19 years for selling it. The judge married them and then sent them off to do their time.
Just so you know how absurd a 16 year sentence is for this first offense, here's what she what she would have gotten had she been charged in federal court. Worst case scenario, if she went to trial and lost, and the Judge didn't believe she was just delivering for her boyfriend, but was an equal participant in the sale, she would have gotten 27 to 33 months.
More likely, is this scenario: Facing less than 3 years as a maximum sentence, and caught doing a delivery, she would have pleaded guilty. If the Judge believed she was delivering for her boyfriend and thus had a lesser role than him in the offense, she would have gotten 12 to 18 months. If the Judge thought she was an equal participant, she would have gotten 18 to 24 months.
As Purdy points out, "Politicians at almost every point on the political spectrum agree that the [Rockefeller] laws are too stiff and give judges too little discretion. But in the alchemy of Albany, agreement has turned out to be as good a recipe for inaction as disagreement is."
This past June, it looked like there would be a change. Governor Pataki was courting the hispanic vote for this November's election. A disproportionate number of those in jail serving draconian sentences under the Rockefeller laws are hispanic. Pataki repeatedly said overhauling the drug laws was his top priority. He called together the Mothers for the Disappeared, looking to get their support, and he promised them reform. Then he outlined his plan, which would have only brought immediate relief to 200 of the 19.000 inmates imprisoned under the law. The Mothers declined. (For more on Mothers of the Disappeared, see this Salon article)
The Democrats were in favor of change as well. But they disagreed with Pataki, saying his reforms didn't go far enough. Pataki came up with a better plan, still not enough, but as Purdy points out, "It wouldn't exactly have taken Solomon to split the difference."
Instead, everyone lost interest. An no changes were made. "There's little mystery what happened as spring turned to summer and summer turned into the campaign season. "Nobody wanted to give anybody credit," said Doreen LaMarca, whose brother is serving 25 years to life for a first-time drug offense. "It's the election."
And, "Blame makes a better sound bite than credit." So Pataki is now blaming the Dems for wanting too much and the Dems are blaming Pataki for offering to do too little. We blame Pataki. We believe, as do others, he is too beholden to the prosecutors in New York who vehemently oppose all but the most minor changes in the law. Under Pataki's plan, prosecutors will have far too much discretion in matters such as who gets treatment instead of prison. Such decisions should be made by impartial judges.
Another problem with Pataki's plan: "...the new plan also includes several flaws and loopholes that benefit prosecutors and render the bill unacceptable to the Assembly. For instance, people arrested within 1,000 feet of a school or 100 feet of a park could not ask a judge to send them into treatment. That would disqualify most people arrested in New York City, advocates for addicts said."
Along comes conservative Tom Golisano, Independent candidate for Governor (his third try no less) and in an effort to gain the black and hispanic vote, has been meeting with Ms. Bartlett and the other members of Mothers of the Disappeared, promising not just reform, but repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws. He even made a campaign commercial with them. He has money, but he trails badly behind McCall, the democratic candidate, who in turn trails behind Pataki. He's also the most conservative of the candidates, except on this issue.
Our prior post with facts from a new report on the Rockefeller drug laws is here.
Some additional findings of the Report on the effect of these drug laws on children of those imprisoned:
Skippy is in an analytical mood this weekend and has some good thoughts, delivered with his customary wit, on how the dems can win on election day.
"how could the dems actually turn things to their advantage? well, the problem for the dems is, it would take organization, and elbow grease, and a fire in their belly...things the dems haven't believed in since lyndon johnson left town."
The key, says Skippy, is reaching out to voters. Then he explains how it should be done.
The adwatch department of the Rocky Mountain News examined a new ad against Allard by the child advocacy group Every Child Matters and found each of the three charges true.
Here they are:
• "Wayne Allard voted against health insurance for children."
• "Truth test: True. Allard and 15 other senators voted on July 31, 1997, against a measure creating an insurance program for children of low-income families whose incomes weren't low enough to qualify for Medicaid nor high enough to pay private health-insurance premiums. The measure was a budget- balancing bill covering many government agencies. Allard told a reporter afterward that he also had other reasons to vote against it, including failures to restructure Medicare and cut government spending substantially in other areas. However, Allard specifically said he viewed the $24 billion insurance plan for children as a "new entitlement" of which he disapproved."
• Allard voted "Against programs that protect children from abuse."
• "Truth test: True. On Sept. 30, 1999, Allard and 38 other senators voted to kill increased federal grants to states for a wide range of social services, including programs for troubled families and children."
• "98 to 1," the vote in the U.S. Senate on funding for fetal alcohol syndrome prevention and treatment. And Wayne Allard was the only member of the U.S. Senate to vote against protecting babies from alcohol and drug addiction."
• "Truth test: True. On June 28, 2000, Allard cast the Senate's lone vote against increasing funding from $15 million to $25 million for a program to protect and treat children with mental retardation and other disabilities caused by maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. Fellow Colorado Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a vocal supporter of the program, voted for it, as did every other senator present from both political parties. The Allard campaign has said he feared the increased funding would shortchange Colorado-based hantavirus research."
We don't know too much about campaign advertising, but to us this is a very persuasive ad. Who would vote for a guy with this voting record?
You can view the ad online here
The Washington Post today outlines why the Colorado Senate race between freshman Republican senator Wayne Allard and Democratic challenger Tom Strickland has become a race of national importance.
At first, Allard's lead was such that it was assumed he'd have a "narrow win." Then, "Democrats escalated their attacks on Allard's ties to corporate and accounting interests. Those salvos, coupled with sharp criticism of his record on environmental issues and his stands on Social Security and abortion, have turned this into one of the nation's closest Senate races. Should Strickland manage to oust Allard, Democrats would have a tiny bit of breathing room, enabling them to retain their Senate majority even if one Democratic incumbent should lose elsewhere."
Allard is also suffering more fallout than Strickland from the nasty tone of the campaign. Plus, the Democrats are getting the word out about "Allard's 1999 decision to back Qwest's efforts to merge with US West -- a plan that eventually soured and led to more than 5,000 layoffs in Colorado. "
Add to that the Democrats' message that "in July 2000 Allard joined eight other Republican and Democratic senators in persuading the Securities and Exchange Commission to postpone tough corporate accounting reforms that might have prevented a subsequent rash of major corporate scandals." And Allard's weak response-- "He was merely trying to give Colorado accountants more time to comment."
Strickland had a good line this week during a debate with Allard. He said, "Sen. Allard is the most reliable vote in the Senate for the interests that fund his campaign."
With Allards lead evaporating and the two now in a dead heat (according to Zogby's) and to a three point lead over Strickland according to the Denver Post (4 point margin of error), both sides are funding the race. Bush and Cheney have been filling Allard's coffers. Bill Bradley has come out to fundraise for Strickland. The Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the abortion rights group NARAL, the AFL-CIO and a children's advocacy group are all supporting and contributing to Strickland. Allard reportedly has more money, and unless Strickland stays close, Allard may gain an edge from the final blitz of tv ads.
The reasons we like Strickland, as a person and to be our Senator, are here.
Today we got a fax from the campaign inviting us to a newly scheduled benefit--singer Don Henley, formerly of the Eagles and one of Talkleft's top 3 all time favorites, is coming to Denver Oct. 27 to perform in a Strickland supporter's home-for only 150 people.
The requested contribution is too steep for us ($1,000 to $5,000 per person), but for those of you who haven't made a donation to Strickland yet, if you go here and contribute and then send an e-mail to Melanie the campaign's deputy finance director, and tell her we prompted you to donate, maybe she will let us match your donations and go see Don Henley. Even small amounts are fine.
Via Atrios and Sisyphus Shrugged, these are MoveOn's list of hot senate races and links to each so you can get involved. And thanks to Sisyphus for their very nice compliment to TalkLeft today.
Arkansas: Mark Pryor
http://www.pryor2002.com/vol.htm
Colorado: Tom Strickland
http://www.stricklandforcolorado.com/pageinpage/getinvolved.cfm
Georgia: Max Cleland
http://www.maxcleland2002.com/involved/volunteer/volunteer.html
Iowa: Tom Harkin
http://www.tomharkin.com/get-involved/volunteer-form.cfm
Louisiana: Mary Landrieu
http://www.marylandrieu.com/get_involved.html
Maine: Chellie Pingree
http://www.pingreeforsenate.com/involved/involved.cfm
Minnesota: Paul Wellstone
http://www.wellstone.org/green/volunteer/index.html
Missouri: Jean Carnahan
http://www.jeancarnahan.com/get_involved/
New Hampshire: Jeanne Shaheen
http://www.shaheen.org
New Jersey: Frank Lautenberg
Email: vherold@njdems.org to volunteer for Lautenberg and other NJ Dems.
Please include your phone # and your county, and say "MoveOn sent me."
North Carolina: Erskine Bowles
http://www.erskinebowles2002.com/get_involved/index.htm
Oklahoma: David Walters
http://www.waltersforsenate.com/volunteer.asp
Oregon: Bill Bradbury
http://www.bradbury2002.com/cgi-bin/volunteer.htm
South Dakota: Tim Johnson
http://www.timjohnsonforsd.com/getinvolved/volunteer.php
South Carolina: Alex Sanders
http://www.sanders2002.com/help/index.asp
Political Wire today notes that a recent poll shows Illinois voters are not confused by the two Ryans
For background on this, see our Ryan v. Ryan post.
Attorney General Jim Ryan's complaints that he would have more support for his gubernatorial bid if people didn't confuse him with the man he is trying to replace, Governor George Ryan, don't hold up.
Political Wire reports: "... a Pantagraph/WEEK-TV poll "that sought to clarify his perceived problem shows that only 1 percent to 2 percent of those surveyed were confused about the two Republicans." The poll also found Rod Blagojevich (D) is favored by voters over Ryan 53 to 39 percent. "
| << Previous 12 | Next 12 >> |
