by craverguy, Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:38:37 AM EST
In 2006, Iowa State Representative Ed Fallon launched a campaign for Governor.
While his opponents took full advantage of Iowa's lax campaign finance laws, Ed Fallon limited himself to $2400 in donations per donor.
While his opponents hemmed and hawed and hedged on gay rights and a woman's right to choose, Ed Fallon stood up for women's rights and for marriage equality.
While his opponents offered no new solutions to the state's health care crisis, Ed Fallon bravely bucked the conventional wisdom by producing a plan for universal, single-payer health care.
While his opponents signed on with the corporate welfare mentality alive and well in Des Moines, Ed Fallon announced that as Governor he would oppose such multi-million-dollar boondoggles as the grossly-misnamed Iowa Values Fund and redirect the money to help small business.
While his opponents took millions of dollars from casino interests and factory farmers, Ed Fallon refused their money, opposed legalized gambling and deregulation of CAFOs, and proposed a statewide Clean Elections law.
And though Ed Fallon was supposed to finish with as little as 5% of the vote, on primary day he received 26%, carrying eight counties across the state, including the largest, Polk County. And he was the top vote-getter for the entire 3rd Congressional District.
Now Ed Fallon is running for Congress in the 3rd District, seeking to challenge for renomination one of the top DINOs in the House: Leonard Boswell.
by craverguy, Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:10:39 PM EDT
I'm sorry, but they really are.
On February 6, 2007, Louisiana State Senator Walter Boasso announced that he was running for Governor. He was definitely a Republican at the time. We know this because, in 2003, he was elected to the Senate...as a Republican. And in his announcement, he declared himself to be...Republican. However, he quickly discovered that while U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal had locked up the GOP machinery and pretty much sucked all the oxygen out of the race for Republican votes, the Democrats were without a candidate. So, in April, he just became a Democrat.
Now he's running as a hard-hitting populist, taking on the insurance and oil companies (who he apparently never had a problem with before now), criticizing Jindal's links to President Bush (who he himself endorsed in '04), and talking up his opposition to the Iraq war (which would be meaningful if he was running for some sort of federal office). And Democratic voters are eating it up. He's gone from 2% before the switch to between 10% and 21% now, depending on the poll.
Meanwhile, the "other" Democrat in the race, Foster Campbell, who was a Democratic State Senator for 15 years, was a Democratic candidate for Congress, and was elected to the Louisiana Public Service Commission as a Democrat, is still in single digits in the polls.
by craverguy, Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:31:04 AM EDT
MSNBC is reporting that Mitch Landrieu, Lt. Governor of Louisiana and brother of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, is running for re-election and not for Governor.
This is good news for progressives. Landrieu has the sort of name recognition and insider connections that would almost guarantee him a slot in the run-off election, but his good ol' boy style of politicking would have almost assuredely meant that if he were able to win the election, it would be business as usual in Baton Rouge.
So, who else is looking at running?
by craverguy, Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 01:33:11 AM EDT
With the news on Friday that former Senator John Breaux will not run for Governor of Louisiana, I have come to renew my pitch that MyDD, and the rest of the netroots community, rally around the candidacy of Foster Campbell.
by craverguy, Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:57:12 PM EDT
Everything I've been reading about the race for Governor of Louisiana says that former U.S. Senator John Breaux is the only chance the Democrats have of retaining the office. But is he?
All of the polling done on the race has been, essentially Blanco v. Jindal, with a little bit of Breaux v. Jindal recently. But Blanco and Breaux are not the only Democrats in the race, and one of them bears examination by the netroots.
by craverguy, Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:57:40 PM EDT
Call me stupid, but I really don't see why Edwards has to have a running mate whose a minority or a woman. Shouldn't the selection be based on standards of competence, experience, and agreement on the issues between the two, rather than politically correct aesthetics?
Is there a particular reason why Barack Obama would make a better running mate than, say, Sherrod Brown?
by craverguy, Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:49:17 AM EDT
Fundamental Change For America And The World
By John Edwards
March 15, 2007
Manchester, New Hampshire
A little more than three years ago, I gave a speech here in New Hampshire I called "In Defense of Optimism." Some of you probably wonder if I could give a similar speech today. After all, a lot has happened since then -- and a lot of it hasn't been good; the escalation of the war in Iraq, the aftermath of Katrina, health care costs rising, incomes staying flat, mounting evidence of global warming. I could go on.
But as a matter of fact, I am still optimistic -- maybe even more so than I was then. I am still optimistic that America can be a country where anyone who works hard is able to get ahead and create a good life for their family. I am optimistic that we can restore America's moral authority. The challenges may be larger, and we may have even more work to do to build a country that lives up to our ideals and our potential. But we can do it.
by craverguy, Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:39:22 AM EDT
Damn Right, We're Angry
By Paul Waldman
March 14, 2007
We can't deny it any longer. There's no point in hiding it, no point in trying to explain it away. Yes, it's true: We progressives are angry. And we no longer care if the centrist, moderate guardians of the establishment scold us for it.
Our anger is not just some vague feeling whose source we can't put our finger on. It isn't based on absurd conspiracy theories and it isn't illogical.
We're angry because of what has happened to our country, because of how we've been treated, and because of the innumerable crimes the conservatives have committed. We're angry at the president, we're angry at the Congress, we're angry at the news media. And we have every right to be.
Yes, we're angry at George W. Bush. We're not angry at him because of who he sleeps with, and we're not angry at him because we think he represents some socio-cultural movement we didn't like 40 years ago, or because he hung out with a different crowd than we did in high school. We're angry at him because of what he's done.
by craverguy, Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:55:04 AM EDT
The '08 campaign season is only four months old (good God, how did it start so early?), and already my choices have me in a blue funk.
For exactly two years, I was a Russ Feingold supporter. I followed his every move via Google News, I joined the Draft Feingold sites, I recommended Feingold-centric diaries on MyDD.
When Feingold announced that he wasn't running, I was left adrift from my '08 moorings. Having heard good things about Edwards' stance on poverty, I joined the bandwagon and became an Edwards man.
Recent events, however, I have been forced to reappraise that decision. I am speaking, of course, of the health care plan, and Edwards' belligerent speech in Herzliya, Israel. The health care plan I can forgive -- so it's not single payer, I can deal with that -- but the Herzliya speech demonstrates fairly clearly that Edwards has learned nothing from the failure of the Iraq war, that he still believes in the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, and he still feels the need to bow and scrape before the Lobby That Wes Clark Dares Not Name.
So I am left with, essentially, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich as my choices, neither one of whom, of course, has any chance to win. And frankly, that has me a little pissed off.
by craverguy, Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:49:02 PM EST
December 4, 2006 Issue
Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative
Return of the Native
The Left begins to recognize that it can't simultaneously fight for its working-class base and the multicultural agenda.
by Kara Hopkins
The editors of The Nation are confounded. "What's Fueling the New Nativism?" they asked. Their readers answered: we are.