great candidate in ways that I cannot (I live in Oregon).
Just for that, I'm going to send him $50 (in part to compensate you for your time on the web finishing up arguments that I started). Thankfully the special election is not close to when I'll need to keep my precious few dollars for ousting my own Republican bogeyman (Senator Smith, OR).
candidates, specifically Laesch and Foster, from on-line forums like MyDD and DailyKos and Swingstateproject, which are heavily dominated by activists and liberals/progressives, but what I read is significant local and grassroots support for Laesch and disdain for Foster, who apparently would be in the mold of Lipinski or Wynn.
I don't see someone like that as being worth supporting, they're often more difficult to unseat than Republicans and undermine Democratic (and democratic) principles whereas Laesch would actually help advance a progressive agenda.
In my eyes, getting 40% against the sitting Speaker in a seat that leans Republican while getting outspent severalfold is a sign of courage that needs to be supported.
But what do I know, I'm not part of the Illinois "party establishment" (like Rahm Emanuel), they surely know better, they wouldn't piss away many millions on their "chosen" candidate like Tammy Duckworth who ultimately gets clobbered while ignoring much more competitive, progressive ones who just need some institutional support, would they?
If it's "just" money, then Obama could presumably go a long way to helping correct that by encouraging donors to send some love his way, on an unofficial level that wouldn't be out in the press. He wouldn't have to actually endorse, just make some phone calls, assuming he agrees with the guy on the issues.
line to the Presidency and arguably the second most powerful politician in the US (behind the President).
Not only would no businesses give money to Laesch or see themselves forever blacklisted (so long as the Repubs stayed in power), but even many people in the district who otherwise would have supported Laesch knew (or at least believed) that they were better off having such a powerful person represent them because of all of the pork he could bring to their district. It's the same reason why so many swing districts elsewhere supported Republicans while they were in power. Now that they're not, many of the newly vulnerable Republican incumbents (like Hastert) are retiring rather than suffer through a tough campaign and potentially the ignominy of defeat.
This time around, Laesch stands a far, far better chance than anyone else, and he's a great progressive. We couldn't ask for a better candidate, both on the issues and for electability.
for the Illinois Republicans, and make Hastert look like former (R) Majority leader Delay (whose seat was lost after he too resigned), by scheduling the special GENERAL election for Feb. 5, when there will be a greater Democratic turnout.
The special primary election could occur, say, Jan. 5 or so.
And hopefully Obama endorses Laesch here and campaigns a bit for him.
could agree with the Gov. Barbour (R) that Barbour can appoint a replacement for Lott, when the law clearly states that he can't "unless the vacancy shall occur in a year that there shall be held a general state or congressional election."
"Shall occur ... an election" does NOT equal "has occurred" an election (future tense vs. past tense). The election in MS has ALREADY occurred, how the heck is that supposed to influence the date of a special election that hasn't yet occurred?
The relevant links are in another diary, but without the updates (found at dailykos) about the MS-SoS capitulating to the Gov. demands.
I thought Lott was retiring this year (2007) to be able to quickly become a lobbyist, which would be impossible if he were to retire next year (2008) because that is when the law will come into effect that makes him have to wait two years to become a lobbyist.
However, if he retires this year, the special election MUST take place within 90 days, whereas if he retires next year, it can take place in November (the former situation better for the Dems and the latter better for the Repubs).
Millionaire Mike Erickson got his head handed to him last time against perennial target Darlene Hooley, garnering only 42.77% of the vote, the worst the Republicans have done in that district since '98!
In an article from a few months back, he mentioned hoping not to spend as much of his own this time and to get some help from the NRCC after his "good showing" last time. Fat chance with that!
OR-05 is even trending our way as the suburbs become gradually more Democratic, and especially in a Presidential year.
I can't overstate my satisfaction at watching egomaniacal Republicans piss away their millions on lost causes, that's money that can't be spent on their other nefarious interests.
It took a backlash of Hispanics in California because of then Republican Gov. Pete Wilson's attempts to deny social services to illegal immigrants (i.e. emergency room care, education of children) for California to become reliably Democratic.
The same will happen in Texas, just the demographics have taken a bit longer to become favorable.
decent things, from a very distant outsider's perspective, like disallowing electronic voting and requiring paper trails (at least that was the impression I had a few months ago, hopefully it's actually happening).
He doesn't seem like a total loony, and supposedly has courted the black voter moderately well.