Massachusetts Chooses Senate Candidates

(This caricature of Ed Markey is by the inimitable DonkeyHotey.)

Last night was primary night in Massachusetts, as the voters of both parties went to the polls to select their candidates for the Senate special election -- being held to fill the seat that was vacated by Secretary of State John Kerry.

For the Democrats, it was a race between progressive Rep. Ed Markey and the more conservative Rep. Stephen Lynch. Markey had led in all the polls, and coasted to a pretty easy win -- getting more than 300,000 votes. On the Republican side, the winner was private equity investor (Romney clone?) Gabriel Gomez -- who got slightly less than 100,000 votes. He was opposed by former U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan and state Rep. Daniel Winslow.

Here are the numbers with 99% of the vote in:

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
Ed Markey...............306,860 (58%)
Stephen Lynch...............226,253 (42%)

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
Gabriel Gomez...............93,819 (51%)
Michael Sullivan...............66,302 (36%)
Daniel Winslow...............24,099 (13%)

Markey and Gomez will now meet in the June 25th special election, and the winner will become the junior senator from Massachusetts. Markey has to be considered the prohibitive favorite.

The Apology Akin Should Have Made

By now you've probably heard that Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri) has made an apology for disprespecting women who have been raped. Well, it was sort of a non-apology apology -- the kind Republicans are famous for making. What he actually said was the he had "mis-spoke", but what he meant was that he should have known better than to tell the truth in an election year.

But The Onion, America's premiere humor and satire site, has their own version of the Akin apology -- and personally, I think it's the one he should have made. Here is part of the Onion version (and I urge you to read the whole thing -- it's hilarious):

As a politician, I often find myself in situations where, unfortunately, I express a certain thought or idea poorly, or find my words taken out of context. Indeed, that is what happened this weekend. Upon reviewing the impromptu remarks I made Sunday afternoon, I can now see that I used the wrong words in the wrong way. I would now like to set the record straight with the American people and clear up some confusion about what it was I intended to convey.

You see, what I said was, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” But what I meant to say was, “I am a worthless, moronic sack of shit and an utterly irredeemable human being who needs to shut up and go away forever.”

It is clear to me now that I did not choose my words with care and did not get across the point I was trying to convey. In hindsight, I guess instead of using the words “legitimate rape,” I should have used the words “I am an unforgivable, unrepentant, and unconscionable subhuman dickhead.” Or better yet, “I am an evil, fucked-up man who should never have been elected to the United States Congress, and anyone who would vote for me is probably a pretty big fucking dumbshit, too.” See how much more sense that makes? It’s amazing how a few key word changes can totally alter the meaning of a statement.

My Apology To Paul Sadler

The gentleman pictured above is former State Representative Paul Sadler. He is currently running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Kay bailey Hutchison. A few weeks ago, when I posted a rundown of the Democratic candidates running for that office, I said I thought Mr. Sadler could well be a "blue dog" -- a Democrat that votes with Republicans more than with his own party.

I based that on what little information I could glean from Sadler's website. The website was (and still is) pretty vague on the issues. Instead. he talks about energy independence, strengthening national defense, and his own "fierce independence". In Texas, that kind of talk can be code for being a "blue dog" (conservative Democrat).

But last week Mr. Sadler gave the Texas Tribune an interview. In it, he came out publicly in support of the president's health care reform, marriage equality, women's health, and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Those are not stands a blue dog would take. It looks like, if elected, Sadler could be counted on in votes critical for the Democratic Party.

I'm sure that Sadler and I will disagree on some issues -- I've never met the candidate I can agree with on everything. But I am sorry I called him a blue dog, and I formally apologize to him for that.

Now I have a hard choice to make between Paul Sadler and Sean Hubbard -- both of whom I think would make a good senator. The Democrats in this year's senate race may not be well-known, but they are solid Democrats and offer the people of Texas a real choice from all the right-wingers running for the Republican nomination. That's a refreshing change.

Elizabeth Warren - An Impressive Candidate

The lady in the picture above is Professor Elizabeth Warren (who teaches at Harvard University). She was the person who was responsible for creating the president's new Consumer Protection Bureau -- which is supposed to protect ordinary Americans from the predatory practices of large banks and corporations. The president had nominated her to also be the first head of that agency, but her nomination was blocked by congressional Republicans (because they knew she would be effective in reining in the greedy and unethical practices of some American businesses -- and they couldn't have that).

That could have been a huge mistake for the Republicans, and may wind up costing them a senate seat. That's because she has gone back to Massachusetts and declared herself as a candidate for the senate seat currently held by Scott Brown. When she was first being considered as a candidate the polls had her 18 points down to Brown. But she now leads him by two points in the latest poll (46% to 44%). That's within the margin of error, but the important thing is that she has gained 20 points in just a few meager weeks, and that's pretty damn impressive.

Some people had said it could be hard for Warren to connect with common people (being a Harvard professor), but that 20 point rise in the polls would tend to belie that notion. And the speech she gave just a few days ago would back that up. Here is just a part of that speech (talking about the debt the rich owe to their fellow Americans):

I hear all this, you know, “Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.”—No! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

I think this dynamic and very smart lady is going to be a great candidate -- and an even better senator.

Have Dems Chosen Sanchez To Run For Senate In Texas ?

Yesterday I posted about the proposed targeting of the senate seat in Texas being vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison by the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC). DSCC chairwoman, Senator Patty Murray of Washington, said Texas was one of six states the committee is going to pump money into in an effort to take a senate seat currently being held by a Republican -- and she said they were close to announcing a candidate.

I had my doubts that a credible candidate could be found that would appeal to voters across the state -- after all, the Democrats haven't held a statewide elected office in over twenty years. I may have been wrong. The political blog Three Wise Men is now reporting that the candidate the DSCC has approached is Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez (pictured), who was not only born in Texas but returned to live in the state after his military retirement.

I'm sure I may disagree with Lt. General Sanchez on some things (but I have never met the person I agree with on everything). Actually I am pretty excited about him being named as a candidate. He's an honest man, a good leader, and a war hero. In addition, he could unify the large Hispanic vote in Texas and also appeal to many independents (who are unhappy with Republican policies on jobs, tax cuts for the rich, education cuts, and abolishing of Medicare). Sanchez is a candidate (if he is really the DSCC choice) who could have a chance of winning.

Sanchez started his military career in the famed 82nd Airborne Division and quickly became a platoon leader. In 1977, he transferred from infantry to armor and served in posts in the U.S., Korea, Germany, and Panama. In 1991, he served as a battalion commander in Operation Desert Storm (leading his units to Basra without any casualties). In June of 2003, Sanchez was given command of Combined Joint Task Force 7 (the coalition forces in Iraq), and was in command when Saddam Hussein was captured (and Saddam's sons were killed).

Lt. General Sanchez retired on November 1, 2006 after a distinguished 33 year career in the United States Army, and returned to his native state of Texas. Although not exactly an outspoken military leader, Sanchez has not been afraid to state his own views. He has said the following about the mainstream media:

The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our servicemen who are at war.

My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your preconceived notions, biases and agendas.

And he is not happy with the tone of politics in Washington either. He said this about politicians:

Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by partisanship as the Republican and Democratic parties struggled for power in Washington. National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising effective, executable, supportable solutions. At times, these partisan struggles have led to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had a greater priority than our national security objectives. Overcoming this strategic failure is the first step toward achieving victory in Iraq — without bipartisan cooperation we are doomed to fail. There is nothing going on in Washington that would give us hope.

I hope Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez is the choice of Democrats to run for the Senate. He has a proven record of independence, intelligence, and leadership. And I believe he could unify the Democratic Party and bring in new voters. He would still have to survive a primary, if chosen by the DSCC, but I don't see any problem there.

The DSCC may have actually done the nearly impossible -- find a viable Democratic candidate to run for Senate in Texas.

NOTE -- A couple of other bloggers, at Brains and Eggs and McBlogger, have a different take on the possible Sanchez candidacy and both are worth reading.

Tx Democrats Searching For A Senate Candidate

When U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison announced recently that she would not be running for re-election in 2012, there began an immediate buzz over who her replacement might be. A whole passel of Republicans have indicated they are interested in the job, and there might be even more before long. But so far, the Democrats have been pretty quiet.

It may be because the Democratic Party was trounced soundly in the 2010 election in every single state-wide race, but no one has come forward yet to declare they are interested in replacing Hutchison. Right now three names are being bandied about. They are John Sharp (who expressed interest when it was thought Hutchison might resign a couple of years ago to run for governor), Chris Bell (who was soundly defeated for governor in 2006), and Chet Edwards (who lost his congressional seat to a teabagger in the last election).

Frankly, none of them excites me very much. They are all "blue dog" conservatives who would do little to help the Democratic agenda in Washington, DC. It looks like the state party hasn't learned its lesson yet, if these are the best names they can come up with. They still seem to think the best way to beat a Republican conservative is with another conservative, when in reality, the best opportunity they would have is to offer the people a real choice -- a progressive who will expose the shortcomings of Republican "trickle-down" policies.

And as the above chart shows (compiled from a University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll), none of these blue dogs has caught on yet with Democratic voters. Bell is garnering the support of 16% of Democrats, while Edwards support comes in at 13% and Sharp's is at 12%. A whopping 59% of Democrats are still waiting for a better candidate. Personally, I'm with that 59% and I'm still hoping a progressive candidate will step forward. I wouldn't mind seeing David Van Os make a run for the office.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are falling all over themselves trying to get their names out there early. So far, six have expressed some interest in the job and it wouldn't surprise me if some more didn't get in the race soon. Here's how they stack up with Republican primary voters so far:

David Dewhurst...............27%
(Lt. Governor)

Michael Williams...............5%
(Railroad Commission)

Michael McCaul...............4%
(U.S. Rep.)

Ted Cruz...............3%
(former Solicitor General)

Elizabeth Ames Jones...............3%
(Railroad Commission)

Roger Williams...............2%
(former Secretary of State)

Other/Don't Know...............57%

As the figures show, the race is wide open in both parties. Dewhurst has the advantage among Republicans, but he is far from wrapping up the nomination. The 2010 result might make some think this senate seat is a shoo-in for the Republicans. I don't think so, unless the Democrats run a very weak candidate (like one of the three mentioned above). A good Democratic candidate could excite the electorate and also take advantage of the increased turnout of a presidential election -- especially if the state party would do a concerted registration and GOTV effort across the state.

Christine O'Donnell - Teabagger Criminal

By now you probably know that the teabaggers in Delaware have decided they would rather have a nut as their candidate for the United States Senate than a Republican moderate with a good chance of winning.   They have nominated Christine O'Donnell, in spite of the fact that her Republican opponent was leading the Democratic candidate in all the polls.   Now O'Donnell is the Republican candidate and trails that same Democrat by double digits.

O'Donnell is just as nutty in her beliefs as the other teabagger candidates -- Sharron Angle (Nevada), Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Joe Miller (Alaska).   They have all taken the lead of their teabagger queen, Sarah Palin, and refused to do interviews with the mainstream media. I really don't blame them because the real journalists would ask about their nutty beliefs like social security being unconstitutional, repealing health care and abolishing Medicare, abolishing the Education Department, giving massive tax breaks to the rich, or teaching creationism in science classes.

But O'Donnel has another reason to avoid all the media except for Fox News (who won't embarrass one of their own with difficult questions).   She has been accused of criminal conduct.   She can't afford to be questioned about that before the upcoming election.   

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a couple of complaints against O'Donnell.   CREW is accusing her of using more than $20,000 dollars in campaign funds for her own personal expenses -- things like rent, gas and food.   A former O'Donnel campaign aide, David Keegan, has filed a sworn affidavit attesting to these charges.

O'Donnell's 2008 campaign manager, Kristen Murray, also backs up the charges saying,   "As O'Donnell's manager, I found out that she was living on campaign donations -- using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt.   She wasn't concerned about conservative causes.   O'Donnell just wanted to make a buck."

Lending credence to the charges is a political disclosure form filed by O'Donnell.   It says that she only had $5800 in income from March 2009 through June 2010 (16 months).   I don't see how any human can live on that and pay her bills without government help like welfare and food stamps (which she says she didn't get).   

The Delaware teabaggers screwed up.   Instead of nominating a fringe kook for elected office, they have nominated a criminal.   Let's hope the decent people and voters in Delaware are smarter than the teabaggers who have taken over the Republican Party in that state.

Richardson Backs Udall For Senate

During this election season, I have been wrapped up in supporting Barack Obama for president and Rick Noriega for the U.S. Senate seat from Texas. I still think both are great candidates, and I will do everything I can to see they both are elected this coming November.

But I was reminded recently that there's another senate campaign going on less than a hundred miles from where I live -- in our neighboring state of New Mexico. New Mexico has a great Democrat running for senate named Tom Udall.

Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, has now thrown his full support behind Mr. Udall. This is what Richardson has to say about Udall:

I've known Tom Udall for more than 25 years. But more than just being my good friend, he has shown himself time and again to be a voice for reason and solid Democratic values.

In fact, he was one of the very few Members of Congress to have the courage to vote against the War in Iraq, even when George W. Bush was stampeding the entire country into an invasion that we now know was completely unjustified and ultimately deeply damaging to America. You can hear Tom talk very eloquently about his plan to end the war by clicking here.

You, I and all of America need his wisdom now in the U.S. Senate--particularly when we've seen how 49 Republicans can block the entire progress of the country through political maneuvering and threats of filibuster.

Without Tom in the Senate, along with a veto-proof Democratic majority, we cannot begin to undo the terrible damage George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republicans have done to our economy, our environment and our future.

Millions of Americans now face home foreclosure while trillions of dollars in personal wealth have been wiped out because of Republican aversion to financial regulation.

37 million Americans face every day without health insurance because of Republican devotion to insurance company profits.

And America is hobbled by its dependence on foreign oil while the Republicans have blocked a meaningful renewable energy policy for the future.

I know that right now the media and many voters are focused on the presidential election. And there is no question that it is critically important. But it is every bit as important that we elect as many Democrats to the Senate as possible.

A Democratic president will need a Senate that will fully support the change America needs now. And if, despite our best efforts, the Republicans hold onto the White House, it will be like a third term for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney unless we have a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

Even though my own presidential bid is over, I remain keenly engaged in this election at every level of government. We have an opportunity to take our country back now that we simply must not miss.

Naturally, my first order of business is supporting Rick Noriega in his battle to unseat John Cornyn. I will keep sending him what I can and will campaign hard for him as the election nears. But I bet I can free up a few dollars to send to our western neighbor, Tom Udall. If you can, then I urge you to do so.

Our new Democratic president is going to need both of these good men to help him in the senate.