2010 House Primaries

By David Swanson

Pretending to end a war and occupation, while stationing 50,000 soldiers, 18,000 mercenaries, and 84,000 support contractors in massive and permanent military bases in Iraq is a far cry from what candidate Barack Obama described as ending "the mind-set that got us into war in the first place."  It fits better with Nobel Peace laureate Obama's description of war as "not only necessary but morally justified."

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.

In the first poll of Democrats who are likely to vote in the September 14 primary, Rep. Charlie Rangel leads with only 39%, according to a new poll by Public Policy Polling for Democrats.com. (Full results)

Incumbents who fall below 50% are generally viewed as endangered.

Rangel leads a crowded field of challengers led by Adam Clayton Powell IV with 21%, Joyce Johnson with 7%, Jonathan Tasini with 6%, and Vince Morgan with 2%. These candidates filed enough petitions to qualify for the ballot, but Rangel's campaign is trying to throw some of those candidates off the ballot by challenging their petitions.

The race is largely a referendum on Rangel himself: 49% approve of Rangel's job performance, 27% disapprove, and 24% are unsure. Rangel's ethics problems are likely to become a central issue in the weeks ahead, as his opponents highlight an ongoing House ethics investigation.

File attachments: 

NY15Results.pdf

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.

Congress lacks leadership. There is a progressive caucus, but it has never fought for anything. It doesn't fund its members' campaigns. It doesn't withhold votes needed for passing bills. It just does rhetoric. There are committees, but they don't subpoena, they don't send the police to pick up witnesses, they don't fine witnesses who refuse to answer questions. Congress thinks oversight was an oversight. If asked to put future generations into debt to fund wars, Congress asks "Would you like a side of drones with that?" Congress doesn't want power.

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.

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:

By David Swanson

I've followed the struggles of progressives within the California Democratic Party from the opposite coast and admired their achievements but wondered about their limitations.  They're the first to pass resolutions opposing wars, but for the most part their members in Congress vote to fund the wars just the same.  I'd rather have a party that "supported" wars but didn't fund them, if that option were available.  I'd rather have a brand new party, if that were possible.  But, given the dominance of the Democratic Party, passing progressive resolutions and working to someday elect progressive representatives looks like an admirable project, and -- at least from afar -- one imagines that it must be having an impact in Sacramento if not yet in Washington.