primaries

In 2004 and 2006, I supported Leonard Boswell, Congressman from Iowa's third Congressional district. Boswell has been heavily targeted by the Republican party and tends to squeak by to victory. His age and health were issues in 2006. I supported him through it all.

This year I am supporting a primary challenger to Boswell with some reluctance. Bottom line is I am tired of having to defend the district against increasingly aggressive Republican challenges just waiting for Boswell to retire. The time for him to retire is now and there is an excellent alternative.

Mark Pera is a progressive Democrat running for Congress against a corporate Democrat who is anti-choice, anti-stem cell research and pro-Iraq war. Here is a video of Mark Pera speaking about Healthcare:

Those of us who don't just blindly follow Democratic Party line, but rather push a more progressive agenda, Mike Pera's Feb. 5th primary election is a critical one. Mark is supported by Daily Kos, Democracy for America, Citizens Action/Illinois, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and NARAL/Pro-Choices America. If ending the Iraq war, quality and affordable healthcare for all Americans, choice and stem cell research are your issues, this primary is just as important as any race against a Republican. Mark is also featured in my Primaries Act Blue page, which is designed to highlight progressive Democrats who are involved in primaries against machine or conservative Democrats as well as, in some cases, challenging Republicans.

Tomorrow the primaries/caucuses begin with Iowa. For the Democrats, Iowa and New Hampshire maintain their place as the kick off states for the primaries. The Republicans have thumbed their noses at New Hampshire by intercalating Wyoming after Iowa and before New Hampshire. So be it. Some argue that this whole circus and the prominent places for Iowa and New Hampshire are a dumb way to conduct a primary. I have started to feel that the tradition of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary as leading the way has some merit, though I might add in another state or two within that first week. The reason I like these early testing grounds is that they really are the ONLY time where face-to-face time between candidates and voters is more important than TV spots, and so money may matter just a bit less in the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary than it would in major states like Florida or California. Hire a bus and shake hands and make your case in person seems to be the norm in these two states, and having the first votes come in such an environment may well be a good thing. Let TV advertising take full control after individual voters, poking and prodding the candidates in person have had a shot I say. So maybe I am getting old fashioned, but I think Iowa and New Hampshire are good first testing grounds.

So what does the next month mean for determining our next President. Well, we all know it is probably going to all be over Feb. 5th when a whole slew of states, the biggies included, vote. Anything after that is likely to make little difference...with the caveat that as of now neither the Dem nor the Rep field is clear enough that we are guaranteed clear front runners even after Feb. 5th. But what happens between now and Feb 5th is VERY likely to pare things down to clear frontrunners for each party.

Disappointed with the Democrats these days? Well, I am as well. But what I always keep in mind is that the vast majority of Democrats vote the way I want them to about 90% of the time.

Some tell me that's not good enough. And, perhaps they are right.

The vast majority vote the right way, but in combination with the Republicans, there are still enough Democrats who vote pro-Bush too often to give Bush what he wants.

There are two solutions. Defeat more Republicans, hopefully bringing in more Democrats who really do vote like Democrats and target some Bush-leaning Democrats with primary challenges.

I don't often venture into other people's districts to discuss primaries. But today I want to introduce you to Mark Pera, a grassroots Democrat endorsed by Democracy for America and NARAL. Mark is challenging Dan Lipinski (IL-3), a "Democrat" who is anti-choice, opposed to life-saving stem cell research, and who has voted in favor of Bush's Iraq Quagmire at every chance.

Mark Pera would represent a welcome change in IL-3, bringing in a Democrat that is more in tune with mainstream America and more willing to stand up to Bush's extremist agenda. Lipinski is too entrenched in the era of politics where Democrats were too scared of Bush to do anything but quiver in fear. We need a Democrat with more spine.

Again, I don't often discuss primaries in other states. I have enough to focus on in my own NYC area. But this is one of those cases where the choice is clear: collaboration with Bush (Lipinski) or fighting for mainstream American and Democratic values against Bush's extremism (Mark Pera).

Once upon a time, Senator John McCain was viewed as being one of the more independent-minded Senators, perhaps a smarter and more reasonable alternative to the kind of stupidity and corruption of George Bush and most of the Republican Party (Tom DeLay, Randy Cunningham, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff, Conrad Burns, etc.).

But perhaps we need to consider very closely just what McCain has been doing during Bush's Presidency.

Let's look at how McCain votes.

John McCain is anti-Veteran, ironically, receiving a D rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a zero rating from The Retired Enlisted Association and in 2005 and 2006 he received 25% or below from the Disabled American Veterans.

John McCain has been one of the most anti-choice Senators, receiving zero ratings from Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

John McCain has been anti-farmer, receiving 25% or lower from the National Farmers Union.

John McCain has been weak to terrible on protecting the civil rights of Americans, receiving from 0 to 33% from the American Civil Liberties Union.

John McCain consistently receives less than 25% from the NAACP and less than 20% from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

John McCain is consistently anti-labor, receiveing abyssmal to at best mediocre ratings from just about every union.

Back in 1988, the Democrats fielded a lackluster bunch of candidates that were referred to by the press as "Gary Hart and the Seven Dwarfs." Truth is some of those political "Dwarfs" were actually extremely good people who would have made excellent presidents...my favorite was bow-tie wearing Senator Paul Simon. But the truth was, none of them had broad appeal and the field definitely struck the media and the voters the media influenced as political dwarfs with little national stature. The entry of Joe Biden, one of the LEAST interesting of the 1988 "dwarfs," into the 2008 field of candidates practically forces a comparison with the 1988 situation.

And the comparison is heartening to any good Democrat. In 1988, the Republicans were riding high on Ronald Reagan's popularity. Whatever I might say regarding some disastrous things Reagan did, he certainly knew how to work a crowd and his popularity remains undiminished to this day despite the fact that some of the consequences of his bad policies haunt us to this day. In 1988, the Republican Party was in the ascendancy with its far right wing fringe suddenly in the forefront, with an amiable and genuinely nice man, Ronald Reagan, at its lead. Had it not been for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Sr, would never have been more than a political dwarf himself in presidential politics, though his accomplishments elsewhere were respectable.