Today, about 100 House Republicans refused to vote for more war funding, voting 'present'. They are trying to hand off the war to the Democrats, but even Democrats were able to increase their 'no' vote number on funding from 141 to 149; the bill failed. In a separate bill, Republicans also voted against timelines, for torture, and accountability for military contractors, including various elements of a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. This bill passed with 227 votes; last year, it passed with only 218 votes, for a gain of 9.
Finally the GI bill passed with overwhelming margin of 256 votes in the House, including 32 Republicans. It included a war surtax of one half of one percent on people making over $500k a year to pay for the GI bill, at the behest of Blue Dogs. This might actually be the most remarkable piece of the votes today; conservative Democrats agreeing to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for educational benefits for veterans. Bill Foster and Don Cazayoux both voted well on the new GI Bill and on the Responsible Plan bill with timelines, but were 'yes' votes on war funding. So yes, they are conservative, and I expect Childers to be conservative as well. Still, the MS-01, the IL-14 special election result, and the LA-06 special election result - all red seats picked off by Democrats - are devastating Republican discipline in the House.
This war is going to end because it is politically unsustainable. The Senate is going to add the funding back in and the House will make sure the money goes to the war, but recognize how big a deal this is. The Republicans in the House and the Senate are going to utterly collapse this fall, and Democrats will have a mandate to end the war. It's something Obama has promised to do, and now the political logic there is undeniable. The question is whether there will be residual troops in the country, and that is where we can have an impact.
An end to this war means no more troops in Iraq. The Republicans are going to face, as Tom Matzzie said, extinction, because they kept the war going.
Over the last two months, there have have been 3 special elections in which Democrats have been fighting to take back seats from the Republican Party - IL-14, where Democrat Bill Foster was elected to Congress in what used to be Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert's seat; MS-01, where Democrat Travis Childers is seeking to take over Republican Roger Wicker's seat in a special election run-off to be held May 13th; and here in LA-06, we have Don Cazayoux, who is seeking to do what no Democrat has done here in 33 years ... represent the Capital area of Louisiana in Congress.
When I sat down to read what was being said in the world today, I came across Barack Obama's speech in Indiana the night of the Pennsylvania primary. It was the speech we haven't heard from Barack during this 14 month campaign ... as it was a call to action for Democrats.
The money quote, to me, in a speech full of them, was this:
We can seek to regain not just an office, but the trust of the American people, that their leaders in Washington will tell them the truth. That's the choice in this election.
That's what this election right here in Baton Rouge is about. Do we want to listen to the lies of man who knowingly did business with David Duke back in 1996? Or do we want our politicians to tell us the truth about our country, and the choices we will have to make over the next few years?
I'm voting to be told the truth, which is why I am voting for Don Cazayoux. Yeah, that's an endorsement, as Don will level with you on the issues. He'll tell you where he stands, and if he needs more time to look at the issue, he'll tell you that too. Isn't that we should expect from our leaders?
One of the dumbest leverage points of the current political system is how the meaning of elections can be changed simply by having powerful people repeat a bunch of things that aren't true. Especially with modern political campaigns that are fairly complex and keep politicians locked in a fundraising room doing call-time for days at a time, politicians will eventually be affected by the argument that they were elected not based on what they campaigned on, but what they are constantly told they campaigned on. It's much easier to take an election based on populism and turn it around in the mind of the politician than get someone elected based on populism and then convince them to vote for corporate pork.
That's what strategies like this, where Rahm Emanuel is just full of it, are designed to do, to trick the politician into ignoring what he saw with his lying eyes.
Emanuel - a former White House aide, a third-term lawmaker from Chicago and a leading member of the New Democrat Coalition - is nudging the group toward a pro-business agenda with a technology focus. That puts the group at odds with more-liberal Democrats and, on the other end of the political spectrum, out of step with the more conservative Blue Dog Coalition.
Emanuel points to the March election of Bill Foster , a fellow Illinois Democrat, as evidence that New Democrats are on a good course.
Foster campaigned on more federal incentives for research, tougher border security, flexibility on skilled-worker visas and funding for Illinois research laboratories in his effort to succeed former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. (1999-2007).
That is just nonsense. Here's Chris Cillizza, from the farily conservative Washington Post, immediately after the race.
As much as Republican strategists sought to downplay the national importance of the race -- mostly accomplished through bad-mouthing of their candidate -- it's clear that the race was fought on national, not local, issues.
The winner, Democrat Bill Foster, focused heavily on the troubled state of the economy and hit his Republican opponent -- dairy magnate Jim Oberweis -- as a willing advocate for the President Bush and the administration's policies on Iraq. Oberweis and national Republicans, on the other had, cast Foster as a tax-and-spend Democrat willing to throw money at any problem to make it better.
Just look at Foster's ads, where he dedicated most of his resources in communications with the public. Do you see "federal incentives for research, tougher border security, flexibility on skilled-worker visas and funding for Illinois research laboratories" mentioned anywhere? Of course not. That's insane. There's no polling that suggests any of that was important to voters. But don't take my word for it, take the word of Bill Foster's aggregate polling and media operation.
Roughly a million dollars was spent pushing this messaging out into the district, but the meaning of the election is now being twisted so that Rahm gets another vote in his New Democrat Caucus. At least we know that the argument that Federal funding for research dollars mattered, and Iraq was not important, is bullshit, and transparently so.
McJoan has the news on the FISA victory today. It's a bit hard to describe just how much work this took and how significant a change this represents. I never believed we had a chance to stop immunity for telecom companies, I thought it was a fight worth having anyway. But something has shifted in the last few weeks that suggest this Congress is willing to stand up to Bush.
There were always two leverage points for the right on this one. First of all, the fake deadline that would leave our country vulnerable was trotted out as an excuse for expanding wiretapping authority and immunizing telecoms. I had private assurances from senior Democrats that they would make sure that the country fixed this vulnerability before the temporary FISA fix expired in August. Amazingly, the House was willing to let the bill lapse and go back to the 1978 FISA law, and called out the dishonest characterization instead of knuckling under to Bush. Second of all, 21 Bush Dogs wrote a letter asking to pass immunity for telecom companies. Those Bush Dogs create a pro-immunity majority, which gave pro-immunity Rockefeller all the leverage in House-Senate negotiations.
The Republican House secret session nonsense, combined with the amazing organizing by the ACLU and Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Marcy Wheeler and Christie Hardin Smith and good leadership by Pelosi, Conyers, and Hoyer, and some bravery by House freshman Nancy Boyda, brought the Bush Dogs away from their position. An intelligent compromise - that phone companies would be allowed to submit evidence in court despite state secret arguments from the President rather than getting blanket immunity - allowed the Bush Dogs to vote for national security instead of the telecoms.
Here are the Bush Dogs that voted correctly on the FISA bill today (h/t Marcy Wheeler).
Heath Shuler and Chris Carney did their usual Bush enabling. I will have more soon on the amazing victory this vote represents. Democrats do not and have not stood up to Bush and the right-wing on national security, ever. Only this time, they did. And it looks like it might just become a habit. Immediately after the vote, a slew of Democrats running for office issued statements on the vote and at least one referenced Bill Foster's victory. There's nothing stronger in politics than running on an issue, and that's what is happening right now.
Congratulations to all involved. And to the 400 people who gave some cash to Bill Foster, and to the many others who volunteered to get him elected, kudos to you. Elections have consequences.
It didn't take long for Bill Foster to make an impact in Congress.
Foster, a Democratic scientist/businessman, won a special election Saturday to replace retired former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in the House. He was sworn into his seat representing the exurban 14th Congressional District on Tuesday afternoon. By evening, he was casting what was arguably the deciding vote on a white-hot ethics bill.
The bill, pushed aggressively by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), creates an independent, outside panel to investigate ethics complaints against House members. The House approved it last night, 229-182, with most Democrats in favor and most Republicans opposed. That margin is deceptive: Before final passage, the bill first had to clear a much closer procedural vote, which gave House members a chance to kill the idea without, technically, voting against it.
The bill survived that test by a single vote, with Foster voting in favor.
Foster is also making a difference with FISA and retroactive immunity. A few votes either way will make the difference on that one.
As much as Republican strategists sought to downplay the national importance of the race -- mostly accomplished through bad-mouthing of their candidate -- it's clear that the race was fought on national, not local, issues.
The winner, Democrat Bill Foster, focused heavily on the troubled state of the economy and hit his Republican opponent -- dairy magnate Jim Oberweis -- as a willing advocate for the President Bush and the administration's policies on Iraq. Oberweis and national Republicans, on the other had, cast Foster as a tax-and-spend Democrat willing to throw money at any problem to make it better.
The fact that voters in an exurban district that went for Bush by double digits in 2000 and 2004 opted for the Democratic national message is telling. It suggests that the national political landscape is decidedly tilted in Democrats' favor -- that the uneven playing field of the 2006 election is still alive and well.
Internall polling during the Maryland 4th primary also indicated that the election was oriented around national and not local concerns, indicating another change election in 2008. Cillizza looked for Republican-held districts with a PVI of between R+1 and R+5, which is basically a measure of districts that are slightly Republican to fairly Republican, and listed them as possible on the table. 21 of them alone were in Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, which suggests that Clinton might have some serious House coattails.
One interesting note about the FISA fight is how it is politicians from more conservative areas who are both holding the line and calling for retreat. I won't go deeply into the Bush Dogs, 21 of whom signed a letter calling for immunity for telecom companies who broke the law. More interestingly are people like Nancy Boyda and Bill Foster, who bravely spoke out on the issue and asked Democrats to hold the line. Foster did so during a close fought election, and Boyda, I'm told by several reliable sources, spoke out strongly in a caucus meeting demanding that Democrats hold the line despite the advertising run against her in her district. It is these politicians who we should laud for their work just as we criticize those who choose what is easy.
And now on to Foster, and how his race intersects with FISA and Iraq. Blue Majority bet big on both the Robin Weirauch OH-05 special election and the Bill Foster IL-14 special election. Weirauch lost, and Foster won.. More interestingly, the trends that Chris and I noticed in the 2006 MyDD/Courage Campaign polling project - that mentioning you are a Democrat and mentioning Iraq tend to drive support - still seem operative. Weirauch ran an antipartisan 'Washington is broken' campaign, not mentioning Iraq in her ads and refusing to run as a Democrat. Bill Foster, by contrast, ran with 'Businessman, Scientist, Democrat' on his web site, and put withdrawing troops from Iraq front and center in his paid media. And the results seem fairly clear. Weirauch did not shift her losing margin at all, whereas Foster took a district held by Speaker Dennis Hastert and won it by a clear majority.
National security was front and center in the IL-14 race, and when given the choice, even voters in a Republican district chose the Democrat because he was clear and strong on the core challenges of the Bush administration, Iraq and elite lawlessness. Oberweis accused Foster of raising the White Flag, but it didn't work. Now, critics of the theory of why Foster won will point to a bloody Republican primary in IL-14, arguing that Oberweis was weakened more than Latta, but there was an equally bloody primary in OH-03. And while Latta was a better candidate than Oberweis, it's hard to imagine that could account for the entirety of the shift in IL-14 and the fact that there was no shift of margins in OH-03.
The fact is that national security, and specifically, Iraq, is a winning formula for Democrats. Bill Foster ran as a Democrat and ran on Iraq. He also ran on retroactive immunity, as I noted before our endorsement:
"The President and his allies in Congress are playing politics with national security, and that's wrong. Nobody is above the law and telecom companies who engaged in illegal surveillance should be held accountable, not given retroactive immunity. I flatly oppose giving these companies an out for cooperating with Alberto Gonzalez on short-circuiting the FISA courts and the rule of law."
Any nonsense that Bush Dog Democrats, especially people like Melissa Bean who are in similar GOP-leaning areas need to hold the interests of telecom companies because they have to vote with their district is just cover for them enabling more power to Bush. In Bill Foster we have a Democrat winning in a blood red district calling for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and protection for civil liberties over fake claims of urgency by his opponent. There can be no more crystal clear proof than taking Dennis Hastert's district that the Republican fear fear fear message does not work as long as it is called out by strong and forceful Democrats.
Democrats should hold firm on issues like FISA and Iraq, not just because it's the right thing to do but because that is precisely what voters are clearly demanding. And candidates should run on these issues; Iraq is not off the table, voters don't like lawbreaking from their leaders, and everyone wishes George Bush had never happened.
I think Bill Foster's got this one, with 88% of the precincts reporting he's holding on to a 53-47 lead and a 4300 vote margin. There are only 10,000 to 15,000 more votes to count, so unless Oberweis takes 65-70% of the remaining vote, he can't win. I find that scenario extraordinarily unlikely.
Update: Foster is up 53-47 with 93% of the precincts reporting. Unless Oberweis takes 9 out of every 10 votes, he's lost. And that's not going to happen.
Congratulations to Bill Foster. We have one more seat in the House, one more Democrat who said the following.
The President and his allies in Congress are playing politics with national security, and that's wrong. Nobody is above the law and telecom companies who engaged in illegal surveillance should be held accountable, not given retroactive immunity. I flatly oppose giving these companies an out for cooperating with Alberto Gonzalez on short-circuiting the FISA courts and the rule of law.
And this wasn't some one-off statement on national security; Bill Foster ran strong on Iraq the whole campaign, with several ads focused on withdrawal and the costs of the war. This was a heavily Republican district that turned on an anti-war and pro-civil liberties message to a Democrat.
... I'm talking Bob Creamer, and he tells me that Moveon had 150 volunteers on the ground. A whole lot of Republican seats are now in play.
Update: The Beacon News calls it for Foster, as does CNN. This is a big boon for Obama's coattail argument.
Foster's 53-47 margin is holding, with 64% of the returns in. The vote margin is expanding slightly, at 35,619 to 31,960. Oberweis needs to take 55% of the remaining vote to win this.
The AP has their numbers here, the Beacon News is here, and dmsilev is liveblogging all the individual counties here. The largest county, Kane County, has returns here.
Update: Foster Up 53-47, with 74% reporting. Oberweis needs to take 58% of the remaining vote, I don't know where he can find that kind of margin. The district is Republican but not that Republican.
Update 2: 79% reporting, Foster up 53-47: Oberweis needs 61% of the remaining vote.
Update 3: 88% reporting, Foster up 53-47. This one's done.
Let's see how it goes. According to Prairie State Blue, Foster had a good GOTV operation out, while Oberweis people were "nowhere to be found".
While I'd like to see that as a sign of optimism, it's not really useful information without more context, especially in a Republican leaning district. GOTV operations are not always visible.
UPDATE: It looks like the layout of the ballot favored Oberweis, as the first comment in this blog post suggests. I doubt that matters much, since this is a special election and people know who they are voting for. I'm talking to a friend on the ground, he says that Foster has around 650 people on the ground, and Oberweis doesn't have much GOTV out as far as anyone can tell. Turnout is low in Elgin, which is one of Foster's base areas...
UPDATE 2: Foster's up 55-45, 3603-2917 with 2 of 568 precincts reporting.
UPDATE 3: Oberweis up, 55-45 4,173-3,358 votes with 1% reporting. Kane County is showing a slightly narrower margin. It does not look great for Foster tonight.
UPDATE 4: 3% reporting, 53-47, 5047-4389
UPDATE 5: Slightly better news for Foster, Illinois reports returns county by county, and Foster is making up ground in Kane County, the largest county in the district and the place where some of his base areas are. That gap closed to 50.48 to 48.5, a 360 vote gap. Kane is still a Republican County, so this could be a good sign.
UPDATE 6: Foster Up 56-44, 14% reporting, 13606-10769 votes. The margin has not closed in Kane, so other counties are reporting in.
UPDATE 7: Foster Up 54-56, 16% reporting, 14,549-12,213 votes in. Kane County has basically evened up. For a frame of reference, Kane delivered 77k-60k votes for Bush over Gore.
UPDATE 8: Ok, Foster took a 50 vote lead in Kane County. It's not relevant to the overall total, but it's a good sign.
UPDATE 10: 35% reporting, Foster up 54-46, 22,039 - 18,440. Oberweis needs to bring in 52.3% of the remaining vote to win this, Foster only needs to pull in 47.6% to take a majority. Foster has taken a lead in Kane County of 300 votes.
Some of the more significant GOP counties, including Kendall and Lee, have yet to report. So don't get your hopes up. And can I say that Illinois's non-consolidated county-by-county returns really make this annoying. This is my second live-blog of an Illinois Congressional election, and neither was easy to follow. The AP, the Beacon-News, and the Kane County website all have different numbers.
Update 11: 55% reporting, Foster up 53-47, 31,423 to 28,210. While it looks like Foster is going to win, I don't trust these aggregate numbers to be that accurate. It does look like Foster is cleaning up in suburban Kane County.
In the poll of 517 likely special election voters, conducted by Survey USA exclusively for Roll Call on March 3 and 4, physicist Bill Foster (D) led dairy company executive Jim Oberweis (R) 52 percent to 45 percent. The poll had a 4.4-point margin of error.
Foster appeared to test particularly well with women and independent voters, who preferred him by a 3-2 margin. The survey also suggested Foster had locked down his party's base, taking 97 percent of likely Democratic votes and perhaps stealing 10 percent of likely GOP votes.
In contrast, Roll Call's poll suggested that 89 percent of likely Republican special election participants pulled the hypothetical lever for Oberweis, owner of a eponymous multi-state retail ice cream chain. The survey also showed that Oberweis drew dramatically fewer potential party switchers than Foster - just 3 percent.
Self-defined independents, who are expected to make up one-quarter of Saturday's electorate, picked Oberweis 38 percent of the time in Roll Call's hypothetical matchup.
Obama's favorable/unfavorable in the district is 49/35, which is good. But what really matters is whether voters are persuaded by Obama's endorsement, and the poll doesn't reveal that information.
It's a Republican district and a Saturday election, and in situations like that the incumbent party is at an advantage. This is a goo drace for two reasons. One, FISA and Iraq are core issues, and two, we'll get to see if Obama has coattails for other Democrats. According to the polls here, it looks like Foster is getting party switchers and independents. But the vote hasn't happened yet.
Republican businessman Jim Oberweis ripped his scientist opponent Bill Foster as a man who understands the atom but not economics while debating a final time before a March 8 election to fill Dennis Hastert's congressional seat.
"I'm afraid that while Bill is very, very smart when it comes to quantum physics, his lack of understanding of how the economy works and the mortgage industry works . . . is pretty limited," Oberweis said.
Foster, 52, a Democrat and former Fermilab physicist from Geneva, countered by saying Oberweis is a man who plays on people's fears. He pointed to a notorious commercial in which Oberweis, 61, flew over Soldier Field in a helicopter while saying enough illegal aliens enter the country every week to fill the stadium.
"I think [Oberweis] is rather famous for flying around in helicopters and inciting people's passion and irritation," Foster said.
Foster is a successful businessman and scientist. Oberweis is a dairy tycoon who demagogues immigrants.
We'll see on Saturday. This one's a GOTV operation election since it's not a normal election day, and those special elections tend to benefit the incumbent party unless there's some unique circumstance. We'll see if the new internet-infused GOTV operation courtesy of Obama is such a spark.
UPDATE: This is crazy. The hardcore right-wing Sam Zell-owned Chicago Tribune has endorsed Bill Foster
This page is closer to Oberweis than Foster on several economic and foreign policy issues. But we watched Oberweis in his races for the U.S. Senate in 2002 and 2004, and for governor in 2006. We've watched this race for Congress. His campaign style has consistently been nasty, smug, condescending ... and dishonest.
In 2004, he ran an ad in which he hovered over Soldier Field in a helicopter and said 10,000 illegal aliens come to the U.S. each day, "enough to fill Soldier Field every single week." The number was grossly inflated and the ad smacked of fear-mongering.
In 2006, he ran TV ads that used headlines from the Tribune and other newspapers to attack an opponent. But the headlines were fake. They hadn't appeared in the newspapers.
This year, Oberweis' campaign is based on the notion that his opponent is a big-spending liberal. Oberweis' TV and radio ads quote Foster saying, "There's nothing in life that you can't improve by pouring money at it. ..."
Foster did say that, at a League of Women Voters debate. But the transcript makes it clear he was talking about the federal government's "poor efforts" to improve air-traffic-control safety. His conclusion: "This is one example of a place I would look to save taxpayer dollars."
And Oberweis' immediate response at the debate? He said: "I find myself in the almost embarrassing position of tending to agree with Bill on some of his comments there."
The sum impression of Oberweis from four campaigns: He sees public office as an opportunity to pick a fight.
Bill Foster tells us that he will be a Blue Dog Democrat -- that is, part of the moderate caucus in the House that puts a high priority on controlling federal spending and returning to a balanced budget. He would almost certainly have to take a moderate Democratic line to hold this seat from a district that gave President Bush 55 percent of the vote in 2004 and 54 percent in 2000, and elected Hastert to 11 terms in the House.
He surely will be more willing than Oberweis is to listen to people with whom he disagrees. So we'll trust Foster when he says he would emphasize transparency, responsibility and bipartisanship in government. He is endorsed.
I've blogged before about Foster's Blue Dog statements, but I also think it's significant that he's running on FISA, Iraq, and suggesting that he disagrees with Blue Dogs on the foreclosure crisis. This is no Brad Ellsworth, he's more of a Patrick Murphy type. Goldenstar notes that Blue Majority candidate Dan Seals is asking volunteers to help out Foster, as is Jan Schakowsky and Obama.
In less than a week, there's a special election to fill a Congressional seat in Illinois's 14th district. This one was the seat held by Dennis Hastert, former Republican Speaker of the House during the most destructive political period we may see in our lifetimes. Because of that legacy of failure, and because of the special dynamics of 2008, we might be able to turn this red district blue in a foreshadowing of the election in November. The Democrat, Bill Foster, and the Republican, Jim Oberweis, are pretty much tied in the polling. This is a race with potentially far reaching impacts, and it's one where some support from our communities can be helpful. Here's legal legend Larry Lessig, one of the coiners of the term 'net neutrality' who decided earlier this year not to run for Congress.
So just off the phone with Bill Foster, a physicist from Illinois, Democrat, running in a special election to fill Dennis Hastert's seat. When I started to think about this run, Foster was a model. A former researcher at Fermilab, and entrepreneur, he is precisely the sort a changed Congress would need.
"Seven hours a day" on the phone raising money. And with a Special Election just 10 days away, they're pushing to raise a final $200,000 to run an endorsement ad from Barack Obama.
Seven hours a day. Wow.
Foster is running for Dennis Hastert's old seat, a 55% Bush 2004 voting district. Despite the redness of the district, he is running clearly on the issue of Iraq with several ads calling for the end of the war (here's ad one and ad two on Iraq), and he has on his web site 'Businessman, Scientist, Democrat'. He is against retroactive immunity for telecoms, and his opponent is for letting lawbreakers off the hook. This is no shrinking violet running a vague anti-DC message, this guy is a Democrat running as a Democrat on the Iraq war and FISA in a red district.
And now Foster needs $200k to run an endorsement ad by Barack Obama in Illinois. This is a test run of the 2008 elections, and we'll know soon if Obama has the coattails to drive increased Democratic majorities in Congress. I don't agree with Foster on everything, and I don't expect any of us to be perfectly satisfied with any member of Congress. But taking Dennis Hastert's old seat with a proud scientist and Democrat running against the war and strongly for civil liberties under the ticket of the probable Democratic nominee in 2008?
That's a great Blue Majority candidate. Give a few bucks, it's a good chance to have
a meaningful impact. Since I can't volunteer for Foster in Illinois, I threw in $25.
This is a useful investment in changing the country and changing the party. If he wins, or even comes close, it'll be one more sign the House does not have to cave on FISA, and one more sign that the Obama wave will be able to build a more progressive America. If he doesn't, we'll learn and be able to shift messaging, like we did with Busby's special election victory in CA-50. Either way, it makes sense to be involved.
UPDATE: That's a big slug of donations! $2000 from 27 of you in a few hours. Progressive Democratic leader Jan Schakowsky is really excited about this one and will be door-knocking on election day. Also, Patrick Murphy's people are on the ground to help, so you're in good company.
"The President and his allies in Congress are playing politics with national security, and that's wrong. Nobody is above the law and telecom companies who engaged in illegal surveillance should be held accountable, not given retroactive immunity. I flatly oppose giving these companies an out for cooperating with Alberto Gonzalez on short-circuiting the FISA courts and the rule of law."
Bill Foster, Democratic Candidate in IL-14 March 8th Special Election
I criticized Foster on his attraction to the Blue Dogs as fiscally responsible (and this statement on the beauty of bipartisanship), but I was quite open-minded about his candidacy. He's running on Iraq, as a Democrat, Scientist, and Businessman, and he's against immunity for telecom companies. I hope he doesn't become a Blue Dog, but overall I'm pretty happy that he's got a shot and if you're in the area you should volunteer and help out his campaign. At the very least he'll be another good vote on FISA, and he might be pretty progressive in Congress. I mean he's a scientist.
After beating 2006 Hastert opponent John Laesch in the primary, Democrat Bill Foster is running in a special election in Illinois's 14th against Republican Jim Oberweis, who is so unpopular that he lost to Alan Keyes in a primary (update: well sort of, there's more detail in this comment). This is Dennis Hastert's old district, a 55% Bush voting area in 2004.
Paying down this debt must be the first order of business. I intend to work with the Blue Dog Democrats in congress -- a group dedicated to curing this by making the hard decisions necessary -- as well as any other groups that make deficit reduction their top priority. I'm sure that I'll be at odds with the Blue Dogs on more than a few issues - for example mortgage industry reform - but when it comes to deficit reduction, we all agree that we have to get our house in order.
I don't like that he's going to become a Blue Dog, but I do like that he's willing to break with them. Still, because of the Blue Dog association I won't put any of my energy into the race, though I might change my mind depending on what I hear from him on the FISA legislation. It's not reasonable to hold Foster responsible for the Blue Dog caucus, since he probably doesn't understand just how corrupt they are and actually believes that they want to deal with the budget instead of raise military spending and cut everything else. And I do like his slogan, 'Businessman, Scientist, Democrat'. But it's too bad he has associated himself tightly with that group; with some exceptions, they are bad people and he shouldn't go near them with a ten foot poll.
What makes the race interesting is that Foster is polling pretty well, down 45-43 with 12% undecided. Considering the margin of error, it's tied. I posted a polling memo below, and it shows that Foster takes a lead when both candidates bios are read. Since the memo doesn't actually say what those bios are, I don't trust them.
The other point of interest is that Foster's ads focus on Iraq and ending combat operations versus his opponent's position of keeping troops there for ten years. It's kind of weaselly language, frankly, since ending combat operations can mean pretty much anything. I can see our troops engaging in a 'training operation' or operating in an 'advisory capacity', which is why the language is so transparently noncommittal, though it does actually paint some sort of contrast with his Republican opponent, who wants our troops there for at least ten more years. With the partition idea out there, it's a reasonable assumption that Foster thinks that keeping troops in Iraq makes sense.
Foster's first ad points out that the Iraq war is diverting resources from health care and other economic problems.
And this one contains a promise to an end combat operations.
Patrick Murphy is a strong supporter of Foster, and he is pushing aggressively to get him in office. This is a good test of a generic Iraq change message in a fairly red though not overwhelmingly red district. Right now, no one's convinced me this is a particularly important race for anything but tactical reasons, since it's entirely unclear to me that Foster is a progressive and I have asked Foster's staff for a statement on FISA.
What happens in Podunk shouldn't stay there. Or at least if it does, the Democratic Party Establishment, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, the Blue Dogs among us, will have won one more unrecorded battle against those of us who want real change.
What's happening most immediately in the IL-14 corner of Podunk (a term I use here to describe anything not directly inside the DC Beltway) is a primary and a special primary on Tuesday, between the DC insider "pick" for our district, an attorney who is a relative newcomer to both politics and our area, and John Laesch, the nominee against Denny Hastert last time out, and the only progressive in the race.
At this point, I'd call it a significant bellwether for the upcoming Congressional elections that virtually no one outside of IL-14 is paying much attention to in the glare of the presidential race, as well as a bellwether event in the battle for control of the party. So while I don't expect this diary to get much attention, I want to leave a record of what has happened in this primary. Bellwethers, however unobserved at the time, sometimes have a way of becoming useful history for those who follow.
Not long ago, I ran across this comment from a dedicated Foster volunteer and supporter:
This will be unpopular... (0.00 / 0)
...but you know I'm going to say it anyway!
I am much more interested in what goes on in Northern IL than I am in what happens downstate. With work, I get more than my fill of politics in Springfield and the rest of the cornfields in IL. I just really don't care what is happening in politics in Podunk, IL unless it's really sexy and scandalous. Otherwise, I am bored. (emphasis added)
by: bridgetdooley @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 22:18:39 PM CST
As anyone who lives in Illinois knows, anything not in the City or collar counties is routinely considered "downstate" (aka "Podunk" to Ms. Dooley) even if it's north of Chicago. The distinction here, if you are local, is that Kane and (parts of) Kendall, being collar counties, are typically considered part of the greater Chicagoland region, while everything west of the urbanized strip on the far east of IL-14 really qualifies as "downstate."
So, a couple of weeks ago, I was in a public place, right here in St. Charles, Illinois, when I overheard a conversation that alarmed, but failed to surprise, me. The person doing most of the talking was -talking- complaining bitterly about her new job in an area public elementary school. Not a St. Charles school and not an educator. She's a peripheral professional who has frequent contact with children however, and that's bad enough.
Her major complaint? "All these Hispanic children."
According to her, not only are "all these Hispanic children" unable to communicate, they are "aggressive and obnoxiously rude - especially the girls." I was supposed to be paying attention to what the person in front of me was saying and lost some of the conversation I was overhearing, but suspect her companion must have voiced some objections, because she started trying to -explain herself- dig herself in deeper.
Democrat Bill Foster appears to be a front-runner in the 14th Congressional fundraising race, having amassed an estimated $408,000 campaign war chest during the most recent period, he told supporters in a conference call Tuesday.
More than 80 percent of Foster's donors are first-time donors, and nearly three-quarters are scientists like Foster, a former Fermilab physicist.
-snip- More than 650 individual donors contributed to Foster's campaign this quarter and the average contribution is $315, according to a campaign spokesman. This is his first run for political office.
The Right to Respond in this case relates to a post I made on Saturday evening about the IL-14 primary, IL-14: Differentiating Between Blue Dogs and Bush Dogs. In that post, I openly wondered if Bill Foster was positioning himself to become a Bush Dog by announcing his planned affiliation with the Blue Dogs. This is the campaign's response. Judge for yourself if you feel it is adequate--Chris
First, thanks to Chris for the opportunity to tell folks here at OL a little more about myself and about this campaign and to answer some of the concerns raised.
On the campaign trail, I tell voters most often about my background as a scientist and businessman, but I realize that probably doesn't signal as much about my politics and values as some folks in the netroots would appreciate, so before I talk issues, let me talk about my family.
My mom and dad met on Capitol Hill while my mom was working for Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois and my dad was working for Senator Myers of Pennsylvania. Mom came from a family of inventors and dad was a chemist before taking up what would be one of his many achievements: his work on the civil rights movement.
