We spend
so much time condemning the politicians that we don’t like and seem just like
pawns of the wealthy, the lobbyists representing the interests of the wealthy,
and the poll followers, we often lose sight of congressional representatives
that do possess great integrity and want to do right by the country whether it
is popular or not.
As I set
out to make such a list I struggled. I came up with Elizabeth Warren who is the
only member of congress that has been reported by the media as a woman of good
common sense who in clearly on the side of the middle class. Herb Kohl who is
retiring has also done great work. I get his web page and it is clear he does good
things. I also get our Governor’s web which is unimpressive unless you are fond
of spin. I also thought of Russ Feingold who did really good work, but lost his
last election. I still get his web page or emails and am impressed by his
continuing commitment to good government. After than I ran out of ideas. Below
are ones I picked from Mother Jones (quoted material) who I trust to give good
insight that matches my own values system. I would be curious as to others
input.
Elizabeth
Warren
The Boston Globe calls her “… the plainspoken voice of
people getting crushed by so many predatory lenders and under regulated banks.”
TIME magazine has called her a “New Sheriff of Wall Street” and has twice
included her among America’s 100 most influential people.
”There are plenty of people in Washington looking out for
the billion dollar corporations and lobbying for Wall Street. I’ve been an
outsider, but for years, I’ve been fighting for middle class families, taking
on big banks, putting forward new ideas, and working to turn those ideas into a
reality that makes a difference for people. That’s what I’ll keep doing once
I’m in the U.S. Senate. I’ll be there fighting for small businesses and middle
class families.”
Herb Kohl
Herb Kohl was elected to the Senate in 1988 and re-elected
to a fourth six-year term in 2006. Kohl was born and raised in Milwaukee, where
he attended public school. He earned his bachelor's degree from the University
of Wisconsin-Madison in 1956 and a master's degree in business administration
from Harvard University in 1958. Kohl served in the Army Reserve from 1958 to
1964. [see his website for more information.
Hakeem Jeffries (New York): "Income inequality is worse now that it has
been since prior to the Great Depression," the state assemblyman said
during a passionate
speech at an Occupy rally in Brooklyn this fall. In January, Jeffries announced
that he'd run for Congress in New York's Tenth Congressional District against
15-term incumbent Ed Towns, who'd angered labor unions when he cast the
deciding vote in 2005 for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Since
then, Jeffries has picked up endorsements in the Brooklyn district from
prominent unions such as the Communications Workers of America.
Lori Saldaña (California): "Lori Saldaña has leapt headlong into the
Occupy movement," writes the San Diego Union-Tribune. While that may be
a bit of an overstatement, the Democratic former assemblywoman certainly caters
to the cause with her campaign slogan: "Fighting for America's middle
class." In January, she joined a rally organized by Occupy the Courts in
protest of Supreme Court rulings that give corporations the rights of people.
Alan Grayson (Florida): Nobody running for Congress has done more to side
with Occupy Wall Street than the outspoken former congressman from Orlando.
In October onReal Time with Bill Maher, Grayson destroyed
conservative pundit PJ O'Rourke with a fiery defense of the movement. A clip from the segment now
features in an Occupy-themed video that automatically plays on the Grayson
campaign's homepage. Beloved by progressives for his voting record and
willingness to go on the attack—he likened Dick Cheney a blood-sucking vampire and summed up Republicans' health care plan as
"die quickly"—Grayson lost his reelection bid in 2010 but is
attempting a comeback in Florida's new Democratic-leaning 9th Congressional District.
Norman Solomon (California): A well-known political author and activist,
Solomon is a feisty underdog in a race to fill an open congressional seat that
includes ultra-liberal Marin County and parts of Northern California's
pot-friendly Emerald Triangle. He has visited Occupy protests in seven towns
across the district, making the movement a central focus of his campaign.
"From Manhattan to Marin County and beyond people are anguished,
disgusted, angry, and—increasingly—determined," Solomon wrote on his website after attending an Occupy protest
in San Rafael. He pledges not to accept any donations from corporate political
action committees, arguing that "corporate money is habit-forming."
Eric Griego (New Mexico): One of the most progressive members of the state
senate, Griegogave a
speech at Occupy Santa Fe this fall denouncing corporate personhood. He's also
one of a handful of elected officials who signed Occupy Santa Fe's "99
Pledge," a commitment to vote for rigorous campaign finance reform.
Prospects: Good. Griego's centrist primary challenger for the vacant seat, former Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez, is tainted by the arraignment* of his live-in girlfriend on embezzlement charges. But another contender in the race could divide the progressive vote to Chavez's advantage.
Prospects: Good. Griego's centrist primary challenger for the vacant seat, former Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez, is tainted by the arraignment* of his live-in girlfriend on embezzlement charges. But another contender in the race could divide the progressive vote to Chavez's advantage.
Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts): In an interview this fall with the Daily Beast, the
Harvard Law prof took credit for creating "much of the intellectual
foundation" for Occupy Wall Street. (Read our profile
of Warren here.) She didn't back down when Republicans tried to tie her to the
movement's extremist factions: "She understands why people are so angry
and why they are taking the fight to the street," her spokesperson told
the Washington Post, adding that Warren will "take the fight to
the United States Senate."
Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin): In 2010, the National Journal called Baldwin the most liberal
member of the House. She earned kudos in November from the Occupy crowd for
sponsoring a resolution opposing any government deal that grants criminal
immunity to banks. "When the conventional tools for expressing
yourself...are closed and your voice is cut off," Baldwin has said of Occupy Wall Street, "what else is left
but to use the possibility of standing on a soap box and screaming to anyone
who will listen?"
Prospects: Excellent. She is the likely Democratic nominee to replace the retiring Sen. Herb Kohl.
Prospects: Excellent. She is the likely Democratic nominee to replace the retiring Sen. Herb Kohl.
Wenona Benally Baldenegro (Arizona): Two years after Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick
lost her Arizona congressional seat to tea party Republican Paul Gosar, she's
campaigning to retake it. But she could lose in the primary to Baldenegro, who
blames her for alienating supporters with votes against the pro-union Employee
Free Choice Act and for job-killing foreign trade bills. A Harvard Law grad
who'd be the nation's first Native American congresswoman if elected,
Baldenegro has renounced campaign donations from corporate lobbyists and
supports taxing the rich and public financing for elections. In late October,
she joined six other progressive House candidates—including Griego, Sheyman,
and Saldaña—to hand-deliver House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) 35,000
signatures from people who "stand with the 99 percent."
Hansen Clarke (Michigan): Sponsoring legislation to forgive student debt
has made the Detroit Congressman a hero to thousands of college kids involved
with Occupy. During the movement's March 1 "Occupy Education"
protests in Washington, DC, activists relayed a statement from Clarke using the
famous people's mic: "Young people in America should be able to pursue
higher education to achieve their dreams without worrying that this decision
will devastate their financial futures."
Ilya Sheyman (Illinois): A 25-year-old former national mobilization director for
MoveOn.org, Sheyman has made Occupy's message of shared prosperity a key theme
of his campaign. "Right now, the wealthiest 400 Americans in this country
have as much wealth as the bottom 150 million," he said during a
Democratic primary debate this fall. "We are seeing those at the top get
wealthier and wealthier while the middle class gets squeezed. So yes, I am a
supporter of Occupy Wall Street."
I thought highly of Russ Feingold and was a bit
ReplyDeleteshocked when that complete dud* Johnson beat him.
Another fellow I admire is the feisty independent
Bernie Sanders ..
*His take on global warming that scientists are
crazy and lunatics..I hope his cellphone implodes..:)
Pretty consistently, this list is full of those who want the ruling elites to have more power and the people less power. For example, Lori Saldaña. The Citizens United decision restored the rights of the people to criticize those in power. This basic Constitutional protection was criminalized by McCain Feingold. Thankfully, we have this right again. Despite what Lori Saldaña wants. Or people like Ilya Sheyman who are consumed with personal greed and jealousy.
DeleteAnd Wenona Benally Baldenegro is a real piece of work. She opposes job-increasing free trade bills (and sides with the racists who blame brown and yellow people for "stealing" our jobs merely by being better at certain ones). The "Employee Free Choice Act", wildly unpopular with employees, abolished the secret ballot in union elections.
DeleteDo you really agree that the secret ballot as part of democracy is a bad idea?
She comes across as quite the fascist (as eliminating free trade takes decisions from the people and puts them in the hands of the ruling elites) and due to her wanting to abolish democracy in union elections.
"...and supports... public financing for elections"
Another major step in the direction of fascism. This idea works well in North Korea, where the government gets to control who the leaders will be. We actually need to zero out taxpayer funding of elections, not increase it.
Dmarks.."The Citizens United decision restored the rights of the people to criticize those in power" How so? I've been criticizing those in
Deletepower since I learned to walk and talk...was that illegal?
I missed finding the way to make a direct reply to this. In the case of Citizens United, some American citizens were declared to be criminals because they made a film critical of a US senator. They fought back, and won, in a major victory for us.
DeleteIf it is a crime to speak out against a US senator, it's not a far step from criminalizing commenting about politicians as we do in these blog posts. Yes, thanks to this decision, there's far less chance that doing what you have been doing all your life will become a crime.
Only after McCain Feingold, which limited criticism of those in power to certain times and places.
ReplyDeleteMcCain Feingold temporarily made the democratic process more democratic by blunting the growing power concentration in the control of political information and the threat to freedom that it represents.
ReplyDeleteThe Citizens United decision of course reversed this, restoring the concentration of political power into the hands of those who can afford to purchase the most airtime.
Citizens United marries the growing concentration of wealth to concentration of information control and concentration of political power. It has become fashionable on the Right to equate 'freedom' with protecting such power concentration, but the hard historical fact is freedom and concentrated power are opposites, natural enemies. Citizens United is the single most anti-freedom court ruling in living memory and is a serious threat to the continuation of a free society.
It is perverse that we have become obsessed with protecting the 'right' of a handful of extremely powerful people to saturate us with their version of the facts and manipulate us by crowding other information out of the airwaves. Government is now for sale to the highest bidder. We're marching double-time towards a de facto one-party system.
McCain Feingold did not make anything more democratic at all. In fact, it did not affect the democratic process in any way whatsoever. However, it did rip the hart out of the First Amendment by criminalizing the act of criticizing those in power. This resulted in some American individuals being charged with a crime for making a movie critical of a US senator. This outrage was why why got the Citizens United case.
DeleteRather than blunt any power concentration, McCain-Feingold made things much worse. It silenced voices except for those approved by the ruling elites.
"Citizens United marries the growing concentration of wealth to concentration of information control"
There is no concentration of information control. The trend over many decades has been in decentralization, less concentration, and increasing the diversity of voices.
"It has become fashionable on the Right to equate 'freedom' with protecting such power concentration"
Not on the least. What is "Fashionable" is protecting the freedom to speak out on political issues and candidates. That is what is at stake here.
"Citizens United is the single most anti-freedom court ruling in living memory and is a serious threat to the continuation of a free society. "
It is in fact the single most pro-freedom ruling in recent years, as it greatly strengthens the First Amendment.
What does look clear is that you seem to be afraid of the rights of people to speak out. If you don't like what someone says, ignore it, change the channel, etc.
"...and manipulate us by crowding other information out of the airwaves"
There is no "crowding at all.
"Government is now for sale to the highest bidder"
An entirely unrelated matter, which has nothing to do with Citizens United
I am not afraid of free speech. And unlike you I realize that the Constitution even protects the rights of EVERYONE, even supposed "extremely powerful people" to speak out.
Your phrase "extremely powerful people" does need to be addressed. Under McCain-Feingold, the most powerful people in our society, our ruling class, were protected. McCain-Feingold did not limit in any way the ability of incumbent politicians to use their office to fund their political speech and campaigns. It only crippled the ability of the ruled to speak out against the rulers.
"We're marching double-time towards a de facto one-party system."
That's not likely, and can't be predicted. All indications are that the two parties are evenly split.
In summary, the rights of the people to speak out against the most powerful people in the country was damaged in McCain-Feingold. The Citizens United decision restored this freedom to us. Citizens United is only anti-freedom if you consider "freedom" to mean that the ruling elites have as much power as possible over us.