Bill Scheurer for Congress Illinois 8th District Progressive Candidate

2010 Campaign Website

2010-05-17T09:45:00.005-05:00

We now have our 2010 campaign website: http://risingtidecampaign.com/

Go there to join the campaign on your favorite social network.

Congress has only 435 seats, 435 voices, 435 votes. Today, local and global are one. We need every voice, every vote, we can get. It does not matter where you live. I want to represent you. I want to help you bring a voice and vote to Congress for a renewal of the "rising tide economics" that built our once-thriving middle class and made us the most prosperous nation in the world.

The "trickle-down economics" theory of the past 30 years is a failed experiment, just like the failed experiments some other countries had with state socialism. We tried it, and it did not work. The results are painfully clear: stagnant income for working families; runaway trade and budget deficits; an exploding gap between the top and bottom rungs of society; a decline of the middle–class.

We can reverse this. We can return to the proven success of "a rising tide lifts all boats". We need your help, your support – no matter where you live – to take our country back, one seat at a time.

Campaign Website

2006-08-26T23:59:00.000-05:00

We now have the www.WinWithBill.com website for our campaign.

So, we will not be adding to this blog, except to post stories from the press to preserve them. Please visit our new site. Thanks.

Anti-War Activists Target Bean At Rally

2006-08-26T10:08:00.000-05:00

The News-Sun
Ralph Zahorik

MUNDELEIN — Anti-Iraq War activists, including military families opposed to the war, are planning a demonstration against U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Barrington, at a Democratic rally Sunday at Diamond Lake Slough, a Mundelein park.

Bean and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Evanston, are set to headline the rally, according to organizers.

In a statement, an organization called Military Families Speak Out said members will "deliver" flowers to Bean — one flower for every Illinois service person who has died since she took office in January 2005 "to highlight the human cost of the war."

Bill Scheurer, an independent candidate for Congress running against Bean and Republican candidate David McSweeney, is a member of Military Families Speak Out.

"She (Bean) would like to hide behind Jan Schakowsky's record, but she lined up with the Republicans to support the war," said Marge Haracz of Mundelein, a member of MFSO.
If Bean attends the rally, she will receive 48 carnations, Haracz said.

The MFSO statement said Bean "failed to support a resolution for an open debate on the floor of the House floor regarding Iraq" in June 2006 and "voted with the Republican majority to 'stay the course'" of the war.

Bean couldn't be reached for comment. Brian Herman, her campaign spokesman, declined comment.

The Democratic event in Mundelein is called "Bluefest: Rally for Democracy" and is for "Democrats, independents and recovering Republicans who believe America is headed in the wrong direction and want to help ... take the country back," said Cher Daluga, rally organizer.

Bean and Schakowsky will be jointed by Democratic candidates from Lake, McHenry and northern Cook counties, she said.

Attendees can meet and hear the candidates and enjoy food, entertainment and family activities, Daluga said. Admission is free, but a $10 per family donation is requested to help local candidates, she said.

The rally is scheduled to start at 11:30 a.m. Sunday and continue to about 6 p.m. The 43-acre Diamond Lake Slough park is off the south side of Route 60/83 between Midlothian and Diamond Lake roads. The entrance is east of the Irish Mill Pub.

Partylines: Bean Declines Debate With McSweeney, Scheurer

2006-08-11T17:04:00.000-05:00

Weekly Journals
NW News Group

There are three candidates on the Illinois 8th District Congressional ballot this November, but before the election, it might be hard for voters to get to see more than two at a time, if Melissa Bean has her way.

According to a press release from independent candidate Bill Scheurer, a pre-debate meeting scheduled at ABC-7 TV in Chicago was cancelled when Bean, the freshman Democratic Party incumbent, refused to participate.

Republican candidate David McSweeney and Scheurer were both willing to enter the three-way debate, according to Jayme Nicholas, ABC-7’s public relations manager. McSweeney has consistently called for three-way debates in all his public statements on the question.

Nicholas said she hoped Bean would change her mind.

This is not the first time Bean has refused to participate in a three-way debate.

On July 17, McSweeney and Scheurer faced each other on Jeff Berkowitz’s “Public Affairs” program on public access television. During the interview, McSweeney noted several times that Bean had declined to appear.

Although Scheurer gathered more than 14,000 signatures to get his name on the ballot, Bean has refused to face him in any public forum.

Scheurer says his platform, which includes ending the war in Iraq and protecting the needs of working families in areas like taxes, trade, healthcare, and immigration, is significantly different from either of the other two candidates.

"Melissa Bean does not want the public to see that her voting record would be almost identical to Dave McSweeney's on nearly every important issue," Scheurer said. "My candidacy is the only one that offers voters a real choice in this election."

Meanwhile, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has reserved $2.32 million for three weeks of television advertising for Bean, on top of the more than $2 million already sitting in her own campaign coffers.

"What they want to do is spend $5 million on a massive ad campaign attempting to sell us 'canned Bean' instead of exposing her to the voters in a real debate," Scheurer said. "The two parties sell politicians on TV like credit cards, cars and beer."

All three candidates are invited to appear on CLTV, according to CLTV political reporter Carlos Hernandez Gomez.

He said the three-way taped interview is tentatively scheduled to run on Oct. 11, assuming candidate cooperation.

Partylines: Lindenhurst Man Makes November Ballot

2006-08-03T12:35:00.000-05:00

Weekly Journals
NW News Group

Lindenhurst resident Bill Scheurer has done what no one in Illinois history has ever done. He has overcome a 14,000-signature requirement to get his name on the ballot to run against the Democrat freshman incumbent Melissa Bean and the Republican challenger David McSweeney for the Illinois 8th District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“People were very supportive of our signature drive,” Scheurer said. “There is a hunger to take back our democracy.”

Scheurer’s campaign focuses on four main issues: protecting the needs of working families from attacks by unfair trade, discriminatory taxes, and shrinking benefits; bringing our troops home and taking care of them when they get here; fixing our broken healthcare system and balancing the federal budget.

“Neither of the two [other] candidates are credibly raising these issues,” Scheurer said. “Voters need a real choice, which can only come from real competition.”

He added that Illinois does not provide a level playing field for alternative parties.

Illinois’ draconian rules for third-party candidates require them to get petitions signed by 5 percent of the most recent vote count for the seat they are seeking. Members of the two "established parties" need only 1/20th as many signatures.

In the 8th District, this amounted to 14,000 signatures required to get Scheurer on the fall ballot as the Moderate Party candidate.

“They (the Republicans and Democrats) make the rules,” Scheurer said. “It’s pretty clear they do not want anyone crashing their party. They might as well put a big sign on the voting booths: ‘Voters without a political party will not be admitted.’”

In the history of the United States, only four individuals have ever successfully overcome a petition requirement of more than 10,000 signatures to gain a place on a ballot for the U.S. House of Representatives. Scheurer will now be the fifth.

Information about Sche-urer’s campaign can be found at www.winwithbill.com.

Third-Party Candidate Expects To Get On Ballot

2006-06-22T08:36:00.000-05:00

Pioneer Press
By Patrick Corcoran

Bill Scheurer, a Moderate Party candidate in the 8th Congressional district, said this week he has the 13,950 petition signatures he needs by Monday to get on the ballot.

"I don't have a final count, but I have every indication we've gone over the amount we need," he said.

The anti-war, pro-life candidate with labor support was worried last week that he may not reach the mark, but Scheurer says he made it with the help of dozens of volunteers and his wife, Randi, who collected signatures from thousands of local residents.

Scheurer, a lay minister, peace activist and a Lindenhurst resident, said he's found voters receptive to his independent candidacy.

"Voters are unhappy with the choices they've been getting," he said. "I think people have lost faith in the ability of Democrats and Republicans to come together in Washington, D.C., and fix things."

Determined to be a factor in November, Scheurer said he will run as a write-in candidate if he fails to get the minimum number of signatures or if his petitions are thrown out because of a challenge.

"If we do get ... knocked off the ballot, we're not going away. I know you can't win as a write-in candidate, but you can make a stand. This core peace movement will not go away no matter what the two parties throw at us," he said.

While he is considered by most voters to be an independent candidate, Scheurer is running under the banner of the Moderate Party, a party he has established for the 8th Congressional District race.

Scheurer said he anticipates a petition challenge from supporters of incumbent Melissa Bean, D-8th, who ran uncontested in the March primary. In 2004, Bean defeated Scheurer en route to her win over GOP incumbent Phil Crane.

The remainder of the week will be spent collecting extra signatures to fend off a disqualification from the race, Scheurer said.

David McSweeney, the Republican candidate, has already pledged he will not challenge Scheurer's petitions.

"I welcome him to the race. We disagree profoundly on issues, but I respect him personally," he said. "We will take zero steps to disqualify him from the race."

McSweeney also said Scheurer should be allowed to participate in any and all debates between himself and Bean, even more so if he earns a spot on the ballot.

Some labor organizations that parted with Bean over her July 2005 vote in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), have boosted Scheurer's bid.

In 2005, he received $10,000 in contributions from the Teamsters, Machinists, and Aerospace Workers unions, and UNITE, a union representing garment workers and hotel and casino employees, according to the Federal Election Commission Web site.

Scheurer said, so far, he's received over $30,000 from labor in 2006.

Labor volunteers were also a significant part of Scheurer's bid to collect more than 14,000 signatures.

Scheurer said his name on the ballot won't hurt one party over the other because his core issues -- the war in Iraq, health care, balancing the federal budget and helping working families -- have universal appeal.

"There's no better a spoiler than winning, but people who think I'll attract Democratic voters and not Republican voters don't understand the issues our campaign is trying to address," he said. "Maybe I'm considered a spoiler because I will not have the kind of money on hand that they are going to have."

Scheurer ran unsuccessfully in 2004 on a single issue -- his opposition to the war in Iraq. He has two children in the military, including who who recently returned from Iraq, supports an immediate U.S. withdrawal and considers the war a mistake

McSweeney supports the U.S.-led campaign to root out terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. On June 16, Bean was one of 42 Democrats who joined 214 Republicans in supporting a non-binding resolution declaring Iraq a central front in the war on terrorism.

A Bean campaign spokesman declined to comment on Scheurer's candidacy.

‘Betrayed’ Unions Refuse To Endorse Bean’s Re-Election

2006-06-07T16:23:00.000-05:00

The Daily Herald
Joseph Ryan and John Patterson

SPRINGFIELD — The state’s trade and labor unions refused to endorse Democratic Congresswoman Melissa Bean’s re-election bid Tuesday, a rejection that amounts to political payback for her vote against the unions’ wishes on trade deals.

Illinois AFL-CIO President Margaret Blackshere said the debate over whether to endorse Bean in the 8th Congressional District was the most heated of any office in the state.

Blackshere said union members “felt betrayed” by Bean’s vote for a Central America trade pact last year.

Bean, who relied on union support to oust 35-year Republican incumbent Phil Crane, responded to the rejection by largely ignoring it.

“My highest priority is standing up for the moderate, mainstream values of my constituents,” she said in a statement.

The union blow to Bean is yet another turn in what is shaping up to be a fierce battle over whether 8th District residents are turning more Democratic or still staunch conservatives who simply had tired of Crane.

Bean, a Barrington sales consultant who paints herself as a moderate Democrat, is facing former investment banker David McSweeney of Barrington Hills, who styles himself a “Reagan conservative.”

Blackshere said there was no interest in backing McSweeney.

“Absolutely not,” she said.

A third-party candidate, Bill Scheurer of Lindenhurst, is banking on a revolt of unions and anti-war advocates against Bean. It remains to be seen if he can muster the signatures to get on the ballot.

The union dumping of Bean started last year, when she was one of a handful of Democrats to vote for the Central America trade agreement.

Soon after, a machinists union signed a $5,000 check for Scheurer’s campaign and other unions picketed Bean’s Schaumburg office.

Bean voted with the AFL-CIO’s wishes 62 percent of the time, but union leaders asked to pull her name from a list of endorsements for further debate. After a heated exchange behind closed doors, the decision was made not to endorse her.

A few union leaders have claimed Bean promised to vote against such trade deals during the 2004 campaign, but she denies such a pledge. She defends the vote, saying many district residents work for international businesses in Lake and Cook counties.

Yet Bean is also drawing accolades from the big businesses. In March, she picked up the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “Spirit of Enterprise” award for voting 73 percent of the time with the lobbying organization.

The Democrat Who Displeases Democrats

2006-05-30T21:18:00.000-05:00

Rep. Melissa Bean fights to keep an Illinois House seat vital to her party

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC

LAKE ZURICH, Ill. - No one makes a more compelling case for the tax cut that President Bush recently signed into law than Melissa Bean, the first-term Democrat who represents the Eighth Congressional District of Illinois.

Thanks to Bean and others who voted for the law, people who derive income from dividends and capital gains will enjoy low rates through 2010, and at least some upper-income people will be protected from the alternative minimum tax.

Most of Bean’s fellow Democrats were disgusted by the bill. “Another windfall for the wealthy while everybody else gets to work for a living,” griped Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and a fellow Illinois congressman.

But Bean says the tax cut made sense for her district which runs northwest from Chicago up to the Wisconsin border.

“It’s an investor-class district, an upper-middle income district that I represent,” Bean explained. “Most people have investments. Obviously, wealthy folks have larger portfolios and are going to benefit to a greater degree," she said, "but if you look at the bill itself, it also benefited your lowest income individuals and eliminated the taxes they would have paid on dividends and capital gains."

The bill, Bean said, "very much represents the investor-class district I represent, particularly seniors.”

Bean in the cross-hairs

A brisk, no-nonsense former business executive, Bean is the Republicans’ number one target in this fall’s campaign. She won her seat two years ago by upsetting veteran Republican Rep. Phil Crane.

Because Bean’s district has such a Republican tilt, Republicans argue that she’ll have a hard time holding her seat. Bush carried the district with 56 percent in the 2004 presidential election.

By the beginning of April Bean had raised a total of $2.3 million, the most of any House member.

Her Republican opponent, former Bank of America investment banker David McSweeney, who prevailed in a tough primary, had only $146,000 in cash on hand.

About three-quarters of McSweeney’s campaign funds have come from his own deep pockets.

But he’s getting celebrity help from former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who will be starring at a fund-raising event for him next week in Chicago, as well as from House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Vice President Cheney, who are also doing fund-raisers for him.

McSweeney argued that Bean votes against some of the bills she ultimately votes for, casting doubt on her credibility. “Even in the case of the tax bill, this is a good example: she voted against the enabling legislation (the rule) to bring this bill to the floor. If she had her way, this legislation would have never been brought to the floor.”

He added, “She’s trying to be all things to all people.”

A conservative/liberal dichotomy

Bean voted for the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and for the bill to make it harder for consumers to declare bankruptcy and escape their debts. Both votes displeased members of her party.

But don’t those votes also help her make the case she’s independent and not a clone of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi? We asked that question of Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., who as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, leads his party’s efforts to hold on to its House majority.

In reply, Reynolds wise-cracked, “You mean (she’d) become a Republican?”

Then he added, “I appreciate that once in a while she sees the wisdom of our actions and joins our votes and I hope she will continue.”

Despite her tax cut fervor, Bean isn’t a conservative Bush Democrat.

On roll call votes in 2005 on which Bush took a position, Bean voted in support of him 48 percent of the time. That compares with 16 percent for Pelosi and 24 percent for Emmanuel.

Bean is a liberal on social issues such as abortion. She opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage; she supports traditional marriage, but says it is an issue for the states. She has been endorsed by the gay rights advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign.

McSweeney supports a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the traditional man-woman relationship.

He opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest or when needed to save the life of the mother.

McSweeney calls for means testing of the Medicare prescription drug entitlement which Congress created two years ago. He says the program should be targeted only to low-income and middle-income people

“It doesn’t make any sense to me that the richest people in this country are getting the benefit of subsidized drugs,” he said.

Which way on spending?

McSweeney isn’t shy about assailing his own party on federal spending (up 8 percent so far this year, compared to last): “We’ve lost our way as a party on spending,” he said.

As for Bean, even though she’s concerned by the federal deficit, she says she would not support an increase in income tax rates for the top one percent of households (those with incomes above $300,000) in order to help reduce the deficit. “I don’t know that’s even being proposed,” she said. “I’m not looking at that at all right now.”

She added: “I do support stimulative (tax) cuts. I’ve supported every tax cut that’s come before me since I’ve been in Congress.”

Immigration: A dividing issue

On immigration Bean said she opposes “a blanket amnesty,” but also opposes “mass deportation” and suggests that “somewhere in the middle ground” there ought to be penalties against illegal immigrants, but also ought to be “a way to integrate folks that are here and bring them out of the shadows.”

McSweeney says he opposes the Senate bill’s provision of giving a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants.

Bean’s vote for the tough House border control bill, championed by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has alienated some in organized labor.

“We represent a lot of people in the meatpacking and processing industry,” said Kenneth Boyd, the president of Local 1546 of the United Food and Commercial Workers union. “A lot of those people are immigrant workers. Her vote on the Sensenbrenner bill really turned us off.”

Boyd said about 3,000 UFCW members live in his Bean’s district. (Bean’s margin of victory in 2004 was about 9,000 votes.)

Boyd, who lives in Bean’s district, said her vote for the Sensenbrenner bill “was a vote against our members. We have a very large Hispanic membership and Polish membership and that vote goes against all immigrants.”

How will this affect the Bean campaign?

“We’re not going to work against her, but I also can’t go to my members and say ‘We need to support somebody who voted against you and your families.’”

Despite this, the UFCW political action committee has chipped in $10,000 to Bean’s campaign, with most recent installment coming in April.

Several other unions contributed to her campaign before her vote last July for CAFTA.

Bean faces an independent challenge

Three unions, the Teamsters, the Machinists, and UNITE, which represents garment workers and hotel and casino employees, have funded independent Bill Scheurer, who is trying to muster the nearly 14,000 signatures by June 26 that he needs to get on the ballot as a third-party candidate.

“She’s essentially a corporate candidate,” Scheurer said of Bean, adding that “her voting record on progressive values is horrendous.”

Scheurer, a lawyer, lay minister and self-described “peace activist” is a political eclectic: he opposes both the Iraq war and “abortion as a method of birth control.” He also says, “We should bring our troops home from around the world and deploy them to protect our borders.”

One of his daughters is a captain in the Army; one of his sons just got back from a year tour of duty in Iraq.

“The vast majority of people out here don’t give a **** about the political parties,” Scheurer said. “People understand that these parties cannot address the problems that we face as a nation.”

And with part of this, Bean agrees: “I represent a district which is very independent by nature…. They don’t wear hard ‘R’s’ or hard ‘D’s.’ They’re proud of their independence and they vote for the person they think represents them best.”

If enough voters in her district are independent enough to put Scheurer on the ballot, it will make this race a more complicated one.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13036420/

Dogfight Erupts Between Leading Contenders In 8th District

2006-03-12T07:20:00.000-06:00

Campaign 2006: Six candidates in GOP primary

Ralph Zahorik
The News-Sun

In the final weeks of the race to elect a Republicans to face Democratic Congresswoman Melissa Bean and, perhaps, independent Bill Scheurer next fall, two leading contenders, David McSweeney and Kathy Salvi have gotten embroiled in dogfight.

The four other candidates, Robert Churchill, Aaron Lincoln, Kenneth Arnold and James Mitchell, have stayed out of the fray. The fuss could benefit them if voters are turned off by the unpleasantness and look for alternatives.

The dispute, described below, drew the attention of the Ronald Reagan Foundation in California.

All six candidates, with some exceptions, have similar conservative views on major issues. All say they are anti-abortion, support tax cuts, support President George Bush and the war in Iraq and want a strong national defense.

Forums and debates have sometimes focused on who is most conservative.

Each candidate has been stressing his or her credentials as the candidate best able to take back the 8th District House seat Bean wrested from Republican Phil Crane two years ago.

Republicans and Democrats will pour big money and resources into the 8th District after the primary. Bean defeated Crane two years ago 52-48 percent but the 8th District went for Republican George Bush over Democrat John Kerry, 56 to 44 percent in a year when Bush all but ignored Illinois.

Two Republicans, McSweeney and Salvi, have already spent about $2 million in the primary campaign. Most of the money has been their own.

The six Republican candidates, in alphabetical order:

Kenneth Arnold, 49, of Gurnee, an employee benefit plan consultant, has laid out plans for reforming U.S. health care and retirement systems. He is the only candidate who talks about health care reform. If the U.S. health care and retirement systems aren't fixed soon, the nation faces a disaster, he has said.

Arnold, like the other candidates, is demanding stronger measures to end illegal immigration. Unlike the others, he has joined Illinois Minutemen, a controversial anti-illegal immigrant group. He differs with the other candidates on a key issue, free trade and making President Bush's tax cuts permanent. Arnold has said trade pacts approved by Congress have "decimated" U.S. manufacturing. He said he supports all but one of Bush's tax cuts: elimination of the inheritance tax.

• Robert Churchill, 59, of Lake Villa, a lawyer and veteran state legislator, is the only candidate with substantial legislative experience and he reminds voters of this fact. Churchill's family has deep roots in Lake County. One of his ancestors settled in Lake Villa Township in 1842. None of the other candidates has ever held legislative office above the county level. "I can go to Washington and hit the ground running," he says.

Aaron Lincoln, 40, of Wauconda, seeking his first elected public office, says he is the only candidate with "hands-on experience handling federal issues." Lincoln was a federal attorney with the Department of Defense for 10 years and was a captain in the Army Judge Advocate General Corps. "I'm a pro-life, pro-gun, fiscal conservative," he said. "I understand how government works ... I can get things done."

David McSweeney, 40, of Barrington Township, is a wealthy investment banker who retired last year to run for office, He ran for Congress against Phil Crane in the 1998 GOP primary. Early on, McSweeney won support and endorsements from scores of leading Republicans including former U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald and Mike Ditka. McSweeney is stressing his business and financial expertise. He has focused on three issues: lower taxes, less spending and a strong national defense.

James Mitchell Jr., 61, of Lindenhurst, is a water plant operator in Highland Park and a former Lake County Board member, He and Lincoln are the only military veterans in the race. Mitchell is the only candidate urging the elimination of income taxes and a revival of a new kind of draft for public service and the military. Like Arnold, Mitchell doesn't like trade pacts approved over the past decade. Mitchell is refusing campaign contributions. He says he wants supporters to spend their money on care packages for American service personnel in Iraq.

Kathy Salvi, 46, of Fremont Township, a lawyer and the wife of former state legislator Al Salvi, has called herself a "rock solid Republican" in ads and public appearances, noting her unswerving support for incumbent GOP candidates, including Crane when McSweeney ran against the congressman. She calls herself "a tax fighter, a fiscal conservative and a defender of the family." Salvi is the only woman in the race and supporters say that gives her an edge.

Her campaign got a boost this week with an endorsement from former Congressman Phil Crane.

The 8th District Republican primary is the most costly in Illinois. The leading candidates, to date, appear to be those spending the most money.

A poll recently conducted for Kathy Salvi (the poll's accuracy is questioned by her opponents) showed her leading with 29 percent. McSweeney and Churchill trailed with 19 and 17 percent.

McSweeeney is polling, too, but he hasn't released his poll results.

McSweeney has been the top spender, by far. Through Dec. 31, he reported expenses of $949,815. Salvi and Churchill followed with $188,062 and $37,047, respectively. Salvi announced recently that she will have raised $1 million this month, counting a $500,000 loan to herself.

The McSweeney-Salvi slugfest erupted last month after McSweeney appeared on Al Salvi's radio talk show in Waukegan. McSweeney is anti-abortion now but he was pro-choice in 1998 when he ran against Crane, Salvi asserted. McSweeney denied it. Published statements from that campaign, with one notable exception cited by Salvi, appeared to support McSweeney.

Later, Al Salvi called McSweeney "weasely," said he "made an ass of himself" on radio and said the candidate was "a nut or desperate."

McSweeney fired back, saying voters will elect her husband if they elect Kathy Salvi.

Over the next week, McSweeney aired radio ads and mailed fliers noting Kathy Salvi's position on tort or lawsuit reform was different from his. Kathy Salvi supports tort reform but has indicated she opposes caps on awards for non-economic (pain and suffering) damages. McSweeney wants non-economic damages limited to $250,000.

In response, to McSweeney's ads, Salvi mailed a flier ripping McSweeney for violating Ronald Reagan's so-called "11th Commandment" forbidding Republicans to attack each other in primary campaigns. The mailer was denounced by the Ronald Reagan Foundation in California because it used photos of Ronald Reagan and suggested the late president would have supported Salvi over McSweeney.

McSweeney started the brawl, according to Al Salvi, because McSweeney knew Kathy Salvi's campaign was surging while his own was "in meltdown."

The other candidates have stayed out of the fray. Some have said the nasty dispute will turn voters away from McSweeney and Salvi to them.

"I'm working. I have two jobs, one of which keeps me 250 miles away in Springfield," Churchill said. "I'm not going to get involved in their spats. I run a positive campaign."

"It shows their level of maturity and type of politics they want to play," Lincoln said. "I think I'm the dark horse. People are fed up with multi-millionaires and professional politicians ... I'm not into spending as much as you can to prove your a fiscal conservative. I'm offering an alternative to those kinds of shenanigans. They're being advised by consultants and handlers and, frankly, it shows."

8th Congressional Candidates Digging A Lot Into Own Pockets

2006-02-10T10:11:00.000-06:00

Pioneer Press
Cristel Mohrman

When it comes to financing 8th Congressional campaigns, the Republican primary candidates who received and spent the most money in 2005 did so largely out of their own pocketbooks.

Four of the six candidates self-funded at least 61 percent of their campaign budgets, which last quarter ranged from $36,220 to more than $1.4 million, according to year-end data filed last week with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

A seventh candidate announced last week she would exit the race. Teresa Bartels poured $80,000 of her own money into the race before citing an inability to keep up with her opponents' much larger budgets.

According to the FEC, David McSweeney had received more than $1.4 million in campaign contributions, including a personal loan of $997,985 and a personal contribution of $498.

"That's my own money. I can't be bought."

"I want to run a first-rate campaign because I want to take the seat back from Melissa Bean," McSweeney said.

He also collected $440,242 in individual contributions, and $21,500 in contributions from political action committees (PACs) and other non-party groups.

The PACs of Clark Consulting and Duchossois Industries Inc. were among his largest supporters, with contributions last June of $5,000 and $2,500, respectively.

"I'm very proud of the fact that I've generated more in individual contributions than any other Republican challenger in the nation," said McSweeney, who said he makes phone calls on behalf of his campaign every morning.

At the close of the quarter, McSweeney reported that he had spent $949,815, had $513,920 cash on hand and more than $1.6 million in campaign debt.

McSweeney's large personal campaign investment triggered a provision to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act called the Millionaires' Amendment. Under the amendment, if any House candidate spends more than $350,000, his opponents can receive larger individual contributions.

Without the amendment, which went into effect for the 8th District's primary race Dec. 31, individual contributions cannot exceed $2,100. The Millionaires' Amendment allows McSweeney's opponents to now collect up to $6,300 per individual donor.

McSweeney's total income placed him about $1 million ahead of Kathy Salvi, the candidate with the next highest campaign total. Salvi had collected $471,915 by the end of the year.

That includes a personal loan of $285,000 and personal contribution of $4,200.

"In order to run a modern, effective campaign, you have to communicate in as many media as possible, and it's very expensive," she said of her own investment.

She said she will continue to raise funds, and will supplement her campaign with additional personal funds "as needed."

"I'm not going to spend just to keep up with the Joneses," she said.

Salvi, who also received $182,655 from individual donors, ended the quarter with $283,852 cash on hand and just more than $292,000 in campaign debt.

State Rep. Robert Churchill had received a total of $132,762 at year's end, according to the Federal Election Commission. The receipts include a personal loan of $98,000, $29,537 in individual contributions and $3,125 in committee contributions.

He reported ending 2005 with $95,714 in cash and $98,000 in debt.

Campaign chairman Bill Burns explained that Churchill's campaign was largely self-funded at year's end because the candidate got off to a late start in the 8th District race.

Burns said he expects the campaign to receive more contributions from outside sources in 2006.

"Mr. Churchill isn't going to finance this whole campaign himself," Burns said.

Neither is Aaron Lincoln, based on filings with the FEC. Lincoln reported contributing $1,000 of the total $14,596 he received in 2005.

The remaining contributions were made solely by individual supporters.

Lincoln ended the year with $9,446 cash on hand and no campaign debt.

Challenger Ken Arnold, meanwhile, contributed $30,000 of his fourth quarter income, which totaled $36,220. He received the remaining $6,220 from individual contributions.

He reported spending $21,700 last quarter, leaving $14,510 in his campaign fund. He reported no loans or debt.

James Creighton Mitchell said from the start he would not run a financially driven campaign.

He said his own contribution will remain below the $5,000 required for FEC filing and he is not accepting outside contributions.

Though she ended 2005 as the race's third-highest fund-raiser, Bartels said last week she was unwilling to continue to invest large amounts of her own money in the race. Instead, she said she will campaign on Salvi's behalf.

Including her personal contribution, Bartels' had collected $461,179 by the end of the year. She reported spending $361,024, having $100,154 on hand and nearly $85,000 in campaign debt.

Bartels' overall 2005 campaign income was comparable to that of Salvi, but the majority was comprised of $377,479 in individual contributions.

"I was very proud of that. We raised a lot of money from individuals. But when you look at the whole race, it's just something that we aren't going to be able to compete with," Bartels said.

The winner of the March 21 primary election will race Democratic incumbent Melissa Bean in the November general election.

According to Federal Election Commission data, Bean had collected nearly $1.8 million by the end of 2005, including more than $1.1 million in individual contributions. She ended the year with just more than $35,000 in debt and nearly $1.4 million in cash.

Bean and her Republican challenger are also expected to face independent candidate Bill Scheurer, whose fourth quarter filings show $10,300 in income, $202 in expenditures and no campaign debt.

Bean: ‘I Wouldn’t Want To Be Running Against Me’

2005-12-16T09:04:00.000-06:00

Nate Legue
Lakeland Media

The Barrington business consultant who unseated the longest-running incumbent in the U.S. House last year doesn’t fear the Republicans clamoring to regain the 8th District in 2006.

Touting her legislative efforts and constituent services, Democratic freshman Rep. Melissa Bean struck a defiant pose Thursday despite Republican claims that she will have a target on her back come November.

“They’ve done polls here, and so have we, and I’m coming back,” Bean said during an interview last week. “I’m not taking anything for granted, ... but I wouldn’t want to be running against me.”

During the 2004 election cycle, the diminutive campaigner attacked former Rep. Phil Crane for being out of touch with the district after more than three decades in the Capitol. In her 10 months as a legislator, Bean has hosted more than 20 “Congress on the Corner” events, meet-and-greets where she sets up shop in local supermarkets to talk to constituents.

“It’s a district that’s very independent, that people don’t have hard political affiliations,” Bean said. “I think that’s what I proved by winning, and that’s what I’m hearing today: People respect somebody who’s going to work hard at the issues they care about.”

Still, six Republicans from the district, which includes the western half of Lake County as well as Gurnee and Zion, have signed on for a bid to challenge her next year.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, a group dedicated to increasing GOP seats in the House, already has criticized Bean in news releases and pledged to support whoever wins the primary in March.

A strong Republican candidate, the competitive nature of the district and the expense of the Chicago media market kind of makes the stars align to make this one of the most expensive races in the country,” said Jonathan Collegio, NRCC spokesman.

But Bean dismissed much of the predictions as Republican blustering and said the majority party may have to spend its resources defending incumbents. She had $1.1 million in cash on hand in her campaign coffers as of Sept. 30, more than the combined totals of the four Republican challengers who were required to report their fundraising by that deadline.

Bean said she’s built a strong base of support in the four years since she first considered running for the office and enjoys a comfortable monetary lead in her efforts. She is on track to raise between $3 million and $4 million, if necessary.

But one of her prospective GOP opponents, former investment banker David McSweeney, said Bean is “absolutely beatable” and expects to raise at least $5 million in the race if he’s victorious in the crowded Republican primary.

“No. 1, in this district in 2004, 56 percent went for President Bush, despite the meltdown in the state Republican party and the fact that Bush didn’t spend any money here,” McSweeney said.

Also on the GOP side, lawyer Kathy Salvi, state Rep. Robert Churchill, businesswoman Teresa Bartels, conservative activist Ken Arnold and lawyer Aaron Lincoln round out the field. Writer and activist Bill Scheurer has pledged to run as a third-party candidate.

nlegue@nwnewsgroup.com

Republicans Line Up For 8th District

2005-12-15T08:50:00.000-06:00

Cristel Mohrman
Pioneer Press

Eighth Congressional hopefuls didn't waste any time making their candidacies official this week.

Republicans Ken Arnold, Teresa Bartels, Robert Churchill, Aaron Lincoln, David McSweeney and Kathy Salvi and Democratic incumbent Melissa Bean all filed for candidacy at 8 a.m. Monday in Springfield, according to the Illinois State Board of Elections.

The Republicans will face off in the March 21 primary election.

Arnold is a senior benefit plan management consultant from Gurnee. Co-founder of a taxpayer watch group for Warren and Newport townships, he also serves as Warren Township precinct committeeman and officer.

He served as Republican party chairman from 1998 to 2002, and recently served as vice chairman of the Lake County Republican Party.

Bartels, a Mundelein resident who owned an operated the Manpower franchise of Lake and McHenry counties for 16 years, is actively involved in her community.

She currently serves as board member, chairwoman of the development council and treasurer of the University Center of Lake County, vice chairwoman of the Carmel High School board and is active with St. Francis de Sales Church and the United Way, among other organizations.

Churchill, a state representative, R-62nd, for 20 years, lives in Lake Villa and has practiced law in Grayslake for 33 years.

He has said serving in Congress would give him the opportunity to serve a larger population than he does as a state representative.

An lawyer from Wauconda, Lincoln served as a federal attorney for more than 10 years.

He is also a veteran U.S. Army Judge Advocate Generals' Corps officer. He has served four years of active duty and five years in the reserves.

Barrington Hills resident McSweeney, who has put his 17-year career as an investment banker on hold to actively campaign for the election, has contributed at least $250,000 of his own money toward his coffer.

A former Palatine Township trustee who lost an 8th Congressional primary race to Phil Crane in 1998, he has gained the endorsements of former U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald and former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka.

Salvi, an attorney from Mundelein, is married to former state legislator Al Salvi.

She turned down this week an invitation from Jim Oberweis to run for lieutenant governor, saying her first priority is to serve the 8th Congressional District.

The winner of the Republican primary is expected to face freshman Congresswoman Bean. No candidates had announced plans to run against her in the primary as of Tuesday.

Filing for the primary election ends Monday.

Independent candidate Bill Scheurer, of Lindenhurst, has said he will run against Bean and the winner of the Republican primary in the Nov. 7, 2006 general election.

Cristel Mohrman can be reached at mohrman@pioneerlocal.com.

Bean Challengers Sound Alike At Club's Forum

2005-12-02T11:38:00.000-06:00

Cristel Mohrman
Pioneer Press

With the primary election a full four months away, seven 8th Congressional District hopefuls kicked off the campaign season last week at a forum sponsored by the Barrington High School Political Science Club.

Campaign signs peppered the parking lot of the Stonegate Conference Center, where Republicans Ken Arnold, Robert Churchill, Aaron Lincoln, David McSweeney and Kathy Salvi and independent candidate Bill Scheurer shared their views on issues ranging from education to the war in Iraq with an audience of more than 50 high school students, parents and residents. Democratic incumbent Melissa Bean could not attend the forum because of a scheduling mix-up.

The Republicans will face off in the March 21 election. The prevailing candidate will go on to face Bean next November. Scheurer will also compete in that race.

Stay in Iraq

Republican candidates agreed last week that the U.S. should maintain a presence in Iraq until tensions ease.

"I support the efforts there. There will be a time when we will leave the country, but it will be a time when it's a democracy that is hopefully our friend," Churchill said.

Salvi, an attorney from Mundelein, said while she believes Iraqi soldiers should defend their own country, she trusts the U.S. administration to determine the right time for U.S. troops to return home.

Scheurer, a Lindenhurst resident who has a son stationed in Baghdad, took another position.

"We act as if the Iraqis are fighting some strange, mysterious people. What's happening is, Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. It's a civil war that we've gotten ourselves in the midst of. We can't abandon Iraq. We caused a terrible problem there," he said, adding the U.S. should send in people who can mediate and help fix the nation's economy.

When it came to U.S. fiscal policy, Scheurer agreed with the Republicans that spending needs to be cut. While solutions included McSweeney's proposal to cease funding of the National Endowment of the Arts, Salvi's suggestion to cut funding for public broadcasting and Arnold's proposal to save money by standardizing welfare and food stamps programs, Scheurer suggested the most comprehensive reform.

He said he supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, that he would not support transportation spending not directly tied to the interstate system and that wealthy school districts should not receive federal funds.

He also said the funding for the space program should be cut and the money used to research and develop new energy sources.

The Republican candidates agreed either alternative fuels or additional U.S. refineries are necessary to end the nation's dependency on foreign oil.

All of the candidates also shared similar platforms on education, believing reform should be addressed on either a state or local level rather than through the stringent requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. They were unanimous in their agreement that eminent domain should not be used to pursue private or economic development.

Just want Bean out

Some candidates indicated the ultimate goal is to oust Bean from office.

Churchill, a former state representative who lives in Lake Villa, described the upcoming primary as a "family fight."

"I believe that any one of us can do a better job than the person from the other family. No matter who wins, we're going to take Nov. 21 with strength," he said, but added that his experience gives him an edge.

Salvi agreed Bean should be defeated, but said that among the challengers she has the advantage as a female candidate.

"This is our best chance to win this seat back, while Melissa Bean is a freshman congresswoman," Lincoln, an attorney from Wauconda, said. "The House of Representatives may change hands if things don't turn around."

McSweeney, an investment banker from Barrington Hills, said the race will be about the issues. He said Bean has established a liberal voting record and criticized her positions on energy and medical malpractice.

Republican hopeful Teresa Bartels attended only the first few minutes of the forum before leaving for another speaking engagement.

In her opening statement she said she would be a listener and a leader if elected to Congress.

A self-described "independent conservative," she said she supports a simplified tax code and providing the armed forces with tools to fight the war on terror.

Brent Frey, a Barrington High School senior and Political Science Club member who coordinated last week's event, said students started with a list of about 60 possible topics for the candidates to address.

"We whittled it down to what we felt will be the most important issues," he said.

Diversity in opinion was also important to the students, which led them to include a candidate whose name won't appear on the ballot until next November.

"I wanted to create something that was more than just a Republican event, that's why we invited Mr. Scheurer," Paul Ruiz, senior and Political Science Club president, said.

The students said they will continue to follow the 8th Congressional race as well as others in the Barrington area.

Challengers Turn Out For Public Forum

2005-11-23T13:43:00.000-06:00

Nate Legue
Northwest Herald

HOFFMAN ESTATES – The entire field of challengers hoping to knock off Democratic Congresswoman Melissa Bean next year turned out Tuesday for a forum put together by a high school political club.

Facing questions from students, five Republicans and an independent expounded on six topics: fiscal policy, the Iraq war, education, energy, medical malpractice, and eminent domain.

The forum drew about 50 people to a conference room at Stonegate Conference Center and was organized by the Barrington High School Political Science Club.

With the primary race kicking into gear well in advance of the March election, Wauconda lawyer Aaron Lincoln spoke for the Republican hopefuls.

"This is the best, clear chance to win this seat back," Lincoln said.

Other Republicans sounding off at the event included Lake Villa state Rep. Robert Churchill; Barrington Hills investment banker David McSweeney; Mundelein lawyer Kathy Salvi; and Gurnee business consultant Ken Arnold. Republican Mundelein businesswoman Teresa Bartels had to leave for another engagement.

While the Republicans riffed on varying conservative positions, independent Bill Scheurer of Lindenhurst criticized the entire two-party electoral system and expressed support for positions traditionally found on opposing ends of the spectrum.

"It would have been boring if we had all Republican candidates with the same platform," said club president Paul Ruiz.

While policy differences were slight on many issues, health-care reform brought out some contrasts. Scheurer called for comprehensive health care for everyone, while ultra-conservative Arnold, a benefits consultant, questioned whether damage caps would help the health insurance system.

"Medical malpractice is a crutch for many a politician who doesn't know the field," said Arnold, and insisted that providing consumers with information about doctors, procedures and mortality rates would bring free-market principles and lower costs to the health care system.

Even trial lawyer Salvi came out for caps on punitive damages in medical malpractice cases and said she would have voted in favor of a recent tort reform bill.

McSweeney repeatedly called out Bean on some of her congressional votes -- on tort reform, on energy policy. His strategy has been to highlight his conservative policy differences with the moderate Bean.

His rhetoric resonated with political-club member Neil Panchal.

"McSweeney was probably the best one," said Panchal of Barrington Hills. "He answered the questions directly and to the point."

But Panchal's endorsement won't do McSweeney much good -- the 17-year-old student won't be able to vote next year. Churchill said there were other reasons for appearing at the student-led forum.

"When I was their age, I was doing what they're doing," Churchill said. "Now I'm in the state legislature running for Congress. One day, one of these kids will do the same thing."

nlegue@nwherald.com

Personal Story

2005-11-03T23:58:00.000-06:00

Bill and Randi Scheurer have lived in Lake County for 27 years, raising four children (ages 24-31) in their Lindenhurst home.

Bill has degrees in religious studies and law, and has worked as a lay minister, an attorney, and a small business owner. He now works as a writer, publisher, and peace activist.

One of the things that meant the most to him as a businessman was that he always provided full medical coverage for his co-workers, a rare achievement for a small business today.

Bill and Randi have been married for 35 years. Randi is a lifelong artist, and a creative homemaker. She has a degree in fine arts.

Two of their children have served in the military (army and marines), including tours in Okinawa, Kuwait, and Iraq. Their son is now with the national guard, stationed in Baghdad. They are members of Military Familes Speak Out.

Bill has been active in several nonprofit groups, such as P.A.D.S. (a local homeless shelter), Human Rights First, and many others.

Campaign Issues

2005-11-03T23:57:00.000-06:00

Here are the main issues that will drive this campaign. More complete issue lists and position statements will follow on our permanent website, as we move forward with this campaign.

Basic Approach

I am a progressive conservative. Huh? Yeah, you heard me right.

"Progressive" means two things: 1) government has an important role to play in meeting human needs; and 2) those with more, have a responsibility to those with less.

"Conservative" means four things: 1) government has to pay for the good it does, with balanced budgets; 2) government should only do what works, and should do it well; 3) markets often work better than government in meeting needs; and 4) government has constitutional limits on its powers.

All of my campaign policies are driven by progressive values, tempered by conservative means.

Major Issues

When you send me to Congress, I will vote to:

1) End The Iraq War
2) Balance The Budget
3) End Our Dependency On Foreign Oil
4) Fix Our Broken Healthcare System

These are all solidly progressive positions. It is my observation that many conservatives share many of the values we have as progressives. They simply have a different philosophy about how to pursue them, and which institutions can best attain them. We can work toward common ground.

1. End The Iraq War

We have tried killing our enemies. And have learned -- that only makes more enemies. For every one we kill, we create ten more. It is time to try something else.

We now understand that peaceful diplomacy, not aggression, is the key to our security. Bush's disaster in Iraq (where my son now serves) has taught us this.

I will vote to bring our troops home, and take care of them when they get here.

2. Balance The Budget

Our government is piling up an endless stream of crushing debt on the "credit cards" of the next generation.

Deficits are taxes. Passed on to someone else. Politicians always say we need more "tax relief" to "stimulate the economy."

I guess they think the economy will take care of itself in the next generation? What we need is "tax relief" for two-year-olds. Let's end these deficits. We owe it to our children and their children.

I will not vote for an imbalanced budget. I will not vote to extend the debt limit. Period. No matter which party is in power.

Moreover, I support a balanced-budget amendment. History has made it clear that Congress and the Administration, and the Republican and Democratic parties, all lack the discipline and integrity to be trusted with our money any other way.

They are too busy giving it to their corporate sponsors in exchange for campaign contribution kickbacks. It is a dirty wash cycle, that never comes clean.

3. Ending Our Dependency On Foreign Oil

Our dependency on foreign oil and dirty fuels is wreaking havoc with our security, our economy, and the environment.

It is funding terrorism, and leading us into unjust war. We simply cannot continue on this course.

I support an aggressive development program for alternative energy technologies, similar to the Apollo space program that put a man on the moon in less than ten years.

In doing this, we must be vigilant to not let it become another form of corporate welfare for political favoritism, or let it get tied up in a bureaucracy.

We have some experiences to learn from -- the NASA program, the NIH, and others -- both, for what has worked and what has not. We also have a rich history of venture capital and university laboratory development and licensing programs.

The core technologies that come from this project will be owned by the people of the United States, for licensing to businesses on a royalty basis. This will be our oil, our national wealth.

4. Fix Our Broken Healthcare System

We have a serious national crisis in our healthcare system. It is a moral and practical failure for us to have uninsured neighbors. One that is damaging to both, our business and our humanity.

Look around us. One out of every six of our neighbors lacks healthcare coverage. It is no accident that "The Good Samaritan" parable was about taking care of sick and injured neighbors.

We must begin with a firm commitment to equal healthcare coverage for every citizen. How we achieve it, is open to debate.

I lean toward a plan of mandatory health insurance (like we have for auto insurance), based on the ideas of "universal coverage, universal responsibility." This plan shares premium costs between employers, employees, and (where needed) government.

It is an extension of private insurance coverage to everyone, not a government program. However, I am open to other approaches as well. The main thing is to get it done, and do it right.

Our current lack of universal healthcare coverage is one of the many reasons why the recent bankruptcy law changes were so hostile to family values and human life. Medical bills and lost jobs are the two biggest reasons people file for bankruptcy. Any one of us is a "pink slip" and a diagnosis away from financial ruin.

A Note On Trade:

Everyone agrees that trade is good. It is good for our economy, our security, and our humanity.

However, as a society, we need to carefully look at every trade policy, treaty, and deal -- to see who bears the costs, as well as who reaps the benefits from them.

I oppose NAFTA, CAFTA, and any approach to trade which fails to take into account any standards for labor, the environment, human rights, critical industries, or our balance of trade.

It is not enough just to get cheaper goods for those who have a job and can afford to buy them, or for businesses that are politically well-connected or big enough to profit.

We have to look at the costs to our society as a whole, and balance these against the benefits, as well as how we insure that these costs and benefits are fairly shared by all.

This requires an open process, with full representation from all interested groups at the table.

A Note On Reform:

Our democracy is drowning in dirty money. We snicker at developing countries where bribery is part of doing business. Here, we do it in the light of day, "in front of God and everyone."

The corporate two-party duopoly has given our government a "bipolar personality disorder." A dysfunctional government turns out bizarre legislation harmful to our long-term interests. People are so divided, they can't think straight, can't talk to each other.

We have to clean up the system and open it to all. With a little creativity, and a lot of resolve, we can do this in ways that still uphold our 1st Amendment free speech rights.

We need to move to a healthy, multiparty democracy, with guaranteed voting rights, equal ballot access, instant runoff voting, and real campaign finance reform.

This will invigorate our democracy and open it to broader participation and higher quality debate.

The Republican and Democratic parties do not like these reforms, because it will end their monopoly on our political system. But, it is our democracy, not theirs.

Electoral reform and media reform go hand in hand. The same corporate interests that own the parties, also own the media.

An informed public is the only sure base for a healthy democracy.

See the Interview

2005-11-03T23:56:00.000-06:00

See the candidate interview with Lee Goodman from the AtCenterNetwork, a place where people can openly discuss the important issues of the day.

Part 1 - Iraq (see my note below)
Part 2 - Pork; Jobs; Taxes & Spending; Campaign Finance
Part 3 - Social Security & Healthcare; Education; Iran

At one point in Part 1 of the interview, I share a local "private joke" with the interviewer, who happens to be a 10th District neighbor to those of us here in the 8th District of Illinois. The premise of the joke is the fact that the person who now represents us in the 8th District, Melissa Bean -- does not live in our district, but in his.

For some reason, her opponents tried to make that a pivotal issue in the 2004 campaign. (And you wonder why they lost!?)

To me, this represents a different issue -- one of electoral reform. If it is okay for the politicians to choose their voters (through gerrymandering ridiculous district lines that bear no connection with our local sense of community, and by running for office in any district they choose), then why can't we voters also choose our politicians? Someone who we feel represents us.

If we were free in the 8th District in 2004 to make such a choice, we would not have been stuck with such a limited menu as Phil Crane and "Phyllis Crane" (the name some people jokingly gave to Melissa Bean). I would love to have been able to cast a vote for Jan Schakowsky in Cook County, Lee Goodman in Lake/Cook County, or Christine Cegelis in DuPage County, all of whom are neighbors.

So, now you can "get" the joke. I hope you get the point too.
Free the Voters!

Scheurer Versus Bean: Not In Primary

2005-11-03T18:21:00.000-06:00

Cristel Mohrman
Pioneer Press

After losing to Melissa Bean, D-8th, in the Democratic primary in 2004, Bill Scheurer plans to return to the political scene for a rematch.

But this time, the Lindenhurst resident said he will run as either an independent or third-party candidate to ensure his name appears on the Nov. 2006 election ballot.

Scheurer, who ran last year on an agenda to end the war in Iraq, said his standpoint on that situation has not changed. This time, though, he will expand his platform to include his support of balanced budgets, the end of the United States' dependency on foreign oil and a universal health care program.

"I'm open to the approach we take on that. The main thing we have to agree to upfront is we are no longer going to have a society where one in six of our neighbors does not have health care insurance," he said.

He said his platform sets him apart from Bean, as well as the seven Republican primary candidates. But, he added, he doesn't plan to launch a campaign against Bean and the prevailing Republican candidate. Instead, he said, his efforts will focus on delivering what he believes 8th District residents want.

"We're acting like the other candidates aren't even out there. We intend to focus on the message, the issues that we want to bring to the voters," said Scheurer, who describes himself as a "progressive conservative."

"We talk about 2004 as political speech, and 2006 as political action," he added.

So far he has gained the endorsement of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The union made the maximum $5,000 donation allowed by law to Scheurer's campaign.

Scheurer, a Lake County resident for 27 years, is editor of the PeaceMajority Report as well as a writer and publisher. He holds degrees in religious studies and law. He and his wife, Randi, have four adult children, including a son who is stationed in Baghdad.

Scheurer Considering Run Against Bean As Independent

2005-10-29T15:50:00.000-05:00

Lindenhurst Resident: Candidate in 2004 Democratic Primary

By Ralph Zahorik
The News Sun

U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Barrington Township, might have three opponents in the November 2006 election.

Bill Scheurer of Lindenhurst, an anti-Iraq War activist who ran against Bean in the 2004 Democratic primary, is considering another run as an independent or third-party candidate.

Scheurer has said his campaign will focus on the war, universal health care, balancing the budget and ending dependency on foreign oil. He also hopes to capitalize on organized labor's disappointment over Bean's support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Scheurer recently won support from one union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which has contributed $5,000 to his campaign. He said five other "large unions" are considering supporting him but he declined to name them.

Scheurer called Bean's vote for CAFTA and other measures "a betrayal of working people."

Other "anti-worker" legislation Bean supported were the bankruptcy reform bill, the estate tax repeal, the "Enron/Halliburton" energy bill and the Patriot Act, he said.

Bean "is focused on her job and she has already demonstrated the responsiveness and effectiveness she promised to bring to the position," said Brian Herman, a spokesman for Bean.

"She has consistently voted in the best interest of her district and will continue to be a fiscally conservative and socially moderate advocate for her her constituents," he said.

Bean was the only Democratic member of Congress in Illinois voting for CAFTA. A total of 15 Democrats nationwide supported the trade agreement.

The Chicago Federation of Labor and the United Steel Workers of America organized pickets at Bean's Schaumburg office after the CAFTA vote. The Northeastern Illinois Federation of Labor, the Gurnee-based central labor body for AFL-CIO union locals in Lake and McHenry counties, dropped her as their "person-of-the-year" honoree after the CAFTA vote.

"We feel the need to support someone now who will look after the needs of working Americans in Congress," said Jim Brown, Midwest vice president of the Machinists, in a statement. "Bill Scheurer looks to be that guy for 2006."

The Machinists donated about $15,000 to help Bean defeat longtime Republican Congressman Phillip Crane last year. Brown has called Bean's vote on CAFTA, and other votes "a slap in the face."

"This union represents a lot of hard-working men and women ... These are the people I stand with," Scheurer said. "I will never take their money — and their blood, sweat and tears — in my campaign, and then turn around when I get to Congress and vote against them when they need me most.

"That is what the incumbent did," he said. "She rode into Congress on their backs and now has no further use for them. And it's not just labor. She has let down a lot of people with her bad votes."

Unions gave Bean more than $200,000 in her 2004 campaign to oust Crane. To date, she has reported raising $1.1 million for her 2006 campaign.

Six Republicans are seeking the GOP nomination to run against Bean. They are: Kenneth Arnold, a Gurnee businessman and political activist; state Rep. Robert Churchill, R-Lake Villa; Kathy Salvi of Wauconda, a lawyer and wife of former state legislator Al Salvi; Teresa Bartels of Countryside Lake near Mundelein, chair of the University Center of Lake County; Aaron Lincoln of Wauconda, a former attorney with the Department of Defense; and former investment banker David McSweeney of Barrington.

The primary election is March 21.

Scheurer got 22 percent of the Democratic vote when he ran in the Democratic primary against Bean last year. He spent little and had only a few volunteers. Scheurer ran as a Democrat against state Rep. JoAnn Osmond, R-Antioch, last November, receiving 42 percent of the vote.

Scheurer, speaking at a Letter Carriers Union meeting in Gurnee on Thursday, said his campaign will focus on his opposition to the war in Iraq, supporting universal health care, balancing the federal budget and "ending our dependency of foreign oil."

In November 2006, "Two candidates will be out there after the Republican vote and one candidate will be after the Democratic vote," he said.

Two of Scheurer's four children have served in the military, in the Army and Marines, and have served in Okinawa, Kuwait and Iraq. His 26-year-old son is stationed in Iraq with his National Guard unit.

Scheurer and his wife, Randi, are members of Military Families Speak Out, a peace group.

Scheurer, 55, has degrees in religious studies and law and has worked as a lay minister, an attorney and a business owner. He described himself as a "Catholic/Mormon." He said he was CEO and principal shareholder of an Internet technology company, welcomeamerica.com for about 17 years.

He currently is a writer, editor of the non-profit Internet publication called Peace Majority Report and is involved with Hourglass Books, a non-profit publish-on-demand enterprise.

The Scheurers have lived in Lindenhurst for 27 years.

Independent Candidate Emerges For Bean’s Seat

2005-10-27T09:22:00.000-05:00

By Joseph Ryan
Daily Herald Staff Writer

Freshman Democratic U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean may have to fight for her seat from both sides in November 2006 as she faces not only a Republican, but also a former Democrat with union support.

Bill Scheurer, who lost to Bean in the 2004 Democratic primary, says he is running either as an independent or under a third-party label for the 8th Congressional District that covers most of Lake, northwestern Cook and western McHenry counties.

He will have to decide by December when petitions are due.

The Lindenhurst attorney’s campaign pitch on balanced budgets and universal health care could make waves in the 2006 November campaign for Bean, who relied on traditionally Democratic supporters in 2004 but reached out to moderate Republicans to unseat Phil Crane, a 35-year conservative icon in the U.S. House.

Scheurer says his candidacy has legs this time because he can attract Bean’s former union supporters, who have split ways with her for supporting an international trade pact they say will cost American jobs.

An early sign of this support, he says, is a $5,000 check to his campaign from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Scheurer claims five other large unions have promised an equal amount, but he declined to name them.

“We went out and supported her campaign last year,” said Jim Brown, who heads the machinist’s unions Midwest territory. “She slapped us in the face.”

The machinists union, which represents 25,000 Illinois workers, has given Bean $15,000 over the last two years, federal records show. Overall, unions gave her 2004 campaign more than $235,000, out of a total of about $1.5 million in her campaign war chest.

Bean’s spokesman Brian Herman declined to comment on Scheurer’s candidacy or union support, other than to say she stands by her vote. Several large corporations in the district supported the trade pact.

This summer, large unions attacked Bean for voting for the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a measure trade-hawk Crane also supported. The Chicago Federation of Labor, an umbrella group for several big unions, and the United Steel Works of America organized pickets of her Schaumburg office. Some vowed to run a challenger.

But for now Scheurer’s $5,000 check is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of cash set to be spent in next year’s general election.

In 2004, Bean and Crane spent a combined $3.1 million. Outside groups spent millions more. This year, Bean already has more than $1.1 million in the bank.

The six Republicans facing off in the primary are also amassing massive campaign war chests. Barrington Hills investment banker David McSweeney and Wauconda attorney Kathy Salvi have committed to spend $1 million.

In his 2004 primary bid against Bean, Scheurer roped in 22 percent of the vote with few volunteers and no money. He had an equally small operation for his subsequent run against Republican state Rep. Jo Ann Osmond in the 61st District in November 2004. He lost that election with 42 percent of the vote.

“We didn’t really run campaigns,” Scheurer said of his earlier bids. “It was more political speech. This is political action.”

Scheurer said his campaign mantra will focus on supporting universal health care, opposing the Iraq war, balancing the federal budget and spending significant public funds to research alternative energy.

Bean Treads Carefully On Iraq

2005-10-20T09:01:00.000-05:00

By Maura Kelly Lannan
Associated Press

Freshman U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean recently returned from a five-day trip to Iraq, where she spent time talking with soldiers to gather insight from inside the war zone.

But when it comes to Bean's own position on the war, the targeted Democrat remains tight-lipped.

Bean, treading in Republican turf, rebuffs questions about whether she would have voted to invade Iraq-- mirroring tactics that helped her win her seat. When asked if she supports the war now, she will say only that she supports the troops.

"The reality is we are there. And right now, Baghdad is not safe for people to walk down the street. We need to make sure that the area is secure, and our military is doing a great job to do just that," Bean said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

With the American death toll in Iraq quickly approaching 2,000, many voters in the Republican-leaning 8th Congressional District say the war in Iraq will play a role in how they cast their ballots. But their opinions on how big that role will be are mixed, particularly as they weigh the issue against others closer to home

"I think we need to get back to square one, and square one is the United States of America, it's our economy, it's what's going on in this country," said Pat Kinnane, 49, a laid-off airline baggage supervisor from Hoffman Estates who usually votes Democratic. "I'm going to look at candidates who talk about taking U.S. tax dollars and doing what's in the best interest of our country."

Bean said she has received more questions on Iraq recently, but she believes those questions play into more far-reaching concerns about the economy, emergency preparedness, unemployment and workers' pensions.

"There's no question it's higher on people's radar. A lot of that has to do with economic concerns, not just national security, but about the billions of dollars that are being spent there after Katrina," Bean said.

Bean unseated 35-year veteran Republican Congressman Phil Crane last fall partly by portraying him as out of touch with his constituents in the district northwest of Chicago. The Barrington businesswoman played down being a Democrat and instead promised to work hard and keep in touch with the district.

Republicans have tried to paint Bean as a liberal in moderate clothing and have targeted her seat as one of a handful of the most vulnerable for Democrats in 2006.

Bean said she went to Iraq with three other members of Congress to "get some anecdotal, street level perspective from the troops that you cannot get from briefings."

But she also downplays the importance of the war as a single issue for voters next year.

"I think people are looking for who will represent them across the board on issues they're telling me matter most," she said.

Kathy Salvi, one of several Republicans who hope to challenge Bean in the fall, said she thinks voters are focused on the war, which she supports, as well as other issues.

"Nobody likes war, Republican, Democrat or nothing. But if we're going to enter into a war, we better win it and we have to have a strong policy. A stable Iraq is essential to a stable Middle East and a stable world," she said.

Philip Howe, 65, a retired computer repair worker from Elk Grove Village, worries that Democrats will try to make the war into a negative in the election. He plans to support Republicans in the next election and says the war has been worth the loss of life.

"Nobody is probably happy about the way the Iraq war is going, but then it took us 100 or 200 years to develop the kind of democracy that we have. It's not something you expect to happen overnight," he said.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Diana Maxwell, 56, a homemaker from Schaumburg, said the war is one issue that has pushed her closer to Democrats than Republicans.

"I didn't like Bush to start with and I like him less as time goes on and it's really turning me into a straight-voting Democrat," Maxwell said. "I used to call myself an independent but it's getting harder and harder."

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Scheurer to Run in 8th District

2005-10-13T13:39:00.000-05:00

‘Progressive Conservative’ Independent Candidate Takes on Bean, Republicans

By BRENDA BALIN
Special to Lakeland Media

While Republican Party members fight it out among themselves to determine who will challenge Melissa Bean (D-Barrington) for the 8th Congressional District seat she wrested away from Republican Phil Crane in the last election, independent candidate William Scheurer is mounting his own challenge.

Scheurer, who refers to himself as a “progressive conservative,” has a platform that defies traditional categorization, blending traditional conservative fiscal restraint with “liberal” social consciousness.

“My platform covers four issues,” Scheurer said. “They are a balanced budget, ‘smart’ security, energy independence and universal health insurance.” Scheurer said he planned to create a third party, tentatively to be called Common Ground. He defined the principles of the emergent party as progressive in its values and goals but conservative in its means and methods.

“We believe the government has a role to play in meeting human needs,” Scheurer said. ”We also believe that people who have more have a responsibility to help people who have less. We believe in progressive taxation.”

On the “conservative” side of the ledger, Scheurer and his party favor a balanced budget. “I think government should do what it can do well,” Scheurer said. “We’re calling for bringing real management principles to government, and carefully selecting what we choose to get government involved in.” His party also would favor limited government, and the principle that “markets do better than government at meeting most human needs.”

Scheurer, who has had two children in the military, including one now serving in Baghdad, is a member of the Military Families Speak Out, an anti-war group. His proposed policy of “smart security” calls for “a shift away from a focus on war and aggression and towards peaceful diplomacy with military preparedness to deal with the risks we now face.”

Scheurer notes that the policies followed in the past few years have “eroded good will in the world, engendered enmity, alienated our traditional allies and agitated people who were opposed to our policies to begin with.” He asked, “At the human level, do you feel safer now (than in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks)?”

In the quest for a balanced budget, Scheurer sees the war involvement as a further drain. “I’m in favor of restoring tax equity,” he said. “We need to look at both spending and revenue.” He believes that by refocusing on foreign affairs the country can “be safer and have a bounty left over.”

Scheurer sees the war as being “all about oil dependency, not about freedom.” He pointed out that there are genocidal actions occurring in the Sudan, Uganda and Rwanda, to name a few places. “There are tyrannies, dictatorships, but we don’t send troops in there,” he said. “The war is about oil,” Scheurer said. “Everything else is smoke and mirrors.”

To satisfy the need for energy, Scheurer would redirect the same kind of effort that marked space exploration into seeking sources of clean, renewable energy.

The final plank in Scheurer’s platform is health care. He would favor a system of mandatory health insurance, patterned after auto insurance laws. “We lag behind other (developed) countries in health care,” he said.

At billscheurer.blogspot.com, Scheurer’s personal profile notes, “One of the things that meant the most to him as a businessman was that he always provided full medical coverage for his co-workers, a rare achievement for a small business today.”

Scheurer opposes privatization of Social Security. “We should not submit our collective security to the ups and downs of Wall Street,” he said. “ENRON should have cured us of that.” He would have Social Security administered progressively, “to make sure that people who struggled all their lives can still live in dignity.” He suggested that those who were well off should not require the same benefits as those who had substantially less.

Scheurer, who considers himself a life-oriented person, opposes abortion, capital punishment and war. Regarding abortion, he would allow for “extenuating circumstances” such as rape, incest and the life and health of the woman. “We’d have to explore this and set parameters,” he said. “But 95 percent of the voices in the discussion should be women, and the rest should be jurists and sociologists.”

Supported by the “GLBT” faction (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual), Scheurer said civil unions for gays represent “equal protection for every citizen.” He said defining spiritual marriage is “an issue for churches.”

Scheurer was born on Dec. 5, 1950. He has a B.A, in religious studies and a J.D. in law. Scheurer has been married for 35 years to Randi, an artist and homemaker, with a degree in fine arts. The couple has lived in Lake County for 27 years, raising four children (ages 24-31) in their Lindenhurst home.

Two of their children have served in the military (Army and Marines), including tours in Okinawa, Kuwait and Iraq. Their son is now with the National Guard, stationed in Baghdad. They are members of Military Families Speak Out.

Bill has been active in several non-profit groups, such as P.A.D.S. (a local homeless shelter), Human Rights First and others. Scheurer has degrees in religious studies and law, and has worked as a lay minister, an attorney, and a small business owner. He now works as a writer, publisher, and peace activist.

A campaign web site will soon be posted. Until then, his platform can be found at billscheurer.blogspot.com. Policies he favors are also explained at www.peacemajority.org. He can be e-mailed at scheurer2006@comcast.net.

brendabalin@aol.com

Where Fear Can't Take Us

2005-10-10T12:21:00.000-05:00

By Ira Chernus

Who can deny it? It's an almost physical pleasure to watch George W. Bush's fall from grace. And it's so easy. All you have to do is say, "Bush has botched the war on terrorism. Bush is not keeping us safe from terrorists -- or from the terrors of nature." You've already got over half the country with you, and more are jumping on board the anti-Bush train every day. But before we settle in to ride that train to political glory, we ought to consider whether it can really take us to a better future.

A recent TV ad from MoveOn.org sums up the commonest theme of the campaign to cripple, if not topple, the Bush presidency: "We're no safer today than we were four years ago." The rest of the case goes something like this (and who can deny its accuracy): We have good reason to be afraid. We're more vulnerable than ever to another attack on our soil, because the Bush administration is fighting the war on terrorism totally the wrong way. In fact, in Iraq it isn't really fighting the war on terrorism at all. In growing numbers, critics, even conservative ones, agree that the President's misadventure in Iraq has diverted us from the war we have to fight, the war against the real threat: Al Qaeda.

At the huge DC peace rally, speakers denounced the war as a diversion from another pressing threat. "National security begins in New Orleans, homeland security begins at home," Jesse Jackson told the crowd. When real danger was upon us, the President's critics charged, you were busy doing something else. You failed in your solemn duty to protect us. How can we trust you to protect us in the future from the threats that we fear? One demonstrator's sign summed up the point succinctly: "Make levees, not war."

Again, who can deny that making levees makes much more sense than sending more Louisiana National Guards to Iraq? But if we only hold back the peril we fear, and stop at that, we won't ever get real safety or security. Here's why:

Hurricane Katrina has sealed the public image of Bush as a failure. He is, after all, a one-issue president. His success hinges completely on getting high marks in protecting us from danger. Now his big gamble -- turning the war on terror into a war on Iraq -- is backfiring big time. When the waters of Lake Pontchartrain washed away much of New Orleans, they also washed away most of Bush's "political capital." But he had already been losing plenty of that between the Tigris and Euphrates.

The Bush administration still doesn't seem to get it. With hundreds of thousands descending on Washington to protest his war, the President could only repeat his stale old mantra: "will, resolve, character." With more of the same coming from the White House, we can pretty well count on a steadily weakening presidency -- unless there is another terrorist attack that kills a large number of Americans or destroys a symbol of American nationalism.

The President's only chance to recoup would be a reprise of 9/11, sending another chill of fear up the spine of the body politic. Bush's success has always depended on the fear factor, on the prospect of threat without end.

Fear does move public opinion. That's a lesson the anti-Bush forces have learned well. Their nemesis in the White House has turned out, in this way, to be their master teacher. They are using fear most effectively to bring down a presidency built on fear. It's a delicious irony.

It's also a blessing, at least in the short run. A weakened presidency suffers on every front. The privatization of social security is moribund and will soon be pronounced dead on Capitol Hill. Chief Justice Roberts will be bad, but he may not be the Scalia clone that Bush promised his right-wing base. And when was the last time you heard the words "compassionate conservatism"? Though there is plenty to worry about under a weak Bush, it would have been far worse under a strong Bush.

But what price will we pay for this blessing in the long run, if we purchase it with the currency of mounting public fear?

The Price of Fear

Fear can be an energizing emotion. It can move us to fight or flight. But fear, when it becomes overwhelming, is more likely to paralyze -- think of the proverbial deer in the headlights. Long ago, in Hiroshima, psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton discovered that when there's too much fear, it curdles into despair. If threat seems to be everywhere, with no escape in sight, people stop trying to imagine how things could get better. In fact, it seems that they stop imagining anything at all, except more peril. Lifton called this condition "psychic numbing."

His great insight was that the bomb didn't have to fall for this tragedy to befall us. In a sense, Hiroshima had already come to America. During all those Cold War years, when Americans lived under the shadow of superpower "mutual assured destruction" or MAD (as the madly accurate acronym of that moment had it), seeing no way out, psychic numbing took its toll. What historians often call the "national security state" has actually been a national insecurity state, based on the sort of numbing fear that was bound to make Americans more conservative, more fearful of change.

The idea of a whole society working together to imagine a better world, and then turning imagination into reality, has been off the American radar screen for some six decades now (except for a brief ray of light in the 1960s). When it seems safer to allow no significant change at all, politics naturally becomes an exercise in circling the wagons and hunkering down for an endless siege. The 9/11 attack and the Bush-orchestrated response insured that the United States would continue to be a hunkered-down national insecurity state (and now a homeland insecurity state) well into the 21st century.

All of us, supporters and critics alike, have absorbed this lesson. When we criticize Bush because he has failed to keep us safe, we score valuable political points. But we pay a price for those points, because we reinforce the basic premises of the national insecurity state -- that danger is everywhere and can never be eliminated; that all systemic change is dangerous; and that our best hope lies in a government strong enough and pugnacious enough to prevent significant change and so protect us from fear's worst effects.

The urge to be safe, to keep fear at bay, is certainly natural and understandable. But after more than half a century in a state of heightened national insecurity, Americans have largely forgotten the other side of the human coin: the urge to be daring, to take chances that can lead to positive change. Insecurity is now in the national bloodstream. That's why anti-Bush campaigns that evoke fear can be so successful. To be successful in the longer term, though, we have to constrict that sense of insecurity, to return it to the more modest place where it belongs, until actual security comes into sight.

Otherwise, no matter how much anti-Bush campaigns weaken the President, they end up reinforcing the pervasive insecurity that has been the key to his political success. They make it more likely that the public will want future leaders in the Bush mold, who demand "peace through strength." No flip-flops need apply.

Securing a Politics of Hope

The human resource -- potentially so readily available -- that can help us break out of this cycle of fear and numbing is imagination. Imagine American political language and life no longer based simply on the question, "How can we be safe?", but on the question, "How can we make life better for all of us?" Imagine it for a little while, and you begin to realize that such a profound shift would give us the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to be really secure.

Consider, for example, Class 5 hurricanes. It's a good idea to build stout levees, if they are just a first step. For real security, though, we have to move beyond fear to hope. We have to focus on the positive changes that will help everyone, even if there is never another great storm. We should reclaim wetlands -- nature's own buffer against flooding -- to create a stable environment where a myriad of species, including humans, can flourish creatively. We should support the decades-old local organizations in poor, stricken areas, the folks who know how to build vibrant communities in their own neighborhoods. We should take steps to cool down the Earth to make wetlands more stable, growing seasons more predictable, and harvests more bountiful.

The prospect of really making things better gives people a reason to think and act together. It makes them feel empowered. Once set loose, hopeful attitudes and actions build on each other. That's when genuine change begins -- whether in relation to wetlands, poverty, global warming or any other issue, including the "war on terrorism."

You hardly have to be as well educated as the average Al Qaeda activist (who, it turns out, is pretty well educated) to see that present American efforts to "make the world better" are mainly efforts to protect U.S. power and interests. The President and the power brokers can hide that truth behind a verbal smokescreen, using phrases like "protect America," "keep our nation safe," and "defend our homeland against foreign enemies." It's an easy rhetorical trick.

Once you start talking the language of "protecting and defending," though, you're on your way into the land of self-fulfilling prophecies. To make the smokescreen work, the administration then has to turn everyone who disagrees into "the enemy." It's a natural next step to set out to destroy them, which, of course, turns them into genuine enemies.

But suppose the U.S. had spent the last six decades letting other people decide what "a better world" means to them and then helping them achieve their own goals. That's so far from the pattern of our foreign policy that it takes a wrenching effort just to imagine. Try to make that effort; then ask what kind of "terrorist threat" we would have. There's no way to know for sure. But it seems a reasonable bet that we'd be a lot safer than we are today.

It makes sense to join the liberal chorus of "end the war in Iraq so we can protect ourselves against terrorists" as long as it's just a first step, as long as we go on to say things like: "Instead of draining our national treasury for endless war, we demand that our tax dollars be used to repair the damage done to Iraq and to fund services in our communities." Those words, from the United for Peace and Justice website, echo the sentiment of hundreds of groups that are imagining a better future.

Many demand that our tax dollars be used to fund services and repair damage all over the world. After all, that's actually the best way to begin to protect ourselves from danger. But even that won't work if we do it simply because we are scared. We'll never be safe if we make safety our ultimate goal. We'll be safe only if we let safety be a by-product of a society working together to improve life for everyone.

The best way to be secure is to imagine a genuine politics of hope. Imagine. Unfortunately, when John Lennon said, "It's easy if you try," he was quite wrong. After six decades of our national insecurity state, it's incredibly hard. But it's an effort that anti-Bush forces ought to make. The alternative is, however inadvertently, to reinforce the politics of fear that Bush and his kind thrive on. The belief that danger is everywhere -- that we must have leaders whose great task is to keep us safe -- is the one great danger we really do need to protect ourselves against.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He is the author of American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea, and is currently working on Monsters to Destroy, a book about religion and the neoconservative war on terror. He can be reached at chernus@colorado.edu.

Copyright 2005 Ira Chernus

New CAFTA Damage Report Tracks Results of CAFTA Vote in Key Districts

2005-10-09T15:03:00.000-05:00

Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch has announced the launch of the CAFTA Damage Report, an on-going series of reports that track the consequences of the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in districts where members of Congress voted for the agreement despite opposition from constituents or their own misgivings.

In a blow to the Illinois working families who campaigned to put her in office in 2004 and in contradiction to a 2004 campaign pledge to oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Rep. Melissa Bean (D Ill.-8) voted in favor of the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which eked through the House of Representatives on July 27 by a 217-215 vote. Bean's flip-flop has the citizens of Illinois' 8th district worried that their Congresswoman is either unable or unwilling to stand up for their concerns.

PUBLIC CITIZEN NEWS RELEASES

Sep. 29 - Spotlight on Illinois Rep. Bean's CAFTA Vote as New Government Data Show Continuing Loss of Manufacturing Jobs

Sep. 13 - Spotlight Back on Illinois Rep. Bean's Vote in Favor of CAFTA as Government Data Released Today Show a Record Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit

Aug. 25 - CAFTA Damage Report - With Illinois Jobs at Risk, Freshman Rep. Melissa Bean Flip-Flops from Campaign Pledge to Oppose NAFTA Expansions, Casts a Deciding CAFTA Vote

NEWS ARTICLES ON BEAN'S BAD CAFTA VOTE
"CAFTA Vote Outs 'Bush Democrats,'" The Nation, August 28, 2005.
"Democracy Sold Out - CAFTA Approved by Pork and a Hill of Beans," CommonDreams.org, July 28, 2005.
"Labor Won't Forget the CAFTA Dems," Capital Times, July 28, 2005.
"Union chief rips Bean for backing trade pact," Chicago Sun-Times, July 29, 2005.
"Unions Say They Will Punish Democrats For Supporting DR-CAFTA Deal," Inside US Trade, July 29, 2005.
"Bean loses 'Person of Year' award over CAFTA vote," Associated Press, August 4, 2005.
"Bean's Vote on CAFTA sparks AFL-CIO reaction," Barrington Courier-Review, August 11, 2005.
"House Democrats under pressure after votes for DR-CAFTA," Inside US Trade, August 12, 2005.
"Bean's Vote Upsets Union," Palatine Countryside (Ill.), August 18, 2005.

Former Supporters Picket Bean’s Office

2005-08-11T23:06:00.000-05:00

Daily Herald
By Joseph Ryan

A few dozen union activists picketed Democratic U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean’s Schaumburg office Wednesday over her recent vote for a trade pact with Central American countries.

The union members stood under a large American flag in the office complex parking lot near Woodfield Shopping Center as they waved signs, one of which read “Bean: How do you spell sell-out?”

The picketing follows political threats from union leaders that Bean’s support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, on July 28 may lead to a union-backed challenger in the 2006 Democratic primary for the 8th Congressional District.

CAFTA was backed by Republicans and opposed by union leaders, who say it will cause an exodus of jobs to low-wage countries. Bean was one of 15 Democrats to cross party lines and vote for CAFTA. The measure passed the U.S. House by only two votes. The president has signed it.

Union money and volunteers helped Bean unseat 35-year veteran Congressman Phil Crane, a Republican champion of trade pacts, in 2004. However, the district is also loaded with big businesses and farms that could benefit from the trade deal.

“It’s the right thing for the district … it’s going to create broader market access and economic opportunity,” Bean said Wednesday.

Union leaders aren’t buying that argument. They are also picketing other Democrats across the country who supported the measure. The United Steelworkers of America and a union representing textile plant workers headed the Bean picket in Schaumburg Wednesday.

“This is a wakeup call to Melissa Bean,” said Jeff Weiss, spokesman for the Chicago Federation of Labor, a local umbrella group for several large unions. “She can’t ignore working families.”

Weiss acknowledged some union leaders have threatened to support a Democratic challenger to Bean. But some area Democratic leaders see that move as unwise. Bean did win the traditionally Republican district from Crane, in part because she portrayed herself as a moderate.

“People have to realize that she has to do moves for her district, too. And she believes CAFTA will help people,” said Rocco Terranova, Schaumburg Township’s Democratic committeeman.

Terranova, a business agent for a sheet metal workers union, stressed that he opposes CAFTA. But he said a Democratic primary battle would hand the seat back to Republicans.

Investment banker David McSweeney and Mundelein businesswoman Teresa Bartels have said they will run as Republicans for Bean’s seat in 2006.

Bean Bounced From Labor Fete

2005-08-05T16:11:00.000-05:00

Labor irked: CAFTA vote costs her an invite

The News Sun
By Ralph Zahorik
STAFF WRITER

GURNEE — An invitation by labor unions in Lake and McHenry counties to honor freshman Democratic Congresswoman Melissa Bean as a friend of labor next month has been withdrawn because of her vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

CAFTA, strongly opposed by organized labor, passed the U.S. House in a close 217-215 vote last week. Bean was the only Illinois Democrat voting for the trade pact.

"CAFTA is bad for American workers and we had thought Congresswoman Bean would look out for the interests of working families," said Lee Schillinger of Round Lake Beach, a school teacher and president of the Gurnee-based Northeastern Illinois Federation of Labor, a central labor body with delegates from area union locals that represent about 20,000 workers.

"The entire labor movement is upset with Bean's vote on CAFTA," said Matthew LaPierre of Mundelein, a federation board member and representative of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees. "Defeat of this onerous legislation was a top priority of the labor movement ... We are deeply disappointed."

Organized labor supported Bean with manpower and $235,000 last year in her upset victory over Republican Congressman Phillip Crane in the Eighth Congressional District. Crane was viewed by organized labor as one of the labor movement's worst enemies.

Bean was to be honored as labor's "Person of the Year" at the federation's annual $100-a-plate fundraiser Sept. 25 at Midlane Resort in Waukegan. The fundraiser is still going ahead, but an alternative program is being planned, Schillinger said.

Although she won't be the guest honoree, Bean is still welcome to attend if she buys a ticket, he said.

"That's their right to do," said Bean. "It's an emotional issue with a lot of people."

"The federation has a right to present their award to whoever they choose, and they certainly feel strongly about CAFTA," said Brian Herman, a spokesman for the Barrington Democrat." The congresswoman values their perspective and carefully considered their point of view before supporting the agreement.

"She understands that some people may be disappointed, but the bottom line is that she has an obligation to vote in her constituents' best interests," Herman added. "In that regard, CAFTA is about market expansion and local job growth; and, on balance, families in her district will benefit from its passage."

"Organized labor was a key ingredient in your upset election over Phil Crane," the federation's executive board wrote Bean. "While labor never expected a 100 percent voting record after 30 years of 0 percent by Phil Crane, we did believe you shared and understood the interests of working families. Apparently you do not."

In their disinvitation, the Northeastern Illinois Federation of Labor, said previous Bean votes for eliminating the estate tax, extending "onerous provisions" of the Patriot Act" and for a bill "making it harder for working people to seek bankruptcy protection" also "were votes against the interests of working families."

Thea Lee, policy director at AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C., said organized labor hasn't decided what it would do about lawmakers who voted for CAFTA.

"Certainly, it's appropriate for a labor federation to take into account all votes," she said of the Northeastern Illinois Federation of Labor's action against Bean. "We support what they're doing on the local level, but we haven't made our decision."

Margaret Blackshere, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO, had no comment, said a spokeswoman, Beth Spencer.

Mike Stokke, deputy chief of staff to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is working to unseat Bean, had praise for the Barrington area congresswoman after her CAFTA vote.

"I think the real issue for people in Illinois is what are you doing to help the economy and bring jobs to that state, and she could certainly argue on CAFTA that she's done some things that help. I think the vote is smart vote for the district."

A top labor leader this week warned Bean will "pay a serious price" for voting for CAFTA.

"Almost all the unions in this particular area supported her both with mobilization — knocking on doors — and with money, and up comes what is a true test in terms of a vote, and she can't stand with us?" said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the largest union in the AFL-CIO.

"She'll certainly feel an effect in terms of contributions and resources," McEntee said. "She'll pay a serious price with the workers in her area."

Illinois AFL-CIO President Margaret Blackshere said last week that one local labor leader told her he was considering looking for a candidate to challenge Bean in the Democratic primary in the 8th Congressional District.

"They are angry. They feel betrayed," Blackshere said. "It will be difficult for her to get support in the future."

Two Republicans have announced they will seek the GOP nomination for Congress in Bean's district.

As the AFL-CIO's convention adjourned at Navy Pier, national President John Sweeney said he was "really angry" at Bean and the other Democratic defectors. But he said local union leaders will decide whether to support Bean's re-election.

CAFTA eliminates tariffs and other trade barriers between the United States and Costa Rica, the Dominican Republican, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Union officials argue it will cost U.S. jobs, allow foreign employers to exploit workers and fail to protect the environment.

Bean said she voted for CAFTA, even though it "is not perfect," because it will eliminate foreign taxes paid by Baxter Healthcare, Abbott Laboratories, Boeing, Motorola and other companies in or near her district, allowing them to broaden their markets and create jobs.

"My primary responsibility is to support the interests of my constituents," she said. "On balance, they will benefit from CAFTA."

Business leaders hailed her vote and said it could bring her more corporate support.

"It was a courageous vote on her part," said Douglas Whitley, president and chief executive officer of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce.

The Associated Press contributed to this report
8/5/05

Sharing What It's Like To Be A Military Family

2005-08-02T17:11:00.000-05:00

'Barking dogs take on whole new meaning'

Frank Abderholden
The News Sun

Everytime the three dogs bark at some movement outside his Lindenhurst home, Bill Scheurer takes a deep breath.

"The barking takes on a whole new meaning. We shudder to look out the window because we don't know if we are going to see THAT car there," he said.

That car would be the one carrying military officials coming to inform Scheurer something terrible has happened to his son Daniel, 27, who is with the Army National Guard stationed in Baghdad.

Scheurer is a member of Military Families Speak Out, which has an offshoot called the Gold Star Families for Peace. That group was cofounded by Cindy Sheehan, the angry mother of a dead soldier that has been camping outside President Bush's Texas ranch until he meets with her.

Wednesday night there were vigils held in Deerfield, Highland Park and Island Lake to support Sheehan, mother of Army Specialist Casey Sheehan who was killed in Iraq last year.

Scheurer runs PeaceMajority.org and publishes the online Peace Majority Report. The latest story on the Web site says, "Cindy Sheehan's demand for answers has immense power in a country lied to about (the) war."

He said he has met Sheehan and others in the Gold Star Families for Peace, a group of families who have lost a family member in the war in Iraq.

"I know these people. You almost don't want to look them in the eye because you don't want to think about becoming one of them," he said.

The Gold Star reference comes from a group of 25 women who mourning the loss of their sons in World War I decided to meet in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 1928, to make plans for the formation of the American Gold Star Mothers Inc.

The group would be open to any mother whose son or daughter died during active duty with the military. The group's symbol, the gold star, came into use during World War I when families of service members began displaying service flags emblazoned with a dark blue star for each living member in the military.

When a service member died or was killed during active duty, the blue stars were replaced with gold stars. Congress recognized the group in 1936 and four years later President Roosevelt issued a proclamation declaring the last Sunday in September Gold Star Mother's Day.

Recent polls have shown that a majority, 54 percent in a recent Gallup Poll, say the U.S. made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq. That's up from 46 percent in March. In March 2003 an overwelming majority supported the war.

Scheurer and his son, David, disagree on the war. He finished his tour with the Marines and then went into the Army National Guard.

"It was part economic, adventure and duty. There weren't many job opportunites when he got out of the Marines," he said, noting he was trained to drive amphibious assault vehicles.

"His view is we fight them over there or we fight them over here," he said.

Scheurer ran in the Democratic primary in 2003 for a chance to challenge U.S. Rep. Philip Crane, R-Wauconda, as a peace candidate, but lost. Then he ran against state Rep. JoAnn Osmond, R-Antioch, because she had no opposition and lost again. He said he is contemplating a third party run for Congress, but that requires a huge number of signatures.

He said even though he and his son differ on the war, his son supported him in election efforts.

He said the sole purpose of the vigils are to share what it is like to be a military family. "The vigils are to show solidarity with those suffering this experience," he said.

He also had another child, his daughter, Marcy, 29, who was in Army intelligence along with her husband. She is out now and served after the first Gulf War. He has another son, Allen, 31, and another daughter, Essie Shur, 23, who changed her name because she is an actress. She has been a guest actress on American Dreams and is in a movie called Smile that is coming out soon.

Union Chief Rips Bean For Backing Trade Pact

2005-07-29T22:23:00.000-05:00

BY SCOTT FORNEK
Political Reporter
Chicago Sun-Times

Freshman Democrat Melissa Bean will "pay a serious price" for voting for the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the U.S. House, a top labor leader said Thursday, predicting that unions will deny her crucial support in her effort to hold on to her northwest suburban congressional seat.

"Almost all the unions in this particular area supported her both with mobilization -- knocking on doors -- and with money, and up comes what is a true test in terms of a vote, and she can't stand with us?" said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the largest union in the AFL-CIO.

"She'll certainly feel an effect in terms of contributions and resources," McEntee said. "She'll pay a serious price with the workers in her area."

Leaders, workers feel 'betrayed'

Illinois AFL-CIO President Margaret Blackshere said one local labor leader told her he was considering looking for a candidate to challenge Bean in the Democratic primary in the 8th Congressional District.

"They are angry. They feel betrayed," Blackshere said. "It will be difficult for her to get support in the future."

Bean became a top GOP target after she ousted longtime Republican incumbent Phil Crane last year. In that race, labor unions gave the Barrington Democrat $235,200 -- nearly 49 percent of the political action money she took in, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This year, labor has kicked in at least $67,500.

As the AFL-CIO's convention adjourned at Navy Pier, national President John Sweeney told the Chicago Sun-Times he is "really angry" at Bean and the other Democratic defectors. But he said local union leaders will decide whether to support Bean's re-election.

"She's probably out of touch with her district," Sweeney said. "When's the last time she talked to workers about this?"

Bean was one of 15 House Democrats -- and the only one in Illinois -- to vote Wednesday for the trade agreement, called CAFTA, which squeaked through 217-215 after earlier passing the Senate.

Bean defends her vote

CAFTA eliminates tariffs and other trade barriers between the United States and Costa Rica, the Dominican Republican, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Union officials argue it will cost U.S. jobs, allow foreign employers to exploit workers and fail to protect the environment.

Bean said she voted for CAFTA, even though it "is not perfect," because it will eliminate foreign taxes paid by Baxter Healthcare, Abbott Labs, Boeing, Motorola and other companies in or near her district, allowing them to broaden their markets and create jobs.

"My primary responsibility is to support the interests of my constituents," she said. "On balance, they will benefit from CAFTA."

Business leaders hailed her vote and said it could bring her more corporate support.

"It was a courageous vote on her part," said Douglas Whitley, president and chief executive officer of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce.

Punish the CAFTA 15

2005-07-28T15:50:00.000-05:00

By Peter Rothberg
The Nation Magazine

Last night, President Bush eked out a very narrow victory on his top trade priority, with the House of Representatives approving a free-trade agreement with Central American countries by just two votes. The House vote was held open for more than one hour to ensure passage. The final tally was 217 to 215.

The White House's victory on CAFTA was achieved through a combination of intense pressure and outright bribery to secure support for the measure, which fostered strong opposition from Democrats and Republicans. As Republican Representative C.L. "Butch" Otter, Republican of Idaho, told the Boston Globe today, GOP leaders promised pork-barrel spending and future legislation to undecided members, with a massive highway spending bill scheduled to be completed this week as a prime location for pet projects. "They're pulling out all the stops," Otter said. "They're either promising or threatening. They've done everything they could." (The Idaho rep. said he opposed CAFTA, despite personal lobbying from Bush at the White House.)

At least the GOP legislators were able to wrest unrelated bribes for their districts in return for their votes. That much cannot be said for the 15 so-called Democrats who voted for the pact and made passage possible.

As Jonathan Tasini writes in his excellent blog, The Working Life, "If we ever want to make politicians take us seriously when it comes to important laws touching the lives of workers, we must punish the 15 so-called Democrats who voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)--and punish them hard."

Click here to see whose these 15 are and what to do to make clear to them your anger over their pro-CAFTA votes.

CAFTA Vote Outs "Bush Democrats"

2005-07-28T15:40:00.000-05:00

By John Nichols
The Nation Magazine

The Central American Free Trade Agreement, which was such a high priority for the Bush administration that the president personally lobbied Congressional Republicans on the issue Wednesday, passed the House by two votes.

Those two votes came from members who can best be described as "Bush Democrats."
The final vote on CAFTA was 217-215 in favor of the deal, the closest margin possible -- as a tie vote would have prevented approval.

Of the 217 supporters of the bill, 202 were Republicans and 15 were Democrats.

Of the 215 opponents of the bill, 187 were Democrats, 27 were Republicans and one was an independent, Vermont's Bernie Sanders.

The Republicans who split with the president withstood immense pressure from the White House and corporate lobbyists in order to take a stand with the organized labor, environmental, farm and international human rights groups that opposed the agreement. They were so courageous and so consistent in their determination to block the president's agenda that, during the floor debate, Representative Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democrat who led opposition to CAFTA, specifically praised Republicans such as Idaho's Butch Otter and North Carolina's Walter Jones for their efforts.

On the other hand, the Democrats who supported Bush's agenda faced little or no pressure from the White House. Nor did they show anything akin to courage or consistency. They simply voted with the White House because, either they agree with the president's misguided approach to global trade or they thought they could trade their votes for big contributions from the corporate interests that see the NAFTA/CAFTA model of free trade as an opportunity to improve business bottom lines at the expense of workers, the environment and communities in the U.S. and Latin America.

Let's give the Bush Democrats the benefit of the doubt and accept that they actually support the corporate model for trade that Bush backs. This puts them at odds with mainstream Democrats on what can only be described as the most fundamental of economic issues -- as trade deals get into the core questions of whether American workers will have jobs, whether communities can maintain their industrial bases, whether government has the power to protect the environment, and whether the U.S. government will be a willing co-conspirator in the exploitation of men, women and children in developing countries.

So, unless they are crooks who trade their votes for campaign checks, the Bush Democrats are supporters of a corporate agenda that Representative Robert Menendez -- a New Jersey Democrat who has a long history of involvement with Latin American affairs -- explained during the CAFTA debate would harm U.S. workers and farmers while plunging Central American countries deeper into poverty and causing more Latin Americans to migrate to the U.S.

At the least, this suggests that the Bush Democrats -- Melissa Bean of Illinois, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Norm Dicks of Washington, Ruben Hinojosa of Texas, William Jefferson of Louisiana, Jim Matheson of Utah, Gregory Meeks of New York, Dennis Moore of Kansas, Jim Moran of Virginia, Solomon Ortiz of Texas, Ike Skelton of Missouri, Vic Snyder of Arkansas, John Tanner of Tennessee, and Edolphus Towns of New York -- are on the wrong side of history, and of humanity.

But does this one vote, necessarily, make them Bush Democrats?

Let's look at where they lined up on other economic issues that matter to the Bush White House?

When the so-called "bankruptcy reform" bill came up earlier this year, the White House and Wall Street favored a "yes" vote to make it harder for working Americans who get hit with a medical emergency or some other form of crisis to get back on their feet financially. Twelve of the pro-CAFTA Democrats -- Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Jefferson, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran, Ortiz, Skelton and Tanner -- voted with the White House.

On the so-called "tort-reform" legislation that passed the House earlier this year, and which will make it dramatically harder for individuals who are wronged by corporations to hold them accountable, nine of pro-CAFTA Democrats voted with the White House and Wall Street: Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran and Tanner.

But what about other issues that are top White House priorities, such as the war in Iraq.

Of the pro-CAFTA Democrats, six backed the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war in Iraq: Dicks, Jefferson, Matheson, Moore, Skelton and Tanner, while another four were either not serving in the House or did not vote: Bean, Cooper, Cuellar and Ortiz.

When the House voted on California Democrat Lynn Woolsey's May, 2005 amendment that sought to begin taking steps to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, only Hinojosa, Jefferson, Meeks, Moran and Towns voted in favor of seeking an exit strategy. (On the question of whether to hand the Bush administration another $82 billion for the war, only Meeks and Towns voted for holding the White House accountable with regards to the war.)

So where does this leave us:

On fundamental economic issues, Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran and Tanner are consistent Bush Democrats.

On a broader array of issues, Hinojosa, Meeks and Moran move off the list.

But it is safe to say that, whether the issue is peace or prosperity, Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Matheson, Moore and Tanner take the side of a White House that has consistently been at odds with both those goals.

Progressives in the labor, environmental, human rights, consumer and peace movements will have to decide where to draw the line -- either by withdrawing active support or by aggressively promoting Democratic primary or third-party general election challenges -- with regards to the Bush Democrats. Some will decide, as key unions already have, to withhold backing of the 15 House Democrats who backed CAFTA.

Others will focus their anger on the nine who, using measures suggested by activist and writer David Sirota, are the most consistent backers of Bush's corporations-first economic agenda.
It is notable that, of the six members who are with Bush when it comes to the economy and the war, Bean, Matheson and Moore come from swing districts where they are likely to be extremely vulnerable in the fall of 2006. Cooper, Cuellar and Tanner come from more decidedly Democratic districts where they might well be more vulnerable to Democratic primary challenges.

Of the rest of the pro-CAFTA 15, Dicks, Hinojosa, Jefferson, Meeks, Moran, Ortiz, Skelton, Snyder and Towns come from districts that trend Democratic -- although Skelton's Missouri district and Snyder's Arkansas district, could be swing turf.

By most measures, however, Dicks, Hinojosa, Jefferson, Meeks, Moran, Ortiz and Towns represent districts where an economic populist challenge in a Democrat primary could be significant.

The safe bet is that, in the next Congress, most of these members will still be present. But if even one or two Bush Democrats fall, either because of their CAFTA vote or because of a broader pattern of backing the White House on economic and foreign affairs issues, the president will have to look deeper into his own Republican caucus for support. He won't be able to rely on the Bush Democrats, as was the case with CAFTA.

Dem Sellouts: Start Looking For Another Job

2005-07-27T16:00:00.000-05:00

By David Sirota

We now know who the 15 Democrats are that each undermined their party and America's middle class by casting the deciding vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The bill passed by one vote, meaning each of the 15 Democrats cast the deciding vote.

When 27 Republicans vote against their own party leadership as they did on CAFTA, Democrats have only these 15 sellouts within their ranks - and groups like the DLC that pushed CAFTA - to blame for the fact that the Democratic Party has been relegated to permanent minority status. The 15 Democratic sellouts were:

Melissa Bean (IL)Jim Cooper (TN)Henry Cuellar (TX)Norm Dicks (WA)Ruben Hinojosa (TX)William Jefferson (LA)Jim Matheson (UT)Greg Meeks (NY)Dennis Moore (KS)Jim Moran (VA)Solomon Ortiz (TX)Ike Skelton (MO)Vic Snyder (AR)John Tanner (TN)Ed Towns (NY)

Let's be clear - all of these people should never get a red cent from labor unions or the progressive community again, and that goes even for the ones who represent marginal districts. The idea that this was a "tough vote" for a Democrat who represents a swing district doesn't hold water - no one is getting voted out of office over voting against CAFTA, and voting for American workers. Remember, polls show that Americans are sick and tired of Congress passing these corporate-written "free" trade deals that sell out ordinary workers.

But, let's further break this down. Which of these 15 Members has CONSISTENTLY been selling out the Democratic Party and America's middle class? The way we find that out is by looking at other recent votes on key economic issues, such as the Bankruptcy Bill, and the bill to limit citizens' legal rights and protect corporations that abuse Americans.

Starting with bankruptcy, we get the list whittled down to 12: Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Jefferson, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran, Ortiz, Skelton and Tanner.

Moving to the bill that limits citizens' legal rights and protects corporations that abuse ordinary Americans, the list gets whittled down to 9: Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran and Tanner.

These are the 9 Democrats who are the difference between House Democrats being in the majority and the minority - they are the people who undermine the vast majority of honest/courageous Democrats who fight for ordinary people in Congress everyday. They are the ones who make it consistenly impossible for Democrats to deliver a message that they are the party that stands up for ordinary working people in this country. The fact is, if Democrats are going to be in the minority for the forseeable future, it would be better if these folks were defeated, because they do more harm than good to a party that desperately needs unity to let America knows what it stands for.

Again, while I have described why it is ridiculous to give a pass to any of these 9 because they represent marginal districts, even if you sort out for that the number barely changes. Winning with 55% or more of the vote is considered crushing an opponent - and only Melissa Bean falls under that threshold. The 8 others win by 55% or better, meaning they don't even have the pathetic/dishonest "I'm a marginal Member so I have to sell out American workers" excuse: Cooper (69%) , Cuellar (59%), Hinojosa (58%), Matheson (55%), Meeks (100% - unopposed), Moore (55%), Moran (60%), and Tanner (74%).

In an earlier post today, I mentioned that Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY) ought to be frightened of the Working Families Party and the progressive community in New York City. But he's not the only one on this list that better be nervous about their job as an insulated career politician. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), for instance, has been dogged by controversy throughout his career, including actually personally profiting from his previous sellouts to the credit card industry. Maybe this will be the vote that draws him the strong primary challenger needed to defeat him in his solidly progressive district.

To sum up - each of these 15 Democrats ought to pay a price at the polls for their brazen sell out tonight on CAFTA. They undermined their party and America's workers. And the 9 Democrats of these 15 that have been consistently stabbing the Democratic Party in the back - well, they have shown an unfathomable willingness to disregard anything other than corporate campaign cash. They are the reason why Americans are so cynical about the political process, why Democrats can't win key states like Ohio, and, in general, why Democrats are currently in permanent minority status.

Media, Money & Politics

2005-07-19T15:10:00.000-05:00

By Bill Scheurer

With the end of the 2nd-Qtr filing period for Congressional candidates, our local newspapers like to tell us who has raised how much money. As if we care.

In the 2004 election up here in the 8th-District of Illinois, the two established parties spent $3.2 million on their Congressional campaigns, mostly on negative TV and mail ads. What did we learn from all this money?

That the Republican incumbent Phil Crane was a lobbyist junketeer, and that the Democratic challenger Melissa Bean did not live in the district. This is what passes for a “message” these days, and our press lets them get away with it.

Are local newspapers now as jaded and useless as TV news? If so, spare the trees.

When will the media understand that we the voters (and viewers, and listeners, and readers) do not care about the “inside baseball” of politics, “handicapping” the race, and all the other shopworn sports metaphors? Don’t tell us who is viable and who is not. Tell us what we need to know to exercise our civic responsibilities.

Maybe the media and political pros believe money is everything, but we do not. If so, why bother to vote at all? Just count up the money and tell us who wins.

Here is an idea. How about telling us what the candidates say and do?

How about telling us their ideas? About little things like -- oh, I don’t know -- how they propose to get us out of the quagmire in Iraq, how they plan to stop piling up the crushing load of debt we are leaving for our children, how they would end our fatal dependency on foreign oil, how they would fix the national crisis of 45 million of our neighbors without health insurance -- you know, little things like that.

How about actually covering the campaigns? Who knows, you might actually like it?

Of course, it is easier to pull the financial filings and regurgitate them, but that is not news. It is not journalism worthy of the name.

Let’s try something different this year. How about doing your job? So we can do ours. There simply is too much at stake.

Bill Scheurer edits The PeaceMajority Report and ran in the 2004 Democratic primary. wcscheurer@comcast.net

Open Letter To 8th District Democrats

2005-05-23T15:05:00.000-05:00

By Bill Scheurer

As we approach the Memorial Day recess, and Republican candidates are lining up for the 2006 election, Congresswoman Melissa Bean has now cast enough votes to begin to give us a fairly clear picture of what kind of representation we now have in Washington. Focusing on five of these votes, I ask 8th District Democrats -- Is this what you thought you were getting when you worked so hard to replace Phil Crane?

First, Bean voted with the Republicans for passage of the REAL ID Act, with its harsh provisions against immigrants and refugees. This legislation, disguised in the cloak of homeland security, is really little more than a backwards attempt to address the problem of illegal immigration -- by squeezing the hardworking immigrants already here, instead of fixing the broken borders that are the real problem. Meanwhile, it takes us all one step closer to a police state mentality, complete with national ID card.

Next, she voted with the Republicans again for a permanent repeal of the estate tax, one of the most regressive acts of our lifetime. This is not about protecting the middle class from rising bracket creep. Congress has repeatedly fixed that problem by raising upper limits on exemptions, and could easily continue to do so. We are talking here about the complete elimination of all taxes on the fortunes of the super-rich. This may well have a disastrous impact on charitable contributions by our wealthiest citizens, at the same time that government cuts back on help for the poor, the sick, and the elderly.

Then, Congresswoman Bean again sided with the Republicans and the big banks and credit card companies, in drastically limiting the ability of those who have suffered financial reverses to protect themselves in bankruptcy and get a fresh start. With our national healthcare coverage in shreds and our declining labor market, this is especially harsh. Two of the biggest causes of personal bankruptcies in this country are uninsured medical bills and lost jobs. Meanwhile, the super-rich get their tax breaks.

Also, Congresswoman Bean continues to support the tragic and misguided war in Iraq. Despite the loss of thousands of American and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and the flushing of billions of dollars straight into the coffers of corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, and the destruction of Iraqi society and infrastructure, and the stretching of our military to the breaking point -- Melissa Bean still lacks the courage to stand up and say no to this war. She voted for another $82 billion blank check for war.

Finally, just last week, she voted for the Republican environmental appropriations bill that cuts critical funding for clean water programs like the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which helps with wastewater collection and treatment, correction of combined sewer overflows, and control of storm water and non-point source pollution. These funds also create good jobs for engineers, contractors, skilled laborers, and manufacturers.

Again, I ask 8th District Democrats -- is this the kind of representation you really want? Is this why you poured so much of your hope into ousting Phil Crane last year?

Bill Scheurer works with PeaceMajority.org and ran against Melissa Bean in the Democratic primary in 2004. wcscheurer@comcast.net

Help Us Win!

2005-05-23T00:01:00.000-05:00

Free the Voters! Join Our Campaign.

Help us win this election and send an independent voice to Washington, to work for people.

There are many ways you can help. Drop us an email and tell us a little about yourself -- your talents, your experience, your interests, and the issues that move you. We'll find a place for you.