Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
« Before They Crow | Main | Now The Managers Get Hit »
December 05, 2005
My Race For The U.S. Senate
My dear readers: some of you will have heard by now, or will soon hear, that I have decided to enter the Democratic primary for the Senate seat from New York. The main reason for my decision to enter this race is the war in Iraq. I didn't make this decision quickly nor lightly but did so after many months of discussions with colleagues and friends.
But, I won't be discussing the race here. This blog will be entirely separate from the campaign. I plan on continuing to blog here on a regular basis and will continue to discuss the issues we've been wrestling over for the past year. But, campaign-related thoughts will only be found at the campaign website, Tasini For New York.org
But, the reality is that this campaign will take up most of my waking hours (and, I guess, sleeping hours, too, as the brain keeps churning) so I've invited one person to share the load as a guest blogger. I may add additional bloggers to the mix. We'll see.
Thank you, as always, for your participation here. People pay attention to what you say: I had meant to mention that the Financial Times recently quoted one of the comments here in a profile of UAW President Ron Gettelfinger. So, keep it up.
December 5, 2005 in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d83425b33453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference My Race For The U.S. Senate:
» Bush pushes his immigration policy from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
President Bush is stepping up pressure on Congress to embrace his plan for a guest worker plan for f [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 5, 2005 9:08:37 AM
Comments
I"m looking forward to hearing more about your positions on issues I care about: anti-war, civil rights including equal marriage laws, heathcare, education, Social Securty, medicare, and worker protections.
You come out in positions that I favor and I'll support you financially.
Posted by: Robert | Dec 5, 2005 8:05:57 AM
Right on Jonathan! Thanks for doing the right thing and standing up for actual issues.
Posted by: Whiskey | Dec 5, 2005 11:40:04 AM
Which comment? I searched ft.com and couldn't find it.
Posted by: mo | Dec 5, 2005 12:33:56 PM
Obviously, any rational person hopes that Jonathan's race will be successful. On the other hand given that it is almost certain that it won't be one also has to consider whether it is the most effective use of Jonathan's considerable talents and energies not to mention those who will work on and finance the campaign.
Among the questions are the following:
Would the $3 million war chest which Jonathan is pledging to assemble be better allocated towards organizing drives, issue based grassroots advocacy and lobbying, pontentially winnable local or state level candidacies which could ultimately form the foundation of a winning as opposed to a merely symbolic campaign?
Will a viable organization emerge from the campaign which will be able to issue a long term challenge the corporate dominance of the DP or will Jonathan's organization-like the Kucinich, Brown, Jackson, Lowenstein, organizations before it- end up dissipating the energies of the movement by channeling them into support for the eventual nominee?
Will the likely failure of the campaign end up strengthening the hand of DLC wing who will point to this as proof that the issues on which will Jonathan is running are electoral losers?
I should say that if Jonathan were committed to running a serious third party candidacy, perhaps on the Labor Party line, I would have my checkbook out and would be on the phone to his office to sign up.
As it is, I'll wait for the answers before I make the plunge.
Posted by: John Halle | Dec 5, 2005 1:43:09 PM
I would like you to raise the following issues:
1) That the World Trade Center was blown from the inside by
pre-positioned bombs. WTC building 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds which is only .6 seconds less than a free fall.
See http:Reopen911.org
2) Demand an accounting of the billions of dollars each week from unaudited federal government contracts,. See:
http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm
3) The Federal Reserve Bank announced it will no longer publish M3 money supply statistics. I believe this is a cover for massive financial fraud and hyperinflation. See
http://www.solariactionnetwork.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=9796
Posted by: Daniel Fey | Dec 5, 2005 2:06:09 PM
I would like you to raise the following issues:
1) That the World Trade Center was blown from the inside by
pre-positioned bombs. WTC building 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds which is only .6 seconds less than a free fall.
See http:Reopen911.org
2) Demand an accounting of the billions of dollars each week from unaudited federal government contracts,. See:
http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm
3) The Federal Reserve Bank announced it will no longer publish M3 money supply statistics. I believe this is a cover for massive financial fraud and hyperinflation. See
http://www.solariactionnetwork.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=9796
Posted by: Daniel Fey | Dec 5, 2005 2:09:29 PM
"the reality is that this campaign will take up most of my waking hours (and, I guess, sleeping hours, too, as the brain keeps churning) so I've invited one person to share the load as a guest blogger. I may add additional bloggers to the mix. We'll see."
I wish you luck with your campaign. I'd love to see you win, but at the very least, I applaud you for raising the issues.
Can you tell us who your guest blogger is? One thing I would be sorry to see would be if this blog fell into disuse while you were out on the campaign trail, it has been such an interesting source of "inside the labor movement" info.
Posted by: Rob | Dec 5, 2005 2:26:02 PM
John,
The Labor Party doesn't run candidates at this time, nor do they have plans do. You will be sitting on your checkbook for a long time if that's your criterion for giving to candidates.
But, if you are serious about a 3rd party challenge for Tasini, you could work to push the Working Families Party, which does have a NY ballot line, to make him a candidate.
Finally, winning isnt' everything, though I share your reservations about the use of resources (either going to a campaign or going to organizing). However, Paul Hackett's recent loss has had the effect of showing vulnerability on the GOP side. While the realities of the NY senate race are different from those in OH, one could make a plausible case that even without winning the primary you could show the vulnerabilities of Dem hawks and the potency of the issues that make up Tasini's platform. And, frankly, $3 million is a lot of cheddar for a primary challenge, even in a big state like NY. If that money is raised and well-spent, this primary could actually be about issues.
Does this mean that that $3 mil is still well-spent when all is said and done? A lot of that is going to depend on how well Tasini does on Election Day, I would imagine. In the meantime, there are the hard questions of "why this challenge and why now?" to be answered.
Posted by: NathanHJ | Dec 5, 2005 2:40:50 PM
Nathan,
As you know from our previous exchanges we agree on the big picture if not on all of the specifics. One thing though:
"The Labor Party doesn't run candidates at this time, nor do they have plans do. You will be sitting on your checkbook for a long time if that's your criterion for giving to candidates."
This is now, happily, outdated. See the LP's announcement in the current issue of "The Party Builder" here:
http://www.thelaborparty.org/n_1205.pdf
I will be very interested to see where the WFP swings on this one. I should say if they don't endorse Tasini, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to take them seriously as a positive force for progressive change.
Also, there are other third party candidates who are worth supporting. For example, I gave $50 to Bill Scheurer's campaign against CAFTA 15er Mellisa Bean and I would encourage others to do so for reasons which have been discussed here previously.
Scheurer's website is:
http://www.winwithbill.com/
Posted by: John Halle | Dec 5, 2005 2:55:57 PM
John,
Yes, I know we're pretty close on the big picture stuff, so I'm taking our disagreement in the spirit of "good people can disagree on details".
Just a couple of things: One, its still not possible for Tasini to run as a Labor Party candidate since they are only going for ballot status in South Carolina (which is a fusion state, by the way, just like NY. I wonder how much that played into their thinking.).
Second, in New York, it is tricky for any party other than the party holding the primary to endorse and work for a candidate in that primary. There are, of course, many things that can be done, but the rules restrict very tightly how many resources one party can expend in another's primary. This may preclude WFP endorsement, but I don't know the rules well enough to say definitively one way or the other.
Related to that, though, is that I personally, don't think you can throw out a party's entire history and accomplishments just because they do or don't make an endorsement in a US Senate primary. My own criteria for judging would be based upon factors like:
--How many funcitioning chapters are there in the state?
--How many dues-apying members do you have?
--Is your vote total going up?
--What kinds of policy victories are your endorsed candidates bringing home?
--How do those relate to the policy priorities set by the local chapters and the governing board?
--How many elections are you winning?
If, after analyzing all that, I find that there is a trend in endorsements towards either playing footsie with non-progressive forces or simply playing the spoiler for non-strategic reasons, then I'd be willing to write the WFP off. Not before then.
All of that notwithstanding, I'm intrigued by the LP finaly going for ballot status somewhere. I hope they get the signtures and run some interesting races in '06.
Posted by: NathanHJ | Dec 5, 2005 6:48:05 PM
Good luck Jonathon. I think you've answered my question as to how the PR-campaign-fanning-rap about the inevitability of Hillary in '08 can be slayed.
You'll alway be the man who envisioned "Heavy Metal" for a new generation; I hope you adopt Killdozer's excellent, "Working hard or hardly..." as a campaign theme song. We all know that, "You can trust a [wo]man from Arkansas".
I'm sending you a little money to defeat the former Walmart Board member who is probably too busy running for President to do something like walk a picketline demanding bargaining rights for workers in "her" state's biggest city.
Posted by: scott | Dec 5, 2005 6:52:44 PM
I enjoy reading your stuff, I really do. I agree with you almost all the time, sometimes you get a tad liberal...but there is no doubt that you are 110% behind the working man...but...
"Would the $3 million war chest which Jonathan is pledging to assemble be better allocated towards organizing drives, issue based grassroots advocacy and lobbying, pontentially winnable local or state level candidacies which could ultimately form the foundation of a winning as opposed to a merely symbolic campaign?"
I agree with that. Man, you could make the difference in a swing congressional or a state house or senate caucus, or a living/minimum wage campaign. I'm going to send you a few bucks, but wish you would rethink it some.
Posted by: Derek Jeter | Dec 5, 2005 9:16:31 PM
Any labor endorsements on the way?
Will you be trying to get on the Working Families Party ballot line?
Posted by: Ty | Dec 5, 2005 9:24:44 PM
Congratulations Jonathan! Hillary Clinton's utter failure to speak out against the Iraq war has been a disgrace, and it will be very refreshing to have a principled alternative.
Posted by: Michael T. | Dec 6, 2005 1:48:04 AM
Well good luck and all that. I think your campaign would be improved by becoming more like Bill Clinton.
"Free trade can be a powerful agent of change, capable of moving entire societies from poverty to prosperity, from volatility to stability, from tyranny to democracy, and from adversaries to allies. In the last twenty years, the global economy has lifted more people out of poverty than at any previous period in history. There are 123 million fewer people living in extreme poverty today than there were in 1990, and the GDP in the world's poorest nations grew by over 30 percent. Developing countries that have chosen the path of open trade and investment have grown far more than those that have closed their borders."
For more on Clinton, check out Democrats should remember Clinton.
Posted by: Alex | Dec 6, 2005 6:37:36 AM
I want to commend you, Jonathan, for your courage and dedication in being willing to run against Hillary Clinton.
It seems to me that the progressives/socialists/lefties of all stripes should be able to agree on a couple of things:
1. Hillary Clinton is definitely not the sort of person we want representing New York in the Senate. Her positions on the issues are often indistinguishable from those of the Bush Administration.
2. No third party is, at this point, capable of fielding a credible candidate and running a serious campaign - as much as we would wish they were. The only way a progressive can win is to beat Clinton in the Democratic primary.
3. A Clinton defeat in November 2006 would not only be a victory for New Yorkers, but a clear message to the Democratic Party that no Republican-lite candidate is viable in 2008. By working hard to elect Tasini, we may very well turn the Democratic Party back toward the people.
Let's get together and win for the people! If we bicker among ourselves, we are only aiding the far-right. Rest assured they will be united.
Posted by: Charley | Dec 6, 2005 8:27:42 AM
Can we at least get one thing clear?
No serious person (with the possible exception of his mom) believes that Tasini has any chance of knocking off Clinton in the primary.
The only question worth discussing is what are the likely consequences of Tasini's defeat in the primary compared to other possible options, including those discussed above. If the long term bang for the buck of Tasini's losing campaign justifies the investment in time and energy, I for one am willing to make it. That said, nothing in the above has convinced me that it will be anything other than the usual Democratic Party sinkhole into which progressives have thrown countless hours and dollars in the past.
As I mentioned, if Tasini were running a third party candidacy, explicitly committed to the long term goal of building the kind of infrastructure required to eventually compete successfully with the two corporate parties, that would be a different story.
As it is, while the enthusiasm is really inspiring, any viable politics need to be based on reality.
It seems that we are still learning that lesson.
Posted by: John Halle | Dec 6, 2005 10:26:13 AM
Why don't you run as a republican or third party instead? You are running the same risks that Nader did when he ran for President; undermining a "moderate" democrat.
Posted by: John Williams | Dec 6, 2005 1:15:43 PM
John, as an avid reader of your blog I am excited about your decision to run. I am an upstate NY resident and would be very happy to help canvas for you. I am working with a local group to get more folks in our area registered as WFP and have been involved in some local elections, so please let me know what I may be able to do to help.
Cheers,
Shane Kenyon
Posted by: Shane Kenyon | Dec 6, 2005 1:58:57 PM
The problem with this is that you devalue yourself by doing this andit shows you have no understanding of what is going on. All of the people who feel they want to run on "issues" or run to raise "issues" do one thing - run themselves into obscurity and irrelevance. Becoming an elected official is an arduous task, and one which should not be taken lightly. But of course, when egos get involved, and the egomaniac believes that people will invest in them, then they are not only fooling themselves, but they are shaming donors. How about this idea:
Pick an issue
Define the issue
Identify solutions
Start a non-profit
Organize around the issue
and then, take out an Assemblymember or State Senator
Don't waste time running against Hillary Clinton. You will get no media, no respect, and will be made a joke. People hold such comtempt for the profession of politics, yet venture into it as if it is child's play. It is definitely not. Raising money, profile, etc. takes a lot of effort. Trying to do it against Hillary Clinton is a pompous, ludicrous display of egomania. You should be ashamed.
Posted by: The Professional | Dec 6, 2005 1:59:26 PM
You know, Professional, I can tell you don't read this blog because if it's one thing that Tasini has shown in his posting here is that he is NOT an egomaniac. He also has a decent amount of experience in a membership-based organization as a local union president, so I'm pretty sure he understands what "getting into politics" is all about.
I also understand pointing out that there are alternate means of getting to the point of taking on a sitting US Senator from within the party. What I don't understand is why be so personal about it? What about Tasini's candidacy so threatens your sense of The Way Things Should Be that you have to use insults and derogatory statements?
Or maybe that's just the way you engage in political discourse...
Posted by: NathanHJ | Dec 7, 2005 12:46:32 PM
Way to go. When Dems don't represent their constituents, they should be challenged. This is really a fine, sacrificial act.
Tasini has shown in his posting here is that he is NOT an egomaniac. That's the only thing I worry about in this. I think of egomania as a necessary condition for running for office.
Posted by: janinsanfran | Dec 7, 2005 8:25:55 PM
I don't think Jonathan is an egomaniac either. But there is some baggage. Jonathan was the president of the National Writers Union (NWU) of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and raised the dues without membership consent.
A slate was run against him and ousted him. A lawsuit was filed prior to the election stating that the UAW Constitution and By-Laws dictated a vote prior to a dues increase. The attorneys for Tasini countered that the National Writers Union was not really a "union."
After the lawsuit and election, the dues were restored to previous levels.
We, as members, wondered why we were paying dues if it wasn't really a union. We had seen a hundred times "Tasini vs. New York Times" and the splendid result in so far as protection for what we thought were "union writers."
But Jonathan was collecting dues from us as if the "union" was a "UNION."
I will vote for him in a primary because Hilary is a right of center candidate and couldn't care less about working people. But if the water is muddied from day one and the union activists are distracted by the things I have described, JT has no chance.
I am sick of the labor people who are "ga-ga" over Hilary running. She is not pro labor and never was. Her roots are in Bentonville, Arkansas and the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart.
The AFL is already in bed with her and her minions in Albany and Washington are scrambling to gain *more* support for her.
God help us.
Posted by: Worried AFL Member | Dec 7, 2005 10:00:47 PM
"Well good luck and all that. I think your campaign would be improved by becoming more like Bill Clinton." Alex
Globalism makes some folks wealthy - no doubt about it. NAFTA was supposed to be a big boost to Mexico. Now Mexico has (1) about half of the billionaires in Latin American and (2) a still impoverished majority where 40% of its population says it would move to the US if it could. The jobs it supposedly created are now moving to even cheaper countries.
What good does it do if young people in the US or Mexico or any other country can afford more cheap crap from China but they can't plan their futures because of job insecurity, buy a house, have decent health care, send their kids to decent schools, afford higher education for their kids, and retire before they are 80? Globalization works for a thin layer of the elite. For the rest, it's a race to the bottom. And in a world of 6.5 billion, there's always somebody somewhere who'll work for less and the globalists will find them.
Posted by: D Flinchum | Dec 7, 2005 11:05:14 PM
Bickering among ourselves does not have to "make the right "stronger. That sort of idea has been a mainstay of the AFL-CIO for so long ,nobody in this country knows who Labor is or what they/we do , much less stand for. They say nothing ! It's safer ! ( no "bickering" that way... ) "Bickering" indicates that WE might be DOING something ....finally or after all, take your pick. GOOD !
J.T. , thanks for taking a run at Clinton the second. It'll be well worth some hearty arguing amongst ourselves to watch someone FINALLY try to torpedo the clintonians' royal barge. It will also be a bargain at 3 mill or so. I'll send the campaign whatever I can afford.
- J.J. in Detroit ( IBEW Local # 58 )
Posted by: John A. Joslin | Dec 9, 2005 7:44:43 AM
