Politicking the Matthew Shepard Act

A few days ago, the Matthew Shepard Act -- adding sexual orientation and gender identity/expression to the federal hate crimes statute -- was attached to the $680B Department of Defense 2010 authorization bill, which Obama had threatened to veto due to an egregious outlay for a F-22 building program. Unfortunately, such politicking begets more politicking, especially when the budget of the DoD is probably one of the more contentious things you can touch after 7 years or so war in two countries:

• The F-22 funding was stripped today from the Senate bill 58-40. Though it makes Obama happy, the money was approved by the House. Even if the new bill passes as is, the two chambers have to reconcile the differences. Who knew any of us queers woudl care about a couple of fighter planes quite so much?
• The ACLU has come out against the Senate version of the bill, saying that the Senate version lacks "the strong protections for speech and association" found in the House version.
• Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who is, btw, against the Matthew Shepard Act and voted against its passage, added three new amendments to the bill, in a move that seems to be directed at killing it. The three amendments would allow the death penalty for some hate crimes cases, would require the Justice Department to revise its standards of a hate crime, and would create an additional set of punishment for crimes involving servicemembers. The HRC tells us why these additions are absurdities.

Friend of the blog "Maybe it's just me..." has a list of who voted for and against the Act in the Senate. All the Senators from Ohio and Indiana voted for it, whereas Bunning (KY) voted against it and McConnell.. umm didn't vote?

Matthew Shepard Act Faces Veto

It was little more than a Twitter Rumor earlier (or "tumor," or "twumor" if you will), but it appears that the US Senate has voted to end discussion on (63-28) the Matthew Shepard Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity/expression to federal hate crims states, to be attached to a Department of Defense authorization bill. There was unanimous consent to add it to a Department of Defense Authorization Bill as an amendment. The bill allows for a $1.75 billion program to fund the building of new F-22 jets, which Pres. Obama has opposed in the past.

That's right, folks, the Matthew Shepard Act is now attached not only to a defense bill, but one that Obama is not happy with amd has threatened to veto...

...which means we are, again, potentially fucked. From the Advocate:

"The President has long supported the hate crimes bill and gave his personal commitment to Judy Shepard that we will enact an inclusive bill,” said Shin Inouye [D-Hawai'i], referring to Shepard’s Oval Office visit with the president earlier this year. “Unfortunately, the President will have to veto the Defense Authorization bill if it includes wasteful spending for additional F-22s. The collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments is that the current program is sufficient to meet operational requirements. A Presidential veto would not indicate any change in President Obama’s commitment to seeing the hate crimes bill enacted."

*sigh* Does this mean we have to go through this again next year? Perhaps. We'll see.

For the record: I don't want the $1.75B spent on the F-22s, either. I think most defense spending is a complete waste, but it is one of the few things the federal government is constitutionally mandated to deal in... but we just spend too damned much on it, and wasteful wars. However, I might be willing to suck it up the spinning if the Matthew Shepard Act is attached.

Might be.

Matthew Shepard Act Up for Vote THIS WEEK?

The rumors are a-flyin' this week that the Matthew Shepard Act -- or, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HR1913 and S.909) -- will be voted on this week in the Senate. DailyKos is reporting it, the right wingers are up in arms about it, and it seems that Judy Shepard is in Washington, DC this week.

All signs point to yes, which means one thing:

It's time to make the phone calls to your Senators.

It's as simple as this: go to OpenCongress.org's Senator Page, click on your state, and make the phone call, or make the email. Takes about 45 seconds. DailyKos is saying that they have received well over 300,000 right wingers fighting against the bill that would add gender identity/expression and sexual orientation (oh, and disability -- did you know that one?) to federal hate crimes protections. It's so important to protect ourselves, and this is just one more tool added to the arsenal.

If it passes the Senate -- it has already passed the House -- President Obama has promised to sign it.

Bunning Still in the Race

Despite previous reports that Jim Bunning has endorsed Tray Grayson for the Senate, and the possible indication that he's actually stepping out of the race, it seems the current Senator from Kentucky is still in the race.

At a dinner for Republican stalwarts in Kentucky, Bunning had these words about his political future:

Bunning touted his conservative credentials and congressional voting record and asked his fellow Republicans for support in the coming year. He reiterated his re-election plans.

"I am nobody's puppet. I am my own man," Bunning said during his remarks. "I hope and pray I can count on your support in the coming months. The battle is going to be long, but I am prepared to fight for my values. I hope you are with me."

I've said it before, I'll say it again: this man is an insane, and he's a genius, which makes him the most dangerous man for the Republican party today.

And when the nascent Bunning campaign explodes, it becomes a perfect opportunity for Mongiardo or Conway to step up to be the drama-free candidate for change. That is, unless Grayson pulls off a miracle. Regardless, Bunning is going to make such outrageous demands for the possible Republican nominee as to render him useless.

It's sick and beautiful.... almost exciting in a way. This is turning into an election soap opera for the ages.

My Prediction on DC

Based off a news article on Yahoo! News...

The only way the DC vote to recognize out-of-state same-sex unions can be stopped once the Mayor signs it is intervention by Congress. To overturn the laws set forward by the City of Washington, DC would require a vote by both House and Senate, and then signed on by the President.

My prediction: this will not happen. It will break down as such:

• Obama: Continue to remain silent -- he has not commented on any of this yet. We are all pretty sure he has no problem with marriage privately, but has publically only supported civil unions and the repeal of the 1996 Federal DOMA. By saying nothing, he registers as a "no vote," thus not angering conservatives by celebrating the marriages, and not angering the liberals by coming off as half-hearted.
• House: A far-right wing Representative (from the South, perhaps?) will introduce the bill, but the House leadership will never let it see the light of day. Pelosi is all ready saying that they have bigger things to deal with and wrangling over simple recognition is not on their plate. This is a political win for both parties, for the reason stated above. The Republicans, especially in the Midwest, are starting to realize that they will win no friends and gain little more support by coming off as anti-gay, and they can play it off like they have been -- "it's the right of the elected officials to make those decisions, and not ours to intervene."
• Senate: Likely, nothing will even come up. Senators will be too dignified to bother with it, even if they are privately fuming,

What may happen, and the situation that I'm excited to see: the DC Council proposes and passes marriage equality, bringing same-sex couples from all over the country to the front door of the US government to get married... then some fast-thinking activist starts redirecting the newly wed couples towards their local Senator/Representative, marriage certificates in hand, and demanding the repeal of DOMA.

In my head, marriage equality in DC should be the next step.

But, people rarely listen to me on these things.

Bunning May Retire

Thanks to TheHill.com, via Electoral-vote.com:

Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R) has formed an exploratory committee to run for Senate with the consent of his would-be primary opponent, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), sources tell The Hill.

Bunning, who has angrily pushed back against talk that he would retire in 2010 at the end of his second term, met with Grayson on Wednesday in Washington. The senator has not announced his 2010 intentions but he made clear to Grayson that he would not begrudge an exploratory committee, a move sources said will allow Bunning to appear as a kingmaker...

Grayson, an up-and-coming GOP star, will give Republicans a much better chance of retaining the seat than Bunning would have. A statewide elected official who survived what was otherwise a good year for Democrats in 2007, Grayson has been laying the groundwork for a Senate bid, though he made clear he would not run against Bunning.

"I have no plans to run against Sen. Bunning. This exploratory committee will allow me to travel the commonwealth, meet with potential supporters and lay the foundation for a campaign," Grayson said in a statement.

I have this thought Bunning is playing this out to run against McConnell in.. 2012? Or perhaps Governor... Remember, Bunning is a political smarty-pants, and he's mildly insane. Which makes him dangerous -- and exciting.

Grayson, meanwhile, looks like a Senator -- very old school, very... well, I thought he'd be better looking.

S. 909 -- Matthew Shepard Act in the Senate

This list appeared on Joe. My. God., but the link was broken to the source.

Had a little trouble tracking down the list, but thanks to OpenCongress, here is the complete list of cosponsors for S. 909, the Senate's version of the Matthew Shepard Act (previously HR 1913):

Sen. Edward Kennedy [D, MA]
Sen. Daniel Akaka [D, HI]
Sen. Evan Bayh [D, IN]
Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, NM]
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA]
Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD]
Sen. Robert Casey [D, PA]
Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D, CT]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA]
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY-20]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D, SD]
Sen. John Kerry [D, MA]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D, MN]
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D, LA]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Sen. Carl Levin [D, MI]
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT]
Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D, MD]
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA]
Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE]
Sen. Bill Nelson [D, FL]
Sen. John Reed [D, RI]
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY]
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D, NH]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R, PA]
Sen. Mark Udall [D, CO]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]

I've bolded the two of personal interest -- Ohio Sen. Brown and Indiana Sen. Bayh -- the following Senators from this area are notably absent: Ohio Sen. Voinovich, Kentucky Sen. McConnell, Kentucky Sen. Bunning, and Indiana Sen. Lugar. All are Republicans. For your convenience, I've italicized the two Republican co-sponsors... please note that both are from Maine :-). We also only had 18 Republicans vote for it in the House, so, if we assume 10%-ish votership by the Republicans, then we can expect two more to join them. Maybe NH Sen. Gregg? Maybe PA Sen. Specter? Maybe MO Sen. Bond? Maybe AZ Sen. McCain? I don't actually know, but we'll see. We also had 17 Dems vote against the Act, so... yea.

If you want to get ahold of your Senators to encourage them co-sponsor the bill or vote for it, or if you want to email your co-sponsoring Senator, check out this really easy site to find out how to contact them.

Just Another Black Sheep predicts the following likely no's on the bill: OK Sen. Coburn, TX Sen. Cornyn, SC Sen. Graham, IA Sen. Grassley, UT Sen. Hatch, AZ Sen. Kyl, and AL Sen. Sessions. Who else do we add to that list? I might put some money on AK Sen. Murkowski in expectation of Palin-Murkowski primary... Sarah, I'm sure, would use it in the campaign.

The HRC is asking you to tell 10 friends to contact their Senators, as well.

Oh, and how did the local US Representatives vote in the House? (Condensed from here)

Indiana AYE's
IN-1 Visclosky [D]
IN-7 Carson [D]
IN-9 Hill [D]

Indiana Nay's
IN-2 Donnelly [D]
IN-3 Souder [R]
IN-4 Buyer [R]
IN-5 Burton [R]
IN-6 Pence [R]
IN-8 Ellsworth [D]

Kentucky Aye's
KY-3 Yarmuth [D]
KY-6 Chandler [D]

Kentucky Nay's
KY-1 Whitfield [R]
KY-2 Guthrie [R]
KY-4 Davis [R]
KY-5 Rogers [R]

Ohio Aye's
OH-1 Driehaus [D]
OH-6 Wilson [D]
OH-9 Kaptur [D]
OH-10 Kucinich [D]
OH-11 Fudge [D]
OH-13 Sutton [D]
OH-15 Kilroy [D]
OH-16 Boccieri [D]
OH-17 Ryan [D]
OH-18 Space [D]

Ohio Nay's
OH-2 Schmidt [R]
OH-3 Turner [R]
OH-4 Jordan [R]
OH-5 Latta [R]
OH-7 Austria [R]
OH-8 Boehner [R]
OH-12 Tiberi [R]
OH-14 LaTourette [R]

Other Points of Interest...
100% Aye Delegations (with more than one member)
Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico (sort of -- one no vote recorded), Oregon, Rhode Island

100% Nay Delegations (with more than one member)
Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma

Neither of those last two lists are really surprising, though, really. Make sure you contact your local rep and thank them, if they voted aye, for their support... and tell your congressperson, if they voted no, that you are disappointed (be nice, kids)!

Fundraising Good, Fundraising Bad

Nate Silver (of FiveThirtyEight.com) published a ranking of the best and worst fundraisers for the 2010 Senatorial Elections in the first quarter of 2009. Ohio and Kentucky make some interesting names for themselves:

Best Fundraising -- Incumbent

1. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
2. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY)
3. Harry Reid (D-NV)
4. John McCain (R-AZ)
5. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)

Worst Fundraising -- Incumbent

1. Roland Burris (D-IL)
2. Jim Bunning (R-KY) -- apparently the Mitch McConnell "get out of the race" shouting match is working
3. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
4. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
5. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

Best Fundraising -- Challenger

1. Bill White (D-TX)
2. Kendrick Meek (D-FL)
3. Rob Portman (R-OH)
4. Alexi Gioannoulias (D-IL)
5. John Sharp (D-TX)

Worst Fundraising -- Challenger

1. Roy Blunt (R-MO) (TIED WITH) Paul Hodes (D-NH)
2. Jennifer Brunner (D-OH)
3. Peter King (R-NY)
4. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

In short: Bunning and Brunner are not doing well yet, whereas Portman is doing very well. Side notes in the store mark that KY AG Mongiardo (running against Bunning) is performing amazingly well, with OH Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (running against Brunner) performing adequately well -- about 4 times better than Brunner, but only raising about 60% as much as Portman.

It's no secret that I'm a Brunner girl, but I'll be interested to see the reported numbers from 2Q.

Brunner vs. Fischer: Marriage Equality

Picture from Law Dork, 2.0
Back to the upcoming (2010) election for Senate, the Gay People's Chronicle (out of Cleveland) talks about an important difference between the two declared Democratic candidates -- Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner -- for the US Senate: marriage equality. From the Chronicle:

Both [Fisher and Brunner] have longstanding relationships with the LGBT community and have used their political careers to help advance equality, making it difficult for those who vote on those issues to pick an early favorite.

That may be changing, however, as marriage equality has emerged as the issue separating the Democrats.

Brunner favors it. Fisher doesn’t, but is open to being convinced...

Brunner unequivocally believes that same-sex partners should have the right to marry. She does not put any qualifications on it, nor attempt any equivocation. It is a belief she has held publicly since 1989.

Fisher said, “I am in favor of civil unions, but I have questions about marriage.”

In his defense, Fisher, later in the article, indicates that he is still forming his opinion, specifically stating that he's not sure "whether civil unions will be sufficient or not." I think that's a credit to him. However, I am proud of my girl Jennifer for stepping up to the plate so early in support of full equality.

A few others are hinting at a run in 2010, but nothing has been made official. Tyrone Yates, for example, is currently campaigning but has not declared.

More on Bunning

I just love covering this man, and Electoral-vote.com keeps feeding me so I'm perfectly happy to report.

Electoral-vote.com's take on the latest news:

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), had a poll taken in February and has refused to release the results. Normally, politicians release their internal polls when they are favorable and hide them when they are not. When reporters asked about the poll, Bunning said "If you paid the 20 grand for the poll, you can get some information out of it." Actually, we do get some information from his statement: polls of this kind apparently cost $20,000. (Emphasis mine. -- QC) This incident puts another nail in Bunning's coffin. The Republicans will now probably do anything to get rid of him as they perceive him as very vulnerable.

HA! I wonder what the poll said. Can we get a pollster to run one and see what it says? PLEASE.

Of course, the site left out the best part of the quote, when Bunning told reporters that it was none of their "goddamn business." Signs the man may be in trouble? When he starts cussing at reporters. My uncle always said he won an argument when the other side started swearing.

Proposed Amendment

Missed this a few weeks ago, but, apparently, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has proposed a new constitutional amendment which would require an election to fill empty seats in the Senate.

From the Washington Post, which supports it:

SEN. RUSSELL Feingold (D-Wis.) has a problem with all the folks filling vacated seats in the Senate. The issue is not with them personally. Rather, it's how they got there: not by the will of the people but by the will -- or whim -- of the governors of their home states. So Mr. Feingold has introduced a constitutional amendment that will put the power to fill Senate vacancies in the hands of voters through a special election.

Thanks to the election of President Obama, who plucked a vice president and two cabinet secretaries from the Senate, governors in Illinois, Delaware, New York and Colorado were tasked with appointing their successors. In some cases the seats have been treated like family heirlooms or -- allegedly -- like property to be sold to the highest bidder. In another case, the process to choose the next occupant was opaque and unbecoming. But in all cases, how the new senators came to Washington is undemocratic and shouldn't continue.

What Mr. Feingold proposes would be a fix of the 17th Amendment, which gave voters the right to elect their senators. It also gave governors the power to fill vacancies. The Feingold amendment reads, "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

It got me thinking about all the dead and proposed amendments in the past that never saw the light of day. Let's review shall we? These are ones that were actually ratified by some states:

• The Constitutional Apportionment Amendment, which was almost our first amendment, which is unexpired by seems to have become useless now with the population the size it is (for a state to become a state, for example, you have to have 60,000 people... the amendment only made consideration for congressional districts up to 50,000 people).
• The Titles of Nobility Amendment would have rescinded citizenship to anyone who took a title of nobility from another country ... this was proposed two years before the War of 1812 (yea, which means it was proposed in 1810 :-)). (Can still pass - no expiration)
• The Corwin Amendment was essentially a politically correct way of saying that the federal government can't rule on slavery. Period. It was a last-ditch effort before the Civil War, and no southern state actually passed it. (Can still pass -- no expiration.)
• The child labor amendment gave the federal government the right to pass laws against child labor. Seriously. This, however, ended up being unnecessary and the government passed laws anyways. (Can still pass -- no expiration.)
• The controversial Equal Rights Amendment which would have barred discrimination based on sex. Personally, I think it should have gone after more. The ERA has expired and some of the ratifying 35 states (two short of necessary 2/3 for passage) have rescinded their ratification.
• The DC Voting Rights Act would have rescinded the 23rd Amendment and treated DC as a state in representation -- complete with one (maybe more) Representative and two Senators. To this day, I don't know why this hasn't passed. But politics will play in this one -- DC is Democratic territory -- and because we no longer believe in actual represenation, it will never pass.

Then there are hundreds of little amendments that no one ever approved, including (from here):

• Ensuring reproductive freedom for women (2005-2006 Congress)
• Allow non-natural citizens to run for President if they've been a citizen for 20+ years, which we'll call the "Schwarzenegger Amendment" (05-06, 01-02)
• Guarantee the filibuster in the Senate (05-06)
• Lower age of Senator/Representative from 30 and 25 to 21 (03-04)
• Restrict marriage between a man and a woman (03-04)
• Require a federal balanced budget (01-02)
• Specify a right to "equal high quality" health care to all persons (01-02)
• Apply the 5th and 14th amendment to unborn children (99-00)
• Establish the right to have a home (97-98)
• Clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires school prayer (97-98)
• Clarify the 2nd Amendment (95-96)
• Repeal the 16th Amendment and end income tax (95-96)
• Remove from public office any person convicted of a felony (95-96)
• Provide for run-offs in plurality wins in a Presidential election, which we'll call the "Clinton Amendment" (93-94)
• Representative term limits (91-92)
• Mandatory moments of silence in public schools (91-92)
• Lowering the voting age to 16-year olds (91-92)

Just to clarify the last Amendment to pass was the 27th, and that was 1992, which set a bar on Congress granting mid-term pay raises. This was one of the original 12 Amendments suggested as the Bill of Rights, but it and the Congressional Apportionment Amendment were not passed.

My point in all this is this: most amendments proposed reflect a particularly divisive issue at the time which eventually kind of works itself out. It's only when, after many years of debate, that it seems to be a real problem or a real sticking point before it can pass. I'm not sure how the gubernatorial power over Senatorial replacements will be viewed, but it seems relatively important...

...in fact, when you look at the history of proposed amendments, the Federal Marriage Amendment seems to be ... well ... just another bunch of crazies in Congress proposing a hot button issue amendment.

DC -- Closer to Congressional Represenation

The US Senate invoked cloture on the DC Voting Rights Act of 2009, adding two more Representatives to the US House -- one for DC and one for Utah (really?). 

From New America Media:

In a historic step today, the United States Senate invoked cloture and allowed its version of the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2009 to proceed to the floor for a vote. The cloture vote, 62-34, means that opponents of the bill, primarily Republicans, cannot filibuster the measure from a vote before the full Senate, which they did two years ago.

The cloture vote also means that the District of Columbia is one step closer to having a voting representative in the U.S. Congress, specifically the U.S. House of Representatives. Under the bill, which was sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the House will increase its number permanently from 435 to 437 by adding the D.C. representative and an additional one from Utah.

The key to the successful vote was Republican support. D.C. Republican Committee Chairman Robert Kabel was happy with some Senate members of his party.

“We thank the Republican senators who voted for cloture,” Kabel said. “Today marks a historic day for the District and I am proud that Republicans were a part of it. As party chairman, I am pleased our efforts to inform and lobby our fellow Republicans on the Hill have paid off.”

Republicans other than Hatch voting for the bill were Sens. Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (D-Maine), Arlen Specter (Pa.) and George Voinovich (Ohio).

Yea... Voinovich? :-) and how did Olympia Snowe get in there? Is she Dem or Rep? Blah. Who cares.

This is neat! :-)

More Jennifer Brunner

You know, I've seen a lot more active campaigning on the part of Jennifer Brunner (running for US Senate in Ohio for Voinovich's seat) than either Lee Fisher or Rob Portman -- or the host of other names that have been mentioned for the seat on either side. 

At least, from an internet standpoint. This is the second post of hers I've featured, from the Buckeye State Blog (now blogrolled, btw):

Leadership is not about saying "no"; it's about having the humility to listen, the creativity to see opportunities, and the persistence to enact solutions....

Now I find myself with a Democratic primary opponent. Lee Fisher and I don't agree on everything, but neither of us has any doubt that it would be a lousy idea to send Rob Portman back to Washington DC, where, as a Congressman, he voted for the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war that are bankrupting our country and where, as George Bush's Budget Director, he watched billions of our taxpayer dollars disappear into the corruption on Wall Street.

It's pretty typical early-election news fodder, but I'm impressed with her being out there this early at all, despite a bit of a nasty scuffle she's having with ProgressOhio.*rolls eyes* She was also mentioned in a piece on Politico about the female candidates gearing up for 2010 runs -- including Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (yes, that Carnahan) in Missouri.

My newest goal in life: I want an interview with Jennifer Brunner. Can anyone make that happen? It's early enough in the news cycle that any major problems could be squashed ... like, say, if she came out for gay marriage.

Meanwhile, more anti-Bunning in Kentucky from the Republicans. Can you win the seat again without your party's support, I wonder? Oh, and State Senator Jon Husted has proposed a law that strips the Governor of the right to appoint people to US Senate vacancies... thank you, Rod Blagojevich and Roland Burris. Poor Sen. Burris, he was doomed from the beginning. I'm sure he's a nice man.

What, Bunning? Oh, and Progressives from Ohio

So, thanks to Electoral-vote.com today, we see that Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning is fully expecting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to be dead in nine months or less due to her pancreatic cancer.

Real compassionate.

The same website also points out that the Republicans are trying to get Bunning to retire, desperately, for fear of a successful challenge from Kentucky State Senate President, David Williams. Hrm. I've all ready forgotten whom we've talked about on the Dem side in this race -- was it Mongiardo?

On the flip side, we have ratings out from the ProgressivePunch detailing the relative progressiveness of all the Senators and Representatives in the country. Local boys in the Senate (it's a little skewed -- Burris and Gillibrand are numbers 1 and 2, and they just started):

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) -- 8th most progressive with 97.45%

Sen. Evan Bayd (D-IN) -- 49th most progressive with 78.59%

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) -- 63rd with 16.91%

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) -- 65th with 14.06%

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) -- 90th with 3.19%

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) -- 92nd with 4.12%

And some local boys/girls in the House:

Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) -- 60th most progressive

Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) -- 65th

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) -- 71st

Rep. Timothy Ryan (D-OH) -- 90th

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) -- 119th

Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN) -- 141st

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) -- 149th

Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY) -- 167th

Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) -- 181st

Rep. Charles Wilson (D-OH) -- 195th

Rep. Zach Space (D-OH) -- 213th

Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) -- 220th

Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) - 222nd

Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) -- 250th

Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) -- 269th

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) -- 278th

Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) -- 291st

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) -- 302nd

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) -- 307th

Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) -- 317th

Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) -- 334th

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) -- 336th

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) -- 344th

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) -- 347th

Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) -- 348th

There's a long list of (assumedly) new hires that are not yet listed, including our own Steve Driehaus and Columbus newbie Mary Jo Kilroy. (If you can't find yours on the above list, they are probably unranked as of yet.) I think it's really interesting that the division is even among party lines. In fact, in the House, a very sharp division between R/D.

We'll see how that all plays out.

Why I love Jennifer Brunner

From Cleveland.com:

If Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner woke up last Wednesday morning with a bloody horse's head in her bed, it wouldn't surprise me.

That's how ticked off the Ohio Democratic Party Lifers Club was at Tuesday's news that she would spurn an incumbent run as secretary of state for a 2010 U.S. Senate seat tussle against Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher. After all, Brunner romped to a pretty easy secretary of state win in 2006 and looked to be in decent shape to hold the critical state apportionment board seat in a couple of years.

(Apportionment board seats - state au ditor, governor and sec retary of state - matter especially in 2010 be cause they will de termine who draws the legislative and congres sional districts in Ohio for the next decade. And Ohio Senate Democrats, especially, aren't going to sniff a majority in this lifetime or any other without the power of the pencil.)

So now instead of Brunner on cruise control, Ohio Democratic Party Chief Chris Redfern and the rest of his gang have their hands full trying to keep the spring 2010 rumble of Jennifer vs. Lee from ever actually taking place.

Still, if your name isn't Chris Redfern, Tuesday was kind of a fun day to be involved in politics - Brunner beating Fisher to the punch in an early afternoon announcement, forcing him to scurry back from a speech for a hastily thrown-together early evening news conference.

(Where he inexplicably entered to "Hip Hop Hooray" by New Jersey's finest rappers, Naughty by Nature. Who knew? Fisher always seemed like more of a West Coast-Snoop Dogg kind of guy to me.)

That Brunner would buck the Democratic establishment - Gov. Ted Strickland and House Speaker Armond Budish, for example, appeared by Fisher's side in a show of solidarity - actually makes some sense. She likes to roll the dice and has a tough street-fighting streak.

A feisty liberal Democrat woman? Yea, I'll take her. It seems that the fact that the establishment was very much in for Fisher did not go unnoticed, which is always fun (a point I had made before).

Because I'm a bit of a hellraiser myself, I have to say that I may be overidentifying with her.

Remember: primaries aren't bad. They certainly helped Obama.

DC Statehood? Not Quite Yet...

I've always loved that DC's license plate is a political statement
It appears that Washington, DC is on its way to its first official seat in Congress. Seriously.

From the Hill:

Senior lawmakers who oppose the D.C. Voting Rights Act say they know of no legal challenges to the bill, which is expected to pass the Senate next week.

The bill, which is scheduled to begin debate in the Senate on Feb. 23 , would add a vote in the House for both Washington D.C. and Utah.

In recent years the measure failed to receive the necessary support, but it is thought to have enough votes to defeat a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate with a larger Democratic majority in this Congress.

It seems there are no challenges because Utah is getting one, too.

Fun fact: they can't add a Senator for DC because that would make it a state. And, well, I really actually want to see a state added in my lifetime, I think. But 51 is such an inconvenient number, isn't it?

Ohio's 2010 Senatorial Race

We've talked a lot about Rob Portman, but who else is being looked at to replace Voinovich in the U.S. Senate? The Columbus Dispatch points us to a poll that lists one other Republican -- State Auditor, Mary Taylor -- and two Democrats -- Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Lt. Gov. Lee Fischer. The run down of the poll, btw, has either Democrat in double digits over either candidate at this point for three reasons: 1) Brunner and Fischer are better known; 2) Strickland is still a popular governor; 3) Obama.

But let's look at the candidates and where they stand on LGBT issues.

Mary Taylor (R), State Auditor (2007-Present), Ohio House of Representatives (2002-2006), Councilwoman for Green Ohio
At this point we have very little information about this candidate, shockingly. Most of the information out of her, including her campaign website, highlights her views and her actions as the State Auditor rather than her feelings on issues. I checked out my usual source -- Project Vote-Smart -- and found little information about her. The only true indicator that we can find on this source is that she is rated very poorly by traditionally "liberal" organizations -- NARAL, Ohio League of Conservation Voters, and the Ohio Federation of Teachers -- while highly on traditionally "conservative" organizations -- NRA, Ohio Gun Owners of America, and the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. Things are looking bad for Ms. Taylor. OnTheIssues.org also has nothing listed for her. Her Wikipedia page is still pretty much empty as well, which will, no doubt, change.

In fact, the only thing I could find was that she voted YEA for the Ohio DOMA in 2004... along with Steve Driehaus, whom this blog endorsed in 2008 for the US House. It's not necessarily a damning offense, then, but it definitely doesn't bode well for Ms. Taylor.

On her side, though, at least for getting the nom, is that Republicans seem to want to appear more inclusive (see Sarah Palin and Michael Steele). Ms. Taylor is a "rising star" in the GOP here in Ohio, and the chance to grab the title of "first female Senator from Ohio" is sure to be a goal for the party this year, since they still look like a whole bunch of old white guys.

Jennifer Brunner, Secretary of State (2007-Present), Judge (2000-2005), Legislative Council to the Secretary of State and Private Lawyer

For Ms. Brunner we have a little more information, but from vastly different sources. OntheIssues.org, again, is worthless to us (it needs to be updated!!! AH!), and her Project Vote-Smart page is practically worthless. Nothing on there. But, we have two other sources.

First: her Wikipedia page is well developed. Though there is absolutely nothing listed about LGBT rights or issues, there seems to be a lot of information about her voting reform work (one of the main duties of the Secretary of State). It seems to have been an impressive bit of work too, and, since Ohio went smoothly this year, on that will be much heralded if she were to decide to run.

Second: We have JenniferBrunner.com -- a perennial campaign site that originated, it seems, from her 2006 campaign for SoS. Most notable is an endorsement from the Columbus Dispatch that states:

“the next secretary of state needs to be an impartial arbiter of elections. Blackwell’s politicking in 2004 for State Issue 1, the amendment banning gay marriages, and on behalf of President Bush’s re-election gave Democrats an opening to question his neutrality.”

OK, not bad. And then we come across this YouTube video from the United Way:

Guess where she is? That's right, kids. Columbus Pride 2008. I would say that's pretty damned impressive ain't it?

That's all I can find so far, but there was a bit about her son on Facebook and some strange pictures -- blah blah blah. I couldn't really figure it out as the original post was taken down. And, of course, a great blog posted by Ms. Brunner on the Huffington Post which I just think is appropriately entitled "On Being Fearless..." How about "On Being Fierce," Ms. Brunner.

Oh, and Brunner also attended a "Welcome Back to Ohio" brunch in 2007 hosted by Equality Ohio along with Strickland, Fisher, and a few others who are LGBT-friendly elected officials. Brunner, in this article, attributed her win to LGBT persons, as she tapped three Stonewall Columbus members to help run the campaign, and then tapped Brian Shinn (gay attorney) as her Assistant Legal Counsel, who is tied for the highest ranking LGBT appointed position in the State of Ohio with Mary Jo Hudson as the head of the Department of Insurance (Governor's Cabinet).

But that's Jennifer Brunner, for now.

And, last but not least...

Lee Fisher, Lieutenant Governor (2007-Present), Gubernatorial Candidate (1998), State Attorney General (1991-1995), State Senator (1983-1991), State Representative (1980-1982)

On experience alone, no one can beat Mr. Fisher. In fact, he looks like he may be the pick by Gov. Strickland, who is strongly dissuading other candidates to wait until Fisher decides. But let's look at everything else shall we? Again, OnTheIssues.org is useless - HA! His Wikipedia article is still light, and his official state biography has nothing on it of value. I again remind you of the above-mentioned story about the brunch attended by Fisher and other LGBT-affirming elected officials in 2007 and hosted by Equality Ohio in the statehouse, most notably because of this quote by Fisher:

“This is where history has been made and unmade for centuries,” Fisher said, standing about 25 feet from a plaque noting that Abraham Lincoln spoke there. “But also the echo in here sends a ripple effect to all 88 counties that we’re back.”

Not as exciting as Brunner's, but still important.

Then we run over to Project Vote-Smart's page on Lee Fisher, and we have the only candidate so far to answer their Political Courage test. Two things are notable: 1) that, in 1998, he supported laws protecting people against sexual orientation discrimination in the state, and 2) he does not support recognizing gay marriages in Ohio (but it was 1998, I'd be curious to know if his opinion has changed at all). But that's about all we can find, as he hasn't yet been rated by anyone nor has there been much of an opportunity to say much about LGBT issues as Lt. Gov. I'm sure it will come if he runs.

---

So there we have the three other candidates that people are talking about. On the Democratic side, we're, essentially, waiting for Lee Fisher to decide before anyone else steps up to the battle (though JenniferBrunner.com could count as a "campaign site"). On the Republican side, we definitely have Rob Portman, and we have a semi-campaign site for Mary Taylor.

What amuses me about all this talk is this:

Two years after we have the first black President elected, and the first female serious candidate for a major party, and the winds are screaming change...

...here in Ohio, we are still saying "pick the old, experienced white guy" over anything else.

Ahhh, to be in Ohio.

Oh, and just to be clear, folks, I'm totally supporting Jennifer Brunner because of the amount of information I found about her. I may switch the more I learn about Lee Fisher, but I will not be supporting either Portman or Taylor, I can promise you that, unless either one drastically changes their view.

And how weird would it be if Strickland said, "You know, I want to be Senator; Fisher and Brunner can run off for Gov?"

Coleman vs. Franken -- Still Going

All right, Minnesota legislature.

It's time to step in. Either call it for one or the other or, more likely, call a special election. This has drawn on way to long, don't you think?

It's no longer even fun anymore.

Anti-Gay in 2010

Thanks to Change.org (not related to Obama :-)), we have five potential people running for Senate who are markedly anti-gay. What's fun is that one of Ohio's own gets listed... groan. Jeez.

Check out the list for their whole descriptions:

• Roy Blunt (US House, R-MO) -- Received a 0% rating from the HRC, and said that Obama's openness to LGBT person's are "wrong." Looking to step up from the House.
  
• Marco Rubio (State House Speaker, R-FL) -- Supported, oh goodness, Mike Huckabee for President. If that wasn't enough, he's a close fan and ally of anti-gay Jeb Bush.
• Sarah Palin (Governor, R-AK) -- Not officially announced yet, but be sure it's coming. We all know and love her, right? After all, she has many gay friends, but doesn't support their equal rights. Woot for Alaska.
• Rob Portman (fmr Cabinet, fmr House, R-OH) -- Apparently, QueerCincinnati.com is becoming the clearinghouse for why Portman is wrong for Ohio. I'm always a little giddy when I get nods from other blogs :-).
• Jerry Moran (House, R-KS) -- Another 0% from the HRC, and, of course, supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Jeez, really Kansas? You can do better. Kansas City is so cool though!!!!

Change.org has an excellent listing of links and issues about each of these fabulous contenders for the Senate. All I can say is that anti-gay is unAmerican. 

We're real Americans, too, Miss Palin.

Mongiardo (or Conway)-Bunning in 2010?

The KYPost is reporting that Daniel Mongiardo, Lt. Gov. of Kentucky, is seeking to replace Jim Bunning in his Senate seat. Unfortunately for Bunning, he is not being widely supported by his own party.

Mongiardo lost his bid for Senate in 2004 against Bunning by a paltry 1%.

So we have: popular Lt. Gov. with a history of performing well against a popular incumbent GOP Senator, after the incumbent's own party asked him to retire. Sounds like a fun recipe.

Electoral-vote.com is also reporting that Attorney General, Jack Conway, may also seek the Dem nomination for 2010. As we saw in 2008, primaries are not always a bad thing as they get a chance to vet the candidate on softer terms between people of the same party who have a vested interest.

If it's all the same, 2010 looks like the year a Dem is elected to the Senate in Kentucky. Too bad Mongiardo is bad on same sex marriage, but he IS good on safe schools.

Oh, but this is fun, apparently Bunning likes to accuse both of these men that they are gay. Fabulous. Here is goes again. Jesus. To which Mongiardo, btw, responded by getting engaged to a 21 year old. Ha! Charlie Crist what? And apparently the Jack Conway rumors arise out of the fact that he has accepted money from homosexuals. Outing -- not just for the Advocate anymore.

Meanwhile, in more appropriate news from this blog, Jack Conway is gorgeous. Jack, if you are gay, call me. I have lots of women that can cover for us: