And the sad part is, they think they have won!

18th Congressional District
Updated 12:08 a.m. March 21, 2012 100% of precincts reporting Source: Associated Press
Democratic -------------Votes ---Pct.
Steve Waterworth--------10,180---69.6%
Matthew Woodmancy--------4,447---30.4%

Three days ago, Steve Waterworth, a spoiler candidate endorsed by the Democratic Party who originally had no intentions of running for the 18th Congressional District, received 69.9% of the votes, while Matthew Woodmancy received 30.4%.

Congratulations Mr. Waterworth, and congratulations to the 18th district incumbent, Aaron Schock, for now having an opponent he knows he can defeat without hardly breaking a sweat. The Democratic party in Illinois has once again guaranteed two more years of Republican representation. Guess they were worried about upsetting CAT and ADM if, God Forbid, a Democrat ever gets into office here.

All sarcasm and disdain aside, my hat is off to the Woodmancy campaign and Mr. Woodmancy for claiming a victory! Yes, that's right, a

VICTORY!

This entire campaign has been run on a shoestring budget, and it has gotten ZERO help from the Democratic party, not one red cent from anyone except the few blue collar people who wanted to see a politician who is not owned in Washington D.C.

Matthew Woodmancy is being gracious and looking toward 2014. He knows it will be another uphill battle, but he also knows the people who believe in what he wants to accomplish will continue to support him. If you haven't read Matt's platform, it is still available on the Woodmancy for Congress FB page.

In my opinion, the only people that won in this primary are the people who are happy with being screwed by the Republicans. Which means almost all of us lost.

A note from Matthew Woodmancy

I often communicate with Matt about various things, since I am part of his campaign staff. But today I received an email I thought I would share with you.

I set out on this journey 14 months ago, and in that time I have been attacked and threatened. I have had my very motivations questioned. I have been called a “radical faggot” and been told I am unfit to hold office. I have had people threaten to kill me, and yet I do not regret my choice to try to serve this country which I still believe to be the last best hope for mankind.

I knew this was going to be an uphill battle, I knew this was going to be hard if not impossible, and yet I continued. The things in life that are worth doing, the truly important things, are the most difficult. Perhaps it would have been easier for me to accept that I have done too much damage to my reputation to my own life to achieve the highest of American goals.

To me there is no higher goal than to serve this country. If I managed to motivate just one person, if I made it possible for just one person to see that they can rise above their situation and can overcome the odds, then I feel I have accomplished something good.

Now ordinarily, I would keep this to myself, but in case anyone out there is wondering why they should vote for Matthew A. Woodmancy next Tuesday, perhaps this is really all that needs to be said. When it all comes down to the "bottom line", Matt is running for office for the right reasons. He isn't in anyone's pocket, refuses big money contributions, and isn't looking for PAC money in exchange for favors down the line. He is in this to represent the interests of the 18th Congressional District in Illinois. He is in this to represent you."

Congress is not Big Enough?

I saw What's wrong with Congress? It's not big enough on the news feed and could not believe my eyes. Having read the story, I only have one thing to say: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FRIGGIN' MIND?"

With all the problems we have in Washington today, we do not need a bigger House of Representatives. What we do need is a House of Representatives with members who cannot be bought. Granted, that in itself is a tall order, given the state of the economy and the failure of the system to keep track of their members. But you can minimize the opportunity to "buy" a Congressman by imposing one simple rule: Term Limits!"

First of all, Term Limits ensures the Representatives are chosen from currently active people in their community. And for the House of Representatives, this is what you need. People who are in touch with the wants and needs of their communities, not staid, old rich guys who have become rubber stamp bureaucrats. You want men and women who have an agenda based on the needs of the voters in their community, not corporate powers and special interest groups.

Secondly, it is far easier to catch someone taking a bribe or being paid off in the early part of their tenure than after they have been in office for five or six years. A good example is Aaron Schock, the current Representative in the 18th district in Illinois. When he first took office in 2008 (like any good fraternity boy, he was a legacy from his predecessor, the current Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood), he was from a well to do area, and became the fair haired boy of the district. Today, this junior House member boasts a Campaign War Chest in excess of $3,000,000.00, has an estate close to the river, and is the consistent favorite of Caterpillar, Inc. and other corporate entities in his district. It is obvious by looking at his voting record that he is the property of the rich, a tool designed and honed for the purpose of maintaining their lifestyle at the expense of the "middle class", a group that is quickly disappearing from American Society. Without Term Limits, he will continue to serve his constituents, since he represents the money, and the money will always find a way to keep their boy in office.

Yes, I am aware that we also need to change campaign funding so there is a chance for a real representative to be elected instead of purchased, but we need to focus on one battle at a time to win the war. The beauty of Term Limits is they can be used to elect representatives who would actually vote to regulate campaign financing and contributions instead of simply giving you lip service.

We need Term Limits on ALL elected officials to ensure our nation has the kind of government intended by the framers, a Citizen Government! Three terms in the House of Representatives, Two terms in the Senate! This is what the Term Limits Amendment folks are asking for. Six years as a Representative, Twelve years as a Senator(which I believe is excessive, but let's go with this one for the moment), and not only the Federal government, but the States as well.

Passing Term Limits on the elected officials is the first step in retaking the government from the greedy and corporate entities who want to return the USA to a "company town" of have's and have not's. Term Limits are the first step in returning America to all Americans!

The Politics of Reason

It would seem the Democratic Party of the 18th Congressional District has given up on the people of the 18th. Why else would they continue to tout a candidate who has no chance of winning?

The Democratic party has all but given up on the 18th, since it is in the lower half of Illinois, and that area has classically been represented by Republicans. The odds are slim indeed that a Democrat will be elected, no matter which candidate is successful on March 20th. But does that mean the party should promote a candidate who has absolutely no voter appeal, a candidate who was not going to run, but was convinced to run by a local blogger and retired journalist who simply cannot stand the thought of a gay man in office?

That may seem like a bold statement, but its the only reason I can think of for this vehement and constant attack on Matt Woodmancy. Steve Waterworth is a nice guy, a fair guy, and a man who served his nation in both the Air Force and the Air National Guard. But he's been presented to the voters twice now, once in 2006 and once in 2008, and he has fallen far short of the mark on both occasions.

Matthew Woodmancy has a criminal record for a foolish act and is paying his fines and has moved on with his life. He is ready to serve, ready to listen to his constituency, and ready to support real changes to the government. He wants to see Term Limits on all Senate and Congressional members to stem the rising tide of career politicians, another term for pawns of the corporations.

Woodmancy's commitment to family and family values is impressive. He cares for his mother and his grandmother while working full time as a manager at a Normal, Illinois Pizzeria. Like many of us, he is in financial straits, so his campaign is being funded on a shoestring, yet he refuses to accept corporate or PAC money, relying instead on the small donations of supporters. He understands that most of us distrust big money, as does he, and wants to stand firm to take politics out of the hands of the rich and corporate contributors.

Woodmancy fully supports the “Buffett Rule” and believes the richest ten percent of this nation need to pay their fair share of the tax burden that is classically passed on to the quickly disappearing Middle Class. He extends this rule to include Social Security earning, which are currently capped at $108.600.00. While employers would pay their 6.2% up to a maximum of $120,000.00, wage earners would pay 6.2% on all of their earnings with not limit. This last change would put the Social Security system in the black in a matter of five to ten years!

Steve Waterworth does not support Term Limits, nor does he fully endorse the Buffett Rule. His preoccupation with Foreign Trade deficits is admirable, but will do nothing to secure immediate relief for the citizens of the 18th Congressional district, or the nation as a whole. And most importantly, he is a candidate who has twice proven ineffective against Republican opponents.

If we are going to run a Democrat in the 18th, shouldn't we consider a candidate who might have a chance of winning?

An interesting development in the Primary

The Debate in Macomb was an interesting comparison of Waterworth and Woodmancy. If you missed the debate, you can listen to it here, on Elaine Hopkin's blog.

The two candidates varied little in their stances, but there were a couple of points that seemed important. One was the topic of Term Limits, which Woodmancy supports and Waterworth opposes. Woodmancy believes that Term Limits would be the first step in returning this nation to a Citizen Government and eliminate Career Politicians. Waterworth believes that having fresh congressmen in office every three terms would make them more susceptible to "big money" influences. Another would be the trade deficit, which both agree is a topic to be tackled, but Waterworth seems to think this would be the way to turn the economy around, while Woodmancy believes the way to tackled the trade deficit is to educate the public on buying choices and therefore reduce the influx of foreign goods.

Both candidates appear to support President Obama in most topics concerning the rebuilding of infrastructure and the saving of Social Security and other "entitlement" programs. However, one statement by Mr. Waterworth concerning President Obama's health care program "Its the Christian thing to do." tends to concern me. While I am a Christian and support Christian morality, our political system needs to be a non-partisan, non-dogmatic affair. I would rather Mr. Waterworth support these programs because they are the right ones to support.

But one thing was missing, and perhaps that is the main point. Twice before Steve Waterworth has run for this office, and twice before he has lost. What I was looking for is the answer to the question, "What makes you electable this time?" It is a question I have asked several times without a decent response. Matthew Woodmancy is an underdog on many levels, to be sure. But Matt is a young person who admits to his past mistakes, is atoning for those mistakes, and has shown himself to be knowledgeable on the issues that appear to be important in this election.

To top it off, I understand that someone has begun a "Robo-call" campaign against Woodmancy. These automated calls emphasize his past, and do not address the issues of the campaign. In short, Woodmancy has become such a threat to Waterworth that whoever is supporting Waterworth (and I do not believe this has come from the candidate himself) is so convinced that he is unelectable that they are willing to shell out hard cash to smear Woodmancy and emphasize his past to the voters. That is mud-slinging, the worst kind of politics. And I would be loathe to support a candidate who uses these sorts of tactics, either by consent or ignorance.

Greed is not Good

Greed is not Good

I was thinking about the Gordon Gecko line out of the movie Wall Street, you know the scene where he is standing in a room full of stockholders trying to convince them his plan for the corporation is better than management's. He blasts the company for losing money, blasts them for having too big an overhead and no real stake in the company, then tells everyone how much they stand to make if they vote for his proposal.”Greed, for lack of a better word, is Good!”

Greed is not good, since it goes hand in hand with power. Remember the “golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules”? More properly, an old saying is still true today. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." An article on CNN.com today confirms the theory. People who have more money tend to be less aware of people who do not. They are more likely to disobey the law, be rude to others, and disregard the rights of others in favor of their own self-interests.

So how do we deal with that? After all, they have the money, and that means they can afford lawyers we cannot to twist the law in their favor and buy off whoever they can't manipulate.

There is a way to make things right, but it involves getting off your ass and voting for candidates who are willing to change the government back to a Citizen Government. President Obama and the Buffett rule are one example of making things right. If we eliminate the tax breaks and the loopholes for the rich, we can start putting money back into programs to educate poorer Americans, maintain our Social Security system and Medicare/Medicaid system, and eliminate Career Politicians who are only interested in lining their own pockets instead of representing the people of their districts.

If you are reading this, and you are saying to yourself something along the nature of “Bullshit! We will never change the system, and the rich will always win, so I am not going to vote.”, Congratulations! You have just voted to maintain the status quo, to watch your Social Security benefits and Medicare/Medicaid entitlements dwindle down to nothing, and allow the corrupt and uncaring incumbents the opportunity to continue to screw you over. If you do not vote, you are voting for the rich. They do not want you to vote. They do not want you to care. They do not want you to believe.

Repeating the same old thing is not news!

A story in the Pantagraph today seems to think it is cutting edge. In Fact, it is old news. Matt Woodmancy has a felony conviction in his past. The part they left out? He has since turned his life around and is currently seeking office as the US Congressional Representative for the 18th District of Illinois.

I am amazed the same people who want to talk about using the system and respecting the law never want to give the guys with obvious errors in their past the benefit of a doubt. Let me clue you in on something. Our system of justice says that once someone has paid their debt to society, the slate is wiped clean unless they continue to screw up. Officially, this is called recidivism. That's if the man or woman continues to screw up. If they don't, they are deemed fit to return to society.

As far as Matt goes, I can tell you a few things that may or may not surprise you. For one, he isn't owned by anyone. He has no great political favors outstanding, owes no one in politics, and is not beholding to any company, corporation, or PAC for any reason. For another, he went into his race knowing it would be an uphill battle, and is still standing there, with a clearly posted platform he has not backed off on since he started his campaign. Lastly, he is not only running for office and holding down a full time job, but also caring for his invalid grandmother and standing by his mother in her battle against cancer, a battle that recently included brain surgery.

If you want to talk about issues and answers, lets talk about issues and answers. If your only reason to print an article is to further defame someone, then not only are you pursuing the path of sensationalism and dirty politics, but you are obviously unable to cite any real objections to the man's qualifications or platform.

Pancakes and Politics at State Farm.

Matthew A. Woodmancy (D) was one of two candidates for the 18th Congressional Seat who attended the State Farm Insurance "Pancakes and Politics" event at corporate south this morning. In addition to him and Steve Waterworth (D), there were many others running for Illinois Congressional seats. With the number of politicians in the room, there were at most 30 employees gathered to listen to a brief introduction and comments from each candidate.

Of particular note was Republican candidate Tom Pliura (R), running for the State Senate for the 51st District. Instead of the normal intro and bio, he instead began with a diatribe in favor of Term Limits and a return to Citizen Government. "I'm running because I am fed up!" It was refreshing because the remainder of the candidates had little to say about why they were running, although plenty to say about what needs to be fixed.

In fact, the catch words of "Fiscal Conservative" came up in almost every candidate's presentation. Dan Brady (R), the incumbent from the 88th District, spoke passionately instead of being accessible to his constituency. Keith Sommer (R), the Illinois House Incumbent from the 106th District, bemoaned the size of government, emphasized the need to fight Obamacare, and applauded State Farm for hiring veterans. Bill Mitchell (R), currently the incumbent for the 87th District, showed up in a sweater and blue jeans, claiming he had another event that would be outdoors and apologized for being dressed "down", then proceeded to tell us this upcoming election was one of the most important in decades. He claimed that Public Assistance programs have grown by 96% in the last 10 years, and left us with the question, can we afford it?

Three of the five candidates for the newly formed 106th district were also available. Tom Bennett (R), had no qualms about telling us he has recently been endorsed by the Illinois Farm Bureau, and is in favor of Concealed Carry. He wants to make Illinois more "Business Friendly" to keep the businesses we have and attract more. Richard Thomas (R), a Nurse and outspoken advocate for Fiscal Conservation, was at least entertaining. He has an excellent manner about him and a firm handshake. Brian Gabor (R) was the last of the three to speak, and is a solid proponent of smaller government and lower taxes. He also wants to make Illinois more business friendly.

You may have noticed with the exception of the two candidates for the 18th Congressional District, all of the other candidates were Republicans. Seems like sort of a stacked deck to me. Or, perhaps, the rumors are true and the Democrats have written off the 18th Congressional District. The incumbent, Aaron Schock, did not appear, although there was a placard for him at the atrium at corporate headquarters after the meeting.

Overall, the event was nice, but only a few individuals dropped by the breakfast, and just a few managed to drop by the atrium at corporate headquarters.

The Impact of Indiana and the Republican Party on Illinois

Labor suffered a major blow yesterday when Governor Mitch Daniels signed a "Right to Work" law into effect in Indiana. He did so, not surprisingly, with the blessings and support of the Republican party. According to the Indiana Star Press,

Daniels and other Republican supporters characterized the measure as needed for Indiana to attract jobs.

But that sentiment is not echoed by all concerned.

Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, disputed the promise of new jobs, saying “there is no empirical evidence... that right to work creates one job.” “It’s a downward spiral to lower wages and fewer benefits,” she said.

The Denver Post in Colorado, a state where Right to Work legislation has yet to be passed, had this to say:

Indiana became the Rust Belt's first right-to-work state Wednesday in a move that is sure to embolden advocates seeking to curtail union rights across the country. But whether other states can replicate the conservatives' success in Indiana is less certain. The political factors that aligned in Indiana were unique, and it is unlikely the same thing could happen in other states — at least for now.

There are currently 23 Right to Work States (see map below), states that have effectively eliminated the rights of Unions to represent their workers with adequate means. You see, the RTW legislation doesn't eliminate unions, or union shops, but it does prevent the unions from collecting dues from workers who decline to join. This means less money for the union to hire legal representation for collective bargaining, contract disputes, and regulations concerning worker safety and conditions. It also means less clout for Unions against Management in the Political arena.

Since 2010, Corporate personhood with respect to Political Spending has become a major issue in the United States.

The corporate personhood aspect of the campaign finance debate turns on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Buckley ruled that political spending is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, while Citizens United ruled that corporate political spending is protected, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech.

That decision has allowed corporations to pour massive contributions into the campaigns of candidates who will support corporate goals, whether or not those goals coincide with the constituency the candidate is supposed to represent. Even worse, union membership has fallen significantly with the elimination of manufacturing jobs here in the United States.

At the apex of union density in the 1940s, only about 9.8% of public employees were represented by unions, while 33.9% of private, non-agricultural workers had such representation. In this decade, those proportions have essentially reversed, with 36% of public workers being represented by unions while private sector union density had plummeted to around 7%. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent survey indicates that union membership in the US has risen to 12.4% of all workers, from 12.1% in 2007. For a short period, private sector union membership rebounded, increasing from 7.5% in 2007 to 7.6% in 2008.[10] However, that trend has since reversed. In 2009, the union density for private sector stood at 7.2%.[11]

So what does this mean to us in Illinois? According the Labor, nothing good.

Right-to-work is plain-and-simple union-busting. It is designed to encourage "free riders," and to weaken or destroy unions. And that’s exactly what it has accomplished in the states that have these laws. Worst of all, it has translated into lower wages and benefits, a diminished standard of living, substandard legal protections and more dangerous working conditions for all workers – not just union members -- in right-to-work states.
In 2003, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that 19 of the 25 states with the highest worker fatality rates were right-to-work states, while just three of the bottom 25 states were right-to-work states. A study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that workers in right-to-work states earned an average of 6.5% less than their counterparts in states without the law. None of the 22 right-to-work states had an average annual pay level above the U.S. average.
When wages fall, state tax revenues fall. That means less funding for education, transportation and other vital programs. Right-to-work is bad not just for union members, but for everyone.

It would seem Right To Work legislation is a godsend for those who want to bust unions in favor of boosting the economy. But boosting it for who? According to the data I've cited above, the economy might get a boost, but the boost will be in the pockets of the Corporations, not the workers, who will reduce wages, benefits, and safety standards for workers in order to make a buck. Thankfully, our own Governor Quinn, a Democrat, does not share Indiana's enthusiasm:

As Indiana lawmakers head toward final passage of so-called “right to work” legislation, Gov. Pat Quinn is calling it a bad move that won’t help Indiana compete with Illinois for business.
Mocking the legislation as the “right to work for less” bill, Quinn joined opponents who have called such laws an assault on organized labor.

According to OpenSecrets.org, Republican Aaron Schock is beholding to Business for 87% of his more than $2,000,000.00 campaign war chest. Republican Bobby Schilling receives 57% of his donations from business. (I guess Bobby doesn't have Aaron's / LaHood's clout.)

So what's the bottom line? It would seem from my perspective that the age old battle of Unions versus Management is still as heated as ever, but the Republicans are stacking the deck in their favor. If you vote, and you should, and you are in a union or realize the importance of unions in our society, Vote Democrat!

States in teal are Right To Work states.

Just a little clarification on my post

Now I dare you to look at this photo and tell me the man does not look like a little light in the loafers. I mean, come on, Aaron, did you get dressed in the dark or do you just not have a mirror in your house? I personally don't care if the man is gay, straight, bi, or a relative of E.T. What I do care about is his "Party Line" politics and his voting record.

Remember the TIGER II funding Aaron railed against in 2010? This is what Rachel Maddow had to say on Meet the Press when Aaron appeared on the show:

"If you vote against the omnibus bill, if you complain about the omnibus bill, if you tout your vote against the omnibus bill, it is hypocrisy to then go to your district and go to a ribbon cutting ceremony for something that is funded by the omnibus bill that you voted against."

Hypocrisy - noun: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have. Sort of like when you say one thing to get the votes of the people, then do something else to benefit your rich supporters, even if you know it will end up screwing your constituents. I believe that is a character flaw, and while those are sometimes reversible, I wonder just how corrupted Mr. Schock is under the guiding wing of his predecessor and mentor, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood?

Aaron Shock Defends His Voting Record in Congress???

"A recent Chicago Tribune report shows Schock as ranking among the top four congressmen who have skipped or missed roll call votes."

I just got this off the CI News website and just had to share it with you. Schock's defense is that he chose to do "constituent work" rather than attend roll call votes that are "routine".

Gee, Aaron, I think we hired you to do just that. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure we hired you to represent our district in Congress, rather than be back here in Peoria to do favors for your cronies.

Guess I was wrong. I was thinking you cared more about this district and the people in it rather than just your buddies who forked over the big bucks to get you in office. What is that election war chest worth? A little more than two million dollars? And how about that new residence in the 18th? You know the one I am talking about, the one with the circular drive around the fountain, the huge living area, and all those bedrooms? Hey,I guess if I owed so many rich folks my seat in Congress, I'd be back here at their beck and call as well.

Too bad the rest of us don't rate. And by the way, the work you are doing for your constituents? How many new jobs out of the ones Obama's administration have come to Central Illinois in the 18th District? How do you plan to help the President improve our schools, work with our educators, rebuild our infrastructure? Exactly how do you plan to help your constituency? Probably not by being there for anything that doesn't go along with your mandate to serve the rich and the corporations. Hey, what the hell, you only need the rest of us every two years, right?