I gotta love it... this year will be all but normal...

[nadinbrzezinski]

No seriously. Just finished doing a phone interview to Senator Feinstein's challenger... in the Democratic Primary...

http://www.levitt2012.org/

To say that this will be a normal year is crazee. Let's just put it this way... there is something in the water that will make this an all but normal year. And here is one for ya... you know who is running on the REPUBLICAN ticket? You all remember Orly Taitz? There was a proposition last time around that basically makes the top two candidates in a primary go to the general in November in California... well there is chance we will have two at the top of the ticket, as in two Democrats... and as far as this county is concerned this is also possibly for a couple congressional races. To the Congressional races depends if the Republicans take it seriously and actually run a primary or not.

His agenda is pretty progressive, as in very progressive. And here is more... he is number five in candidates who are emerging out of the coffee party, occupy and other movements from the left that I have personally listed in my personal list of... well emerging challenges. Let's just put it this way, lesser of two evilism and throw the bums out are taking quite a bit of force.

This is not going to be a normal year. We should just get used to it... and that is also the reason why the Republican race is so damn unstable.

You wanted excitement... well you are going to get it.

[pintobean]

2. Oh and I am not shocked

[sudopod]

3. It must be hard being the internet police.

You should get a hat or something so all the Great Americans going through to the donut shop can tell that you're a hero . :3

[eShirl]

4. I've found that to be a common practice.

What's more interesting is that you checked and posted the results. What's up with that?

[zappaman]

7. Maybe your posts aren't nearly as important? n/t

[zappaman]

8. K & R post #7. n/t

[eShirl]

50. "what do you make of that?"

I'm mildly amused.

[dana_b]

20. I recommended it as well

what does that mean?? It means that I think that this thread is worthy of being read. And why shouldn't Nadin recommend this thread? She obviously likes it and the system gives us the opportunity to do so.

[dana_b]

24. yes. so why is this an issue then?

We don't normally go onto threads and announce who is recommending a thread or that someone recommended their own thread. Why was it necessary here?

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. I will answer it for you

Because it was me who recommended a thread, that I thought was important.

Mr. Obamanaut has an axe to grind the size of planet earth.

I got no clue what I personally did to him, but at this point he reminds me of Jorge, one of the kids who used to bully me in school. Yes, yes he is, and the only thing missing to complete the experience are a few kicks to the knees, or a few thumbtacks on the seat.

It does not matter that he is called on it, or alerted for that matter. But what he is doing is serial, and it s called cyber bullying and cyber stalking.

I expect him, or friends to alert on this post..and that is the way it is.

But that is what is going on.

He is a serial bully.

And the pattern is one noted by many on this site, well except those that matter it seems.

So I suggest that we all stop encouraging him and his pals and stop feeding the you know what. Alerts don't work, and neither has trying to explain this. So at this point I suggest not feeding the behavior any longer.

We all know what ten posters will try to hijack, in this case succesfully, threads...time to no longer take the bait.

[dana_b]

43. got it and thanks

I won't feed anything/one anymore. Good luck!!

[SaintPete]

42. That must have been very diffidult for nadineb...hacking this DU system

just to rec her own thread.

What?

It's a built in feature? OP's can rec their own thread by design?

Damn her for following the same rules that apply to the rest of us! Damn I say!

[Kellerfeller]

59. How petty is that!

Who cares if a person recs their own thread?

Does one rec matter for anything? No.

I wish I had the time/problems that this is something I would fret about.

[Rex]

64. It matters to the person you are replying to.

Way too much imo.

[tblue37]

62. No worse than self-kicking, and we have probably all done that when

we had a fading post that we really wanted people to see.

[Marrah_G]

63. What the fuck is your problem?

Stop following her around.

[white_wolf]

10. I love how no one is talking about the points raised by the thread...

and are simply attacking the OP. I've said it before and I'll say it again, grow up. Oh and this will be rec #10.

[zappaman]

11. Seriously, can you tell me what the points raised are?

I'm having a hard time deciphering the OP and if you can, please post your interpretation.
It seems to say Orly Taitz is running for senate here in California against Feinstein or something?

[sabrina 1]

51. Did you click the link Nadin provided?

I got that she was saying there is a challenge to Diane Feinstein from the left. After clicking the link which she drew my attention to, I learned more about that candidate and I now have someone I can actually support here in CA.

[zappaman]

53. I was aware of him already thru my local occupy movement and I like what he has to say.

He is opposite to Feinstein in many ways.
However, a guy with no experience and a lack of the insane amount of money she has at her disposal, has no chance at winning the Senate.
Unless, she gets caught in some horrific scandal.
And no, it's not right that she will win because she has the most money, but it is the cold reality of the present situation...

Yup, I predict she will win the Senate.

[zappaman]

13. The "real hard core news" is being saved for Facebook.

Where ALL the "real hard core news" resides.

[jwirr]

14. Yes, we are so busy doing personal attacks that we forget all the really important issues we are

facing as citizens of the country. This is one of the things I hate about most threads on DU. They all get highjacked in side issues.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Hijacked is the right term

But such poster...well...I will let it be...revealing to say the least.

I expect this poster to continue to serially personally attack me. This is why ignore is all but useful...

.

As to the issues...

Well we are seeing now organized challenges to all the establishment. This is both parties. It will be a fascinating year.

[sabrina 1]

23. Your comments here are way off topic.

To get back to the OP's topic, I agree with her completely. Things are going to be very different in races across the country. People are not going to accept anymore, the 'lesser of two evils' and it's very exciting to see how many people are getting behind candidates who will not be taking huge amounts of money from big Corps. From what I have seen it is becoming a very negative thing for a candidate to be funded by Corporate America. This is new, as in the past most voters were not even aware of how much that money influences how they vote in Congress.

We have OWS to thank or this.

[dana_b]

26. yes we do

and I am glad that nadin pointed out this candidate as I live in California and would like to learn more about him as I am not a Feinstein supporter.

[sabrina 1]

27. Me too, I would like to know more also. I have been paying more attention to the

Congressional race in our district, which currently has a Republican who's been there for years.

[dana_b]

30. good luck getting her/him out

We do have a Dem rep and he's fairly moderate. More progressive challengers tried to win the nomination but the area where I live is not THAT progressive.

I looked at Levitt on the link nadin provided and Facebook. He seems progressive but he has a big challenge if he is going to fight the Feinstein machine.

[zappaman]

32. The amount of money Feinstein can raise is sick.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00007364

No wonder she always triumphs.

[sabrina 1]

46. Yes, but this time, that could work against her.

The issue of money in Politics is now a big one, and a good candidate running against her can point to all the votes she made that benefited some of her donors. Levitt, the candidate is very aware of this and looks like he intends to use to his advantage. That is one of the differences I think the OP is talking about in this election, a new awareness among the people of the poisonous effect all that money has had on our system.

Says Levitt, "Democrats and Republicans think it should cost millions to campaign -- and they want every voter and potential opponent to believe it. It was true in the 20th century, when TV ads were the only way to distribute video messages. But it's only continuing today because sitting politicians and corporate TV networks prefer a race for corporate money and paid ads. They're in denial that every day more voters skip ads with DVRs, watching and sharing videos recommended by friends on line instead.

"If these politicians campaigned on their track records and policies, they'd lose. Their only hope is to convince ordinary people they can't run without joining the same corrupt money system. But it's actually more affordable than ever -- there's even unlimited video. Citizen-funded candidates on the ballot can pull back the curtain and show that The Great Oz isn't all-powerful.

[zappaman]

47. Sure...with you or me

Unfortunately, the masses tend not to notice things like this.
The just keep pulling the lever for the name they recognize.

[sabrina 1]

48. Well, that's up to us. Eg, now that I know about him

I can link to his site on my twitter account, email all my friends so they can do the same thing, and anyone else who read this thread can do the same, assuming they want to help get real Progressives elected. So, just from this one OP, he is likely to start getting donations.

As he points out, the established, Corporate funded candidates are relying on the old methods. Young people especially, as he points out, do not watch TV Ads for the most part. The Social Media is where they get most of their information now.

Nothing is impossible and the 'masses' want real change. All that needs to be done is to provide them with choices, not the old 'lesser of two evils' anymore.

This one race seems like a good place to start imo.

[zappaman]

49. California is a great big state.

Again, you are more well-informed than most, as your friends are as well I would assume.
However, big money is needed to win a senate seat and if the Repubs put up a candidate with big money, then a small candidate-even if he somehow won the Democratic nomination-would get leveled in the general election.
The change to get big money out of elections will have to be gradual and will have to start at the very most local of local levels.
I'd love to see Feinstein get beat by a more progressive candidate. I just don't think there is a realistic chance of that happening yet.

[sabrina 1]

52. Otoh, if Feinstein is beaten in the primary, then the Party must step in and

give him the support he won't have from them in the primary. Republicans are not popular in this country right now. They would have to dig up someone really good to beat a Dem who by then, would be getting lots of free media attention which he can use to challenge any Repub to refuse corporate money, to stop working for the 1% and to try to beat him on the issues.

We have to start somewhere. Nothing happens if we continue to be afraid as we have been for ever, always using the old excuses. I think this is a different time, the country is filled with people who have been victims of Corporate corruption, the polls show that they know this. A candidate who can case in on this does have a chance imo.

I don't know enough about this candidate yet to know if he has what it takes, the charisma, the confidence etc. but if he does, I see it as a definite possibility and a way of forcing the Party to the left AFTER he wins the primary. How else are we ever going to change the status quo?

[zappaman]

54. The status quo can be changed.

It just won't happen at this level until it happens in lower levels.
Hell, I thought Maxine Waters being elected years ago would shake things up and it really-unfortunately-hasn't.

[sabrina 1]

57. I agree with you that it has happen at the lower level and it will be easier imo, in

Congressional races than a Senate race. But again, having someone new in the race, with no DC background, someone not taking Corporate money, could attract voters who have grown tired of supporting the lesser of two evils. I guess we grow tired of being told it's impossible which suppresses the effort to at least try. But there's a lot of energy out there right now that could at least get out more voters and who knows, nothing is really impossible even if it is unlikely at this stage.

To be honest, like so many others in this country, where I used to be excited about politics, not so long ago either, I have become totally disillusioned, but seeing people like this step up to challenge the status revives that energy and you never know, sometimes there is a point where the impossible becomes possible. That's what I'm hoping for anyone

[zappaman]

58. We agree

I would love to see a serious progressive challenger to Feinstein!

[sabrina 1]

61. Yes, even if he doesn't win, it will help change the conversation and I am getting excited

about being able to support someone like this for a change

[tledford]

55. This is what frightens so many on this discussion board.

"Nothing happens if we continue to be afraid as we have been for ever, always using the old excuses."

[zappaman]

56. I don't see many frightened about change on this discussion board.

Maybe you could show me a few.

[sabrina 1]

44. Yes, I just checked him out also, but I don't think in the current climate, it's impossible.

And in fact, her 'machine' could be used very effectively against her at this point in time. Make it a huge part of all that is wrong with our system, challenge her publicly to do what he is doing, refuse Corporate Funding, everywhere she goes.

From his website:

Says Levitt, "Democrats and Republicans think it should cost millions to campaign -- and they want every voter and potential opponent to believe it. It was true in the 20th century, when TV ads were the only way to distribute video messages. But it's only continuing today because sitting politicians and corporate TV networks prefer a race for corporate money and paid ads. They're in denial that every day more voters skip ads with DVRs, watching and sharing videos recommended by friends on line instead.

"If these politicians campaigned on their track records and policies, they'd lose. Their only hope is to convince ordinary people they can't run without joining the same corrupt money system. But it's actually more affordable than ever -- there's even unlimited video. Citizen-funded candidates on the ballot can pull back the curtain and show that The Great Oz isn't all-powerful.

"In the past year, Occupy and a dozen 'get the money out of politics' campaigns have been launched. Professor Lawrence Lessig, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan and others ask 'Do we need a new law, Amendment or Convention? Do we have to overturn the Citizens United court decision or outlaw SuperPACs?' But all we really have to do is find and support candidates who refuse corporate money, and reject anyone who thinks they should win by outspending their opponents. That starts right now."

He makes some very good points as to why this election may not be about who has the most money, but could be the exact opposite.

I am glad he is running, as there was no way I could feel enthusiastic about Feinstein but now I feel there is someone in the race I could get behind.

[sabrina 1]

36. The topic was not about whether or not a discussion board can solve all the ills

of our society. It was pretty specifically about the upcoming election.

But in case you missed it, the Revolutions in the ME were practically run from social media sites, including boards like this one who participated in spread information as it happened on the ground. Which is why Mubarak shut down the Internet.

But back to the topic of the OP.

[sabrina 1]

45. What do you think of the candidate running against Feinstein?

[Rex]

65. Not all of them do.

nt

[MineralMan]

19. It's going to be pretty much a normal election year.

All election years are crazy. As for that proposition, well, that's what Californians decided to do. If two Democrats are running against each other as the only two candidates for a position, then it's a win-win situation, pretty much.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Ammusing

Personal attacks are fine, and not discussing op's, instead personally attacking people is fine. I guess this is the new value.

I guess this is what DU is devolving into...great!

So how about people start ignoring the obvious personal attacks and concentrate on the issues raised? Some people's goal in life is to short circuit discussion. And here they succeeded, which is sad.

By the way challenges to party officials was a prediction of mine, and so far we have one indie challenging Issa...(and a dem)

One State challenge

One Senator

Two lower offices.

This is just the ones I know. I am betting more are comming. Oh and some believe Elizabeth Warren should be included in the list, but for many reasons I will not include her strictly in this list.

So please continue the personal abuse... I know you are revealing yourselves for what you are, and not actually interested in the process. Amazing.

[sabrina 1]

25. See my post #23. I agree with you that things are going to be different this year.

Speaking to people in my district, Democrats I mean, they are all so much more aware this time of the poisonous effects of money in our government. This is totally due to the Occupy movement. Some of them say they never thought about it before, and even thought it was a good thing if the candidate they supported, was being funded at all.

That has changed as more people have become aware that that IS the problem.

So, they are paying more attention to candidates who are not being funded by Big Corps. And activists in each district hopefully will be knocking on doors pointing out the candidates who are most likely to serve the people.

[pintobean]

28. You predicted challenges?

That's really going out on a limb. I'm sure none of us expected that! So, I guess we will have elections.

[SidDithers]

33. "how about people start ignoring the obvious personal attacks"...

Sounds like a great idea.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

29. Nadin, do you have any info on the candidate?

I would like to check him out as I am in CA for now, also.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. I posted a link to his campaign site on the op

He is from Silicon Valley. Yes, he is coming straight from OWS.

Some planks...

1.- Get out of the ME, time we spend a trillion plus in the US, not in Afghanistan

2.- He is not taking any corporate money

3.- he believes vets are an abused population

4.- Marriage Equality

5.- We need a WPA in the country, and yes California.

I am waiting on a few issues Miriam asked for a follow up.

[sabrina 1]

37. Excellent, I will check him out.

I like him already

'Not taking any corporate money'. I hope this becomes a huge issue in the Congressional races. Let's see how the Koch funded Republicans deal with this as an issue. I hope it will be central to these races. Put them on the defensive, force them to try to explain taking all that money from special interests and how that in any way, encourages them to represent those whose votes they are asking for.

[Codeine]

39. I suppose if an OP is sufficiently indecipherable

one can later claim it contained all sorts of successful predictions -- the Nostradamus Corollary, as it were.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Cliff's notes

What part of Dianne Feinstein is getting challenged from the left are you having that much trouble comprehending?

As to the Proposition 14' go look it up.

[woo me with science]

40. K&R

[lunatica]

60. Levitt sounds very good.

I love the opportunity to vote against Diane Feinstein. She's corrupt and might as well be a Republican. She voted for the Patriot Act claiming that if she had voted what her constituents wanted she would have had to vote against it, but she also claimed she 'knew things' about Iraq that were secret information only members of Congress get to see.

She's a despicable woman helping her husband make money off the wars.