Why I'm running against Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

[cali]

My name is Tim Canova and I’m running for Congress. I was disappointed last summer when my local representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz voted to fast-track the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But it was not a huge surprise. From 2012-2014 alone, she took over $300,000 from corporate interests that support the TPP and only $23,000 from groups opposed to the TPP. My campaign is not taking money from “corporate persons.” We are relying on small donations from real people who are fed up with politics as usual.

The TPP is inherently anti-democratic. It would undermine our national sovereignty by allowing foreign corporations to challenge U.S. laws that seek to protect the public health and safety and the environment. And these corporations would not be suing in U.S. courts. Instead, these suits would be decided in binding arbitration by judges who also happen to be the same high-priced corporate lawyers representing these same big companies in many other cases. This is exactly what has already been happening under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Just last week TransCanada, a giant energy corporation, announced that it would seek $15 billion from the U.S. government for its decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

Why should corporations be able to shift their cost of complying with environmental and other regulations to U.S. taxpayers? We need representatives in Congress that look out for us, not just big corporations. That’s why my campaign is not taking corporate money.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is taking huge amounts of corporate money, including from Wall Street, private prisons, big alcohol and sugar PACs. Her policy positions and votes in Congress largely reflect such corporate influence. She supports the drug war and privatized prisons and opposes medical marijuana. She voted to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from writing rules to prevent racial discrimination in car loans. She voted to eliminate the part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act that had prevented banks from using deposits to speculate on risky financial derivatives.

<snip>
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/11/1468473/-Why-I-m-running-against-Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz

[Omaha Steve]

1. Donate to DU for Tim here

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/du4timcanova

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

14. Thanks, Steve! I'll donate immediatly after this rant...

People! DUers, and others! It's time to put up or shut up! This is our golden opportunity to derail DWS for now and the future.

Please donate to this worthy cause!

[Omaha Steve]

16. We have raised $95 since I made that post

[Turn CO Blue]

73. Steve, remind us on Friday (payday), please. :) n/t

[ChiciB1]

2. I Can't Afford To Donate Anymore $$ Right Now...

but so happy to see this and to support him.

[emulatorloo]

3. Canova sounds great, thanks for the link.

[Cassiopeia]

4. Thanks Cali.

[jhart3333]

5. That's one way to fire DWS.

Donation forthcoming.

ETA Donated!

[MohRokTah]

6. His chances are slim to none running on that platform in that district. eom

[jhart3333]

8. Ah yes. The old inevitable argument.

Works every time.

[MohRokTah]

11. It's a demographic argument.

She has a huge constituency of older people whose ongoing livelihoods are dependent upon returns on investments in multiple corporations.

Being populist in that specific district isn't an ideal platform for the given demographics.

[cascadiance]

15. And they must just love that she doesn't want to tax Wall Street speculation the way Bernie does...

... to help invest in our youth's education being able to take care of them as they retire with having decent industry and jobs here.

And also when such a tax that Bernie wants but Hillary doesn't discourages the rapid volatility that screws up their investments on multiple corporations in their retirement funds when those funds are left holding the bag in the speculation CASINO that Wall Street banksters and those beholden to them love so much!

[MohRokTah]

18. Most people in this demographic don't buy into the rhetoric you are using. eom

[cascadiance]

20. Then I guess they didn't think Wall Street needed a bailout since it was doing so nicely...

... on it's own with the current gambling infrastructure in place that had them begging taxpayers to bail them out?

[MohRokTah]

21. Nore rhetoric they won't buy into. eom

[cascadiance]

47. Maybe corporatists won't, but most people aren't the 1%. That's why they are called the ONE percent

Which in reality is a fraction of 1%. Pretty much all of the 99% doesn't benefit from Wall Street speculation games like the crooks there engage in.

[rhett o rick]

48. Gloat while you can. You have the billionaires on your side, but sooner or later the People

will throw out the corrupt politicians including DWS.

[brentspeak]

37. Are you their spokesperson? n/t

[BeanMusical]

63. Sounds like it. n/t

[Jim Lane]

69. And that will continue as long as craven politicians tell them only what they already believe.

Let's assume arguendo that your reading of public opinion is correct, that Democratic Party establishment politics will prevail, and that the challenge from the left is doomed. Nevertheless, there may well be value in a progressive campaign that highlights these issues. The progressive candidate will have a platform in debates, which will help influence public opinion. He may also cause his worried opponent to move to her left.

I am, of course, speaking only of the Florida race.

[Omaha Steve]

31. You might be right...none of his DU donations are from FL (yet)

But pointing a finger at DWS...

[Lorien]

77. That's because we Floridians already knew about him

and donated directly to his campaign.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. Oh sure,...telling older people you are going to expand Social Security is a real loser.

[Scuba]

61. What was the 2014 turnout in her district? How many disaffected are needed to tip the scales?

[Omaha Steve]

10. Remember when Bill ran on fire Bush and won

He pretty much is using that on DWS.

[MohRokTah]

12. That's not good argument in that district.

Look at the demographics.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. In 2007 i had people here tell me pot legalization was a non issue, no state would EVER legalize it.

Some people take a while to get with the program, huh.

[MohRokTah]

23. In 2007, pot legalization WAS a non-issue.

No state legalized it until 2012.

Demographics in that district will need to change considerably for somebody running on a Sanders-like platform to take the seat from DWS.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. You understand what the word "never" means, right?

No, it wasnt a non issue. The same sorts of societal changes that were already percolating up through issues like marriage equality, were happening there, too.

Change didnt start appearing on the surface until 2012, because of increasing numbers of Millennials reaching voting age.

The beltway DNC conventional wisdom nimrods still think it is 2002, "values voters" rule the elecotrate, and they have NO friggin clue about things like legalization, which they (unlike some of us) never saw coming for a minute.

Hell, if they hadnt been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century on marriage equality, they'd probably still be blibbering gibberish about "the sacred foundation of marriage is between a man and a woman".

And in case you havent noticed, pols like DWS have NO freakin' clue how ro relate to millennials.

As for her primary challenge, I wouldnt underestimate it.

[JonLeibowitz]

33. The way to relate to millenials is to have core beliefs that govern how you act as a politician.

These days it is really easy to prove someone is a liar, and we millienials love to find inconsistencies. Authenticity is easier to disprove. And faking that you are a real person too, that always makes us roll our eyes.

See also: The HRC campaign.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Remember when her advisers were talking about their "new rollout of authenticity and spontaneity"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-show-more-humor-and-heart-aides-say.html

"And there will be new efforts to bring spontaneity to a candidacy that sometimes seems wooden and overly cautious."

Yes, there will! We haven't set the specific times and dates on the calendar, however, we have set aside a certain percentage of the candidate's time for which we will plan some well poll-tested demonstrations of authentic spontaneity!



I swear, you can't make this shit up.

[JonLeibowitz]

43. They have planned spontaneity :-) :-). Indeed, you can't make this shit up. n/t

[rhett o rick]

49. Doesn't matter. I am sure DWS has her sights on bigger things. I bet she is hoping that

Clinton will reward her loyalty with an appointment. This is the corruption that we are fighting.

[eridani]

60. It was those of us who refused to listen to people like you who MADE it--

--an issue.

[JDPriestly]

7. He sounds like a great candidate.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[Capt.Rocky300]

13. I live in Washington and was more than happy.....

to pass some money his way.

[Plucketeer]

26. I'm in California

And I sent Tim some dough. I don't CARE about Dumbographics. IF I thought there was much to them, my favorite contender for president wouldn't be causing Hillary to lose sleep!

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. I live in California as well and rather than donate, I'm buying a few votes in her district. nt

[zazen]

17. thank you Tim Canova n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

19. KICK AND REC

[Snotcicles]

24. I just tossed a little in the kitty. eom

[Kalidurga]

27. Tim Canova 2024

[RandySF]

28. He will lose.

[DhhD]

32. When are the findings from the investigation that Sanders ask for on the DNC due out? He will win.

[Aerows]

36. Bernie Sanders is going to win

despite the shit-stirring of DWS and the DNC.

We have some folks in our party that we need to cleaned house of, just like Republicans have their barrel of bad apples.

[Betty Karlson]

53. I think DhhD meant that if Sanders' report on the contract breach by DWS is out

before the primary in DWS's district, the conclusions would enhance Tim Canova's chances of ousting DWS.

[Aerows]

34. I don't care who wins

or who loses as long as DWS ceases to be the head of the DNC.

I think you are among the handful of people that want DWS to continue on in her present roll as chair of the DNC.

The rest of us thinking folk want someone that isn't an idiot.

[roody]

46. Floridians deserve better. She supported her local republicans.

[progressoid]

50. The DNC deserves better too. n/t

[Aerows]

51. Absolutely, roody

All of us deserve better.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz attempts these machinations like limiting the debate schedule to six, and every Democrat on the planet knows what she is doing. Bags of hair have affected a better strategy than DWS has put forth.

It's like she is accidentally incompetent, and when she does an oopsey and makes a competent move, there is much surprise.

[JonLeibowitz]

35. Wishful thinking? Do you actually oppose him?

[tkmorris]

67. He won't admit to that

He'll tell you instead that he is just being a "realist".

[BeanMusical]

64. ...

[creatives4innovation]

29. Thank you Tim

We're with you all the way!

[RiffRandell]

38. K&R!

She needs to go!

Long overdue.

[Babel_17]

39. And so it begins

Welcome to explaining your choices.

[Duval]

40. Wow! Thanks, cali. Let the donations begin.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. She feels she's protected by the Clintons,....who OWN the party.

[Betty Karlson]

54. And may be soon disowned by that same party?

A party is more than its elite.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

55. That's why endorsements by what they consider to be "the in crowd" don't impress me.

[senz]

58. Exactly. The in-group sticks together.

[Octafish]

45. That last sentence.

Wall Street is how elected officials and government insiders benefit from the laws they make and enforce, all legal thanks to the fact they write and pass the law.

Example...UBS, Phil Gramm, and Bill Clinton:

Since the repeal of Glass-Steagal, they've specialized in all kinds of Wealth Management:

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

How's Austerity working out for you?

[Betty Karlson]

52. The solution is primarying the problem.

Now that is what I call a good reason to make a campaign donation.

[anigbrowl]

56. Dear Tim, why I think your campaign is doomed

It's not any of the many things you cited that justifiably bother you about Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or the huge amount of $$$ that will inevitably flow her way.

It's your failure to articulate a single thing that you stand for or would work to achieve in Congress. All I read was a long list of the things you're pissed off about. It's fine to be pissed off, but I can be pissed off by myself, I don't need you to be pissed off for me. Also, I have enough things to be pissed off about without poring over your list to see whether the things I'm pissed off about are included or whether you are sufficiently pissed off about the things I am pissed off about. (Turns out you're not, but that's OK because people can be pissed off about different things.)

But the basic problem is this: if you were somehow elected, I have no idea what you'd do once you were in Congress except insofar as it reflects Debbie Wasserman Schultz. You need to tell people that you have an agenda of your own. Now, I'm sure you have one and even that you'd be good at advancing it, because I took time to look you up and download some of your law review articles. But I'm pretty sure that 'people who read law review articles for pleasure' is not a large enough demographic to get you elected, or even close to it.

As they say, you only get one chance to make a first impression. And the first impression I got was someone with an obsessive dislike of an incumbent politician and to a lesser extent of big business. Unfortunately, the world is awash in angry people who are lining up to tell me how angry they are, and I don't have time to be angry about all the things people want me to angry about, although the things that make me angry certainly do influence my political decision-making. Tell me something good - about what you've achieved, what you'd do to improve your district, or what sort of legislation you'd introduce.

The vast majority of people go to the polls to vote for someone, not against someone else. Tell me what you are for.

[senz]

57. There is no "obsessive dislike" in his article, just clearly stated policy positions.

Maybe you should reread it.

[anigbrowl]

59. Oh really?

Tell me what his top legislative priority would be if elected.

[senz]

76. Really.

He did not list legislative priorities, so your high-handed little demand is silly.

However, in giving his reasons for running, he advocated:

• the restoration of democracy
  
  
• the restoration and preservation of national sovereignty
  
  
• leadership that serves people, not corporations
  
  
• the restoration of Glass-Steagall
  
  
• independence from corporate donations
  
  
• racial sensitivity
  
  
• elimination of private prisons

All of which should look good to any real Democrat.

[anigbrowl]

80. Not really. There is nothing silly about my question

Wanting to know what an aspiring politicians legislative priorities are is a really basic thing. That's why successful politicians are able to articulate clearly what they plan to do once they get into office. You're conflating values with policies, I'm saying that the failure to articulate a policy agenda, even if it's just a few sentences long, does not bode well for his campaign...which was why I suggested he change up his message and spend some more time saying what he's for rather than just listing all the things he's against.

[Scuba]

62. ...

[hifiguy]

75. If a pro baseball player put up those kind of stats, even in the minors,

over the same period he'd be playing beer-league softball and a parsec away from any professional sports.

Yet she still has her job?

Why? These must be the results someone wants.

[ISUGRADIA]

78. I'm not sure how this meme is right

DWS became chair of the DNC in April 2011.

Senator Tim Kaine was chair during the 2010 elections when Democrats did so poorly.

They were 193 Democrats in the US house and 53 who caucused with the Democrats in the U.S. Senate in April 2011.

So her losses to date would only be five in the house and seven in the Senate. I don't know what it would be for state legislatures.

[Enthusiast]

65. K&R! I would love to see this receive hundreds of recommendations!

[Stuart G]

66. k and r...thanks for posting...!!!!

[H2O Man]

68. Recommend (#200)

Outstanding!

[xocet]

70. K & R ! n/t

[GoneFishin]

71. Just kicked in for Tim Canova.

[Ivan Kaputski]

72. Any reason will do. Just get her out of office. Florida has more than it's share of dino's.

[stuffmatters]

74. Canova:Anti-TPP, private prisons, pro medical marijuana, pro Glass Steagall

He has immensely popular Dem positions. Just add scrapping the soc sec cap to insure the solvency of soc sec for future generations/grandkids, and Canova has a winning platform ag DWS. Even if her district (as described above) leans toward an older demographic. Yes older, but the D's are still D's by choice and orientation.

D W-Schultz's track/voting record is completely opposite from what Canova stands for.

I especially appreciate Canova putting explanation and opposition for TPP front and center There's only a little while longer before Congress votes to pass it fast track. This should be a loud and central theme of every Democrat running for worker, environmental, health, financial protections and defending our Democracy against corporate omnipotence.

I'm happy to donate to Canova. He represents the issues I want a Democratic candidate to represent.

DWS simply does not "represent". As Chair of the DNC, she is a contradiction of what to me our Party stands for. She's proven an incompetent strategist and now is a debilitating messenger for the Democratic Party.


.

[blackspade]

79. K&R!