Yes, I've just succumbed to the latest nag to help raise the number of donors to 1000.  Because even though the keyboard I'm sitting behind is a heck of a ways from New York, I have a vested interest.

Like you, I want more and better Democrats. But I also want to do my bit to help counter the crap I found oozing from these sneaky bastards when I Googled his name for more info:

Who is Dan Maffei and What Does His Campaign Stand For?

Dan Maffei has been running around Central New York as a perennial political candidate for the last 2 1/2 years.  This blog is dedicated to tracking his moves and revealing the facts behind his "I want to play politician" shenanigans.

Fighting the slime is motivation enough. But follow me over the flip and I'll tell you the real reason this New York race is personal for this Oregonian.

Cross posted at Calitics

So as we've established by now, Darrell Issa thinks very little of 9/11 rescue workers and would prefer that the federal government not concern itself with their welfare.  Cause according to him, 9/11 is not and presumably was not a national issue.  We've also established that he has no qualms about throwing federal money around on local pork as long as it benefits him directly.  So the next logical question for me is "oh hey, are there any familiar names that don't mind taking Darrell Issa's money?"  As you may or may not know, Darrell Issa is filthy rich.  So he's spread a lot of money around on Republicans and conservative causes.  So as it turns out, there are quite a lot of Republicans currently running around the Capitol funded in part by Darrell Issa (partial list):

Republicans are having a heck of a time finding someone to run for the NY-25 House seat being vacated by the retiring Jim Walsh.

Walsh, who narrowly beat Dan Maffei  in 2006 and later told the Syracuse press that he was "disappointed in the people of Syracuse," announced he was retiring earlier this year.

The GOP was counting on former State Fair Dirctor Peter Cappuccelli to run for the seat, but he unexpexpectedly withdrew this week.

There is something very wrong with the New York Republican Party and they are in danger of being wiped out in November. It does not help that, according to the Syracuse Post-Standard, Republican Peter Cappuccilli will not run for the Congressional seat being vacated by Jim Walsh (hat tip to Albany Project).

Major shocker, and genuinely terrific news for Democrats: Republican Jim Walsh, who narrowly squeaked by Democratic challenger (and current Blue Majority candidate) Dan Maffei, 51-49, in 2006, will retire according to the Politico's blog, The Crypt:

Republican Rep. Jim Walsh of New York is expected to announce his retirement soon, according to a GOP aide familiar with the decision, giving Democrats another pick-up opportunity following a wave of Republican retirements this cycle.

The veteran appropriator had a tough reelection fight in 2006 and was expected to face another challenge in the fall.

If this does in fact occur, it will make Walsh the 21st Republican representative not to seek reelection in 2008. Worse luck for the GOP: New York's 25th is naturally Democratic turf, though not overwhelmingly. Kerry won the Syracuse-based district 50-48, and Gore won fairly handily, 51-45. NY-25 is currently the fifth-bluest district in the country held by a Republican, judging by its PVI of D+3.4.

This race was already expected to be one of the most competitive in the country, and if Walsh retires, it will zoom to the top of the list of the hottest races in the nation.

Currently, our only declared candidate is Maffei, a young (born on the Fourth of July, 1968) former reporter, Press Secretary for Bill Bradley, and staffer to Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Charles Rangel. As mentioned, Maffei ran an excellent race in 2006, losing by less than four thousand votes to Walsh despite being outspent nearly 2-1. Prior to Maffei's run, some had considered Walsh unbeatable, but Maffei's underdog candidacy came very close to taking him out.

Maffei is a solidly progressive Democrat, (and, as mentioned, Blue Majority candidate). As of the September 30 FEC filings, he had over $300,000 cash-on-hand, giving him a considerable head start on any other Syracuse Democrats who may be interested in this race (and given the district's Democratic bent, there will doubtless be a few), but nevertheless, please feel free to throw some love Maffei's way.

I have to say that I certainly did not see this coming; Republican retirements have been coming in fairly steadily over the last year, but this one seemed to come out of left field. This is an exceptionally bad district for the GOP to lose an incumbent, and that loss will put additional strain on the beleaguered NRCC.

All in all, surprising and excellent news for Democrats everywhere.

(The latest Blue Majority candidate, courtesy of Chris Bowers -- kos)

It is with great please that I am able to announce that the next Blue Majority endorsed candidate: Dan Maffei, from New York's 25th Congressional District

I am particularly excited about this endorsement for several reasons. First, I am from the district, and ever since Jim Walsh originally won the seat by a few hundred votes back when I was a freshman in high school, I have been itching for someone to defeat him. Second, Dan Maffei epitomizes one of my longest-running arguments about the need to run in every district. In 2004, no Democrat ran against Walsh, but in 2006 Dan came within 1% of defeating him. Third, having met Dan Maffei, I can honestly say that there is no member of Congress, or candidate for Congress, with whom I was more personally impressed and within whom I felt more personally comfortable (there are two or three who I feel roughly the same about). When we talked for over two hours over coffee and pizza, it felt like every idea we exchanged about strategy, policy, and life really clicked (like me, he went to local public schools, and hasn't exactly made a fortune working in progressive politics). Dan is a serious, brilliant progressive, who absolutely means more and better Democrats. Please, contribute to Dan today.

Here is a video Dan put together to introduce himself and the district to the readers of Dailykos, MyDD, Open Left and Swing State Project a few days ago:

Now, some of you might ask something to the effect of "wait-he is running against Jim Walsh, the Republican who just said he was now opposed to the Iraq War? Isn't that the sort of Republican behavior we should be encouraging, rather than immediately punishing with a major counter-endorsement?" If you are asking this question, I am glad you did, because even though the Maffei endorsement was decided upon several days before Walsh's announcement, since that time it has revealed the true danger Democrats face in offering up weak, meaningless, "compromise" bills on Iraq. The NY-25 is the first case study of how Democratic weakness in the House on Iraq can allow Republican to potentially blur the difference between the two parties on Iraq, and thus wipe out virtually our entire advantage heading into the 2008 elections.

Here is the situation. Over the past nine months, Jim Walsh has said he was in favor of withdrawal, and then voted a timeline that would actually mandate withdrawal. Even in discussions with local media yesterday, and in calls I made to his staff, he refused to come out in favor of a timetable. Walsh has said that he is in favor of oversight on Iraq, and then voted against oversight. He said he was opposed to the escalation, and then refused to vote against the escalation. In May, he said he was opposed to a blank check for Bush on Iraq, and then voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq in the capitulation bill. Everything Walsh is saying now, he ha already said before. The key difference is not hat Walsh has changed his opinion, but that Democats in Congress are changing the legislation they are trying to pass through Congress.

Back in the spring, House Democrats forced votes on stiffer legislation that required real oversight and mandated withdrawal. It only received two votes form Republicans, because the many so-called moderate Republicans who are supposedly against Bush's policy in Iraq are not willing to pass binding legislation opposing Bush's policy in Iraq. They are, however, willing to pass meaningless legislation that suggests Bush should change course, but does not actually require him to do so. For example, Walsh is a co-sponsor of the Kirk-Lipinski bill that does not mandate any troop withdrawal whatsoever, but sets it as a "goal." Compromise bills of this sort are in abundance nowadays, and I imagine Walsh will vote for all of them. However, if a bill comes up that actually mandates troops withdrawal, there is still no indication that he would vote for such a bill. Given everything he has said on the matter, I bet he won't vote for mandated troop withdrawal.

This is the crux of the problem progressives face in the 2008 elections. Bad, Bush Dog Democrats are coming up with cover your ass legislation that won't do anything to drawdown our military involvement in Iraq. Instead, the actual impact of these bills will be to allow Bush Dogs and endangered Republicans alike to appear as though they oppose Bush's policies, and thus strengthen all of their hands for re-election. In short, weak Iraq legislation in Congress will help empower Bush Dogs, and help prevent progressives like Maffei from taking over Republican seats. This is the exact opposite of the more and better Democrats refrain that has been traveling around the blogosphere. Weak Iraq legislation will allow Republicans like Walsh to blur their differences on Iraq all over the country, and the result will be fewer, and worse Democrats.

In the first major case study of this kind for the 2008 elections, we can't let this stand. Supporting Dan Maffei means opposing weak, toothless Iraq legislation in Congress. It means taking a stand against a self-defeating Democratic strategy that will not only do nothing to drawdown the Iraq war, but will also go a long way toward wiping out any chance of a second Democratic wave election. It means supporting more and better Democrats, instead of reverting to the pro-war, minority status Democratic Party of 2002-2003.

Contribute to Dan Maffei on Blue Majority. Fight Bush dogs and Republican blurring alike. This lean-Kerry district is going to be a very big race down the road, and a place where a true progressive like Maffei can hold a seat for a long time to come.

Rep. Jim Walsh's break with the White House on the war, diaried yesterday here, was obviously not an overnight decision but had been planned for some time, with his trip to Iraq over the weekend obviously just a formality.  The headline on today's Syracuse Post-Standard is My Iraq Journal, by Jim Walsh, in which the nine-term Congressman lays out in full detail (perhaps deeply annoying and disingenuous, to Democrats) his rationale.  

Walsh, of course, is facing a second serious challenge for his seat from Dan Maffei in NY-25, so his political reasons for doing this are pretty transparent.  The guy desperately wants to keep his job.  However, this article is worth reading only because it shows how the mind of a rank-and-file Republican works, and also probably reflects the attitudes of many Americans who initially supported the war.  

Republican Jim Walsh, who won re-election in 2006 by less than 3,000 votes, is making headlines today.  He has decided to break with the President and his party on Iraq.  Today, we learn that he will be supporting a bill calling for withdrawal from Iraq and will apparently be opposing a blank check as well.

This is huge news, not just for the fact that we have another Republican defection on Iraq, but because Walsh is so far the only Republican to keep his promise about Magical September.  From a May 2007 letter to his constituents:

If Petraeus’ plan is successful, it will be obvious before September.  His judgment should surprise no one.  If it’s not working, we should be prepared to begin withdrawing our soldiers.

And withdrawing our soldiers is exactly what Walsh is now supporting.  After visiting Iraq this weekend, Walsh had this to say:

"Things have not changed substantially in Iraq," Walsh said after returning to Washington Monday. "It's a very, very dangerous place, if not the most dangerous place on Earth. Governance is a serious issue. They are stumbling toward democracy." [...]

"What occurred to me while I was in Iraq is that it's time," Walsh said. "We've done enough. No country has done more than we have for Iraq. The question I kept coming up with is how much do we have to give Iraq to make things work? I think we have given enough."

"We have given enough."  That about sums it all up, doesn't it?

He goes on to say that if the President won't withdraw troops on his own, it's up to Congress to use its power of the purse to do it.

And on yesterday's testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker? Walsh confirms that it waspretty much irrelevant:

"I heard Petraeus," Walsh said. "I agree with much of what he says. But his focus is the military. And as I've said many times before, this will require a political, not a military, solution."

Pssst, Democrats (Blue Dogs, we're looking at you). There's no need to water down your position or offer tepid and ineffective "compromise" bills which do nothing but compromise your principles.   As Walsh's recent reversal proves, withdrawing troops and tying that withdrawal to funding has bipartisan support.  It is the rational position.  It is the necessary position.

After all, as Walsh notes, "we have given enough."  

Even as MSM prognosticators write Karl Rove's career's post-mortem, anyone living outside the beltway bubble knows that his dirty, lowest form of life political style is still alive and well, as the GOP tries to smear its way towards respectability once again. And now that the blogosphere is more influential than ever (thank God), it's up to us to call them out on it. Time and Time again. Here's the latest example of Rovian tactics, this time in NY-25:

Via RochesterTurning....The Republican slime machine that supports Congressman Jim Walsh (R-Syracuse) has kicked into high gear with nasty Rovian attacks on Walsh's likely general election, Dan Maffei (D-Syracuse):

Onondaga County Republican Party officials apologized Thursday and removed a Web site posting that suggested a "growing list" of child predators support Democratic congressional candidate Dan Maffei.

(snip)

The posting began, "Dan Maffei must be shaking in his boots this morning to learn that yet another close advisor to his failed campaign for Congress has admitted to inappropriate sexual activity with minor children."

Jim Walsh, Board Member of Council for a Livable World (the sister organization of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation), gave a great radio interview last Friday on nuclear weapons, the recent Obama-Clinton spat, and that proverbial "table" for "On the Media," a program produced by WNYC and syndicated by NPR.

Walsh also recently put out a tremendous op-ed on keeping the nuclear option on the "table," in which he argues, "Presidential candidates who think they can go around threatening the potential use of nuclear weapons to look tough without serious international repercussions are living in a bubble." The full op-ed is available here.

While bloggers may have disagreements with House leadership, one thing we can say about them: they want to win even bigger in '08. And they're aggressively going after it, especially in the northeast, where we made such huge gains in '06. They really want to make the northeast Republican extinct. And Dan Maffei, of NY-25 (Syracuse region), an underdog near victory in '06, is one of the guys they know can win this time around.

Last fall, with so many close races all over the country, there were a number of salivating pickup opportunities that just slipped under the radar until it was too late. In the face of an 18-year incumbent who ran unopposed in his last re-election, NY-25 was ignored for the most part by the DCCC and unable to crack the netroots' vast and generous radar. Despite all that, a young progressive, former Congressional aide Dan Maffei, stoked a fire in the Central NY (Syracuse, Rochester suburbs) grassroots, and came within 1.5 percentage points of taking the seat from James Walsh, a guy who bills himself as an independent but voted with George Bush over 90% of the time. Just a few months ago, he held a press conference to announce why he continues to support the President in this war, despite declarations that he is oh so very "concerned" about it.

I talk about this race because, as my username might betray, I am from Syracuse. He lit up the long dormant and unengaged grassroots in CNY last cycle, and I got to know Dan, and he is for sure one of the kind of candidates the netroots is looking for. Just ask Chris Bowers.

NY-25's (Central New York, and suburban Rochester) now 10-term incumbent Jim Walsh was forced to run an actual competitive campaign for the first time in years last Fall when Democrat Dan Maffei pushed the 90% Bush Voter to within the margin of error, despite the institutional advantages a guy with 18-years of K-streets roots and who won over 90% of the vote while running unopposed in 2004.

Now, faced with a Maffei rematch, Walsh is forced to fundraise and really milk his Republican insider buddies for cash. So, this week he attended a fundraiser with Rudy Giuliani, raising over $200,000. But it's too bad he chose to do it Tuesday, missing 11 crucial votes in the process. That $11,764 per vote.

Let's see what issues Jim Walsh thought were worth less than $11,764 for his campaign coffers:

Dan Maffei, who last November came within 3,000 votes of upsetting 18-year incumbent James Walsh in NY-25, announced his candidacy for the Syracuse-area Congressional seat today in a letter to supporters and friends:

The drubbing continues from this morning...

Eye on Williamson, on John Carter

[I]f supporting the troops means holding the President accountable and making sure our soldiers and Marines are well rested, well prepared, have healthcare, have body [armor], and armored Humvees then you can count out the Congressman whose district includes the largest Military Base in the United States of America. He’ll vote the party line instead.

Calitics, on John Doolittle and Jerry Lewis

But what else do they have in common, I mean, besides the fact that they are both corrupt? Well, they both voted to continue to send troops to Iraq before they're combat ready and fully equipped.... So, not only are they personally corrupt, they are morally bankrupt.  Good work, California GOP.

The MountainGoat Report, on Mike Simpson

Is party-line voting more important than military readiness?  Apparently so for Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson.... [T]he readiness standards aren't excessive, unreasonable or arbitrary — they are the standards set by the Department of Defense.  Then why, according to Red State Rebels, did every Republican on the Committee vote to scrap that language?  Maybe you should ask Mike Simpson.

Prairie State Blue, on Ray LaHood

Ray has gone and voted to send troops into the war without protective equipment. Well done Ray! That'll show the both our enemies and our own troops who does not support our military. And about those troops not complaining... Don't forget that you also have to talk to the families of those that don't come back.

Missouri Politics, on Jo Ann Emerson

Jo Ann Emerson and the Republican Party continue to talk about supporting the troops while voting to do the exact opposite.

Burnt Orange Report, on Kay Granger, John Carter and John Culberson

Why do Texas' Republican Congressmen continue to vote against our troops and for an unpopular war?

While it would seem, at the least, a bad political move and at its worst, a vote to put American men and women in harm's way, that is exactly what they are doing.

Raising Kaine, on Frank Wolf and Virgil Goode

Given that Virgil Goode is an ethically challenged, globally ridiculed xenophobe and that Frank Wolf got caught lying about his visit to Iraq, a vote against supporting our troops won't help them in 2008.

IdahoRocks, on Mike Simpson

Way to go Rep. Simpson....you who have never served in the military, you who say you support the troops but then want to send them into war without protection. Once again we have an elected official who does not represent the best interests of his communities, his state, and the troops he has sent to war. Shame on you.

We Have Failed Our Duty as Citizens..., on Mike Simpson

What kind of message do you think our soldiers receive when they are lacking appropriate armor, weapons, training, and medical care? What kind of message do they receive when their food is spoiled and their water is contaminated? What kind of message did we send them with the Walter Reed situation? What kind of message do they receive when they needed more troops and were denied over and over and over again...until this pitiful, too little, too late "surge"?

D-day, on Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle

Not only have both of these bloodsuckers drained the national treasury to give their defense contractor and lobbyist friends precious booty, they have talked about patriotism incessantly, yet committed the most unpatriotic act you can possibly commit, signing the death warrants of potentially thousands of Americans.

Democratic Grup, on Jim Walsh

Republicans like James Walsh voted to send our troops to war without proper body armor. Dan Maffei didn't seem to be the guy to take him last November, but in CNY has to do the right thing on behalf of our brave soldiers and send him packing in 2008.

Discourse.net, on Ander Crenshaw, Dave Weldon and C.W. "Bill" Young

There really is no ‘nice’ name for people from a country as rich as ours who send other people’s children, spouses, and parents into combat without basic necessities like body armor, armor for their vehicles, or the weapons they trained with.

Capitol Annex, on Granger, Culbersonand Carter

[T]he votes of Granger, Culberson, and Cater were to send ill-prepared, under-equipped soldiers into war with zero accountability provisions.

Rochester Returning, on Jim Walsh

Walsh voted against this — all the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee did. Shameful.

De Magno Opere, on Ralph Regula

What the hell?! You support sending troops unprepared and unequipped into battle Mr. Regula? Is that not what your vote says in clear and concise terms?

A Seattleite in Idaho, on Mike Simpson

I've been accused of not supporting the troops so many times, at least I didn't vote to send "unarmored, untrained, unrested (and even, Salon and the Hartford Courant tell us, wounded and mentally unstable) troops to Iraq.

UPDATE:
Political Forecast, on Tom Latham

Tom Latham voted to kill American troops by sending those returning to Iraq, whether via the surge or not, by sending the unprepared.

The Freedonian, on Zach Wamp

[W]hy does Tennessee's own Zach Wamp go along with it? Does he wish to endanger American soldiers? Or does he simply lack the testicular fortitude to stand against the Republicans on Appropriations that voted unanimously to endanger American soldiers?

As Ohio Goes, on David Hobson and Ralph Regula

Regula and Hobson only seem to look out for themselves. Why else would they vote against a bill designed to protect the troops? It is an incredibly cowardly and selfish act. How can they drape themselves in the flag but not provide troops with sufficient armor?

Yesterday I highlighted the names of Republican troop haters who voted (unanimously) in the Appropriations committee last week to continue to send troops to Iraq before they're combat ready and fully equipped.

Their shameless and, frankly, traitorous opposition to key provisions of the Defense of the American Soldier Act ought to have their constituents seeing red. And apparently, it does.

Blue Jersey, on Rodney Frelinghuysen

So in a nutshell, Rodney Frelinghuysen is another GOP poodle whose party line is simple:  pin an American flag to your lapel, say you support the troops, and then vote to kill them.

Red State Rebels, on Mike Simpson

It's time someone started asking Mike Simpson who deserves his loyalty: the troops he's ordered into harm's way or his political party's failed policy.

Michigan Liberal, on Joe Knollenberg

Guess who recently voted against an amendment that would require our troops heading to Iraq to be equipped with the new body armor and certified combat ready?

If you answered Joe Knollenberg, the same Joe Knollenberg who organized a Support the Troops rally the other day, you'd be correct.

Vote NO on JOE, also on Knollenberg

We have contacted votevets.org to see what we need to do to modify this so it can be run here so voters know see just how Knollenberg "supports" the troops.

The Albany Project, on Jim Walsh

At best, Jim Walsh (R-Bushland) doesn't believe that sending our troops into battle in Iraq without being properly equipped, properly trained and without being properly rested will get many of those troops killed. At worst, he simply doesn't care.

Montana Netroots, on Dennis Rehrberg

Dennis was told to vote for it on the party line and he did so. This was a party line vote in committee and Rehberg voted his party 100%. Could this be it? Could it be that Dennis Rehberg is a party tool? The alternative, as I see it, is that he doesn’t give a damn about the troops safety. In either case, he is putting the troops last.

Intelligent Disconnect, also on Rehrberg

Remember step three of the Dennis Rehberg action plan for Iraq, to vote against the interests of the American military? well, he's back at it again.

The Flypaper Theory, on Zach Wamp

In East Tennessee, in the town of West Gomp, there lived a mad Gooper called Zachary Wamp. He loved to kill soldiers, he thought it was fun to send them to war with an unloaded gun.

More Flypaper Theory, on Wamp

Q: What sound does an undertrained, ill-equipped American soldier make when he's gunned down in Iraq?

A: Zach! Wamp!

Down With Tyranny! on Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle

[O]n the 15 votes regarding the well-being of our fighting men and women, the only time Doolittle didn't vote against them was on October 30, 2003 when he was absent-- and Jerry Lewis-- 3 absences but an otherwise perfect record of undermining the well-being of our fighting men and women.

There are no elected members of either house of Congress as dangerous to our country's safety and security as John Doolittle and Jerry Lewis.

UPDATE: ArchPundit on Mark Kirk

Don’t worry, troops. As soon as you get home, you’ll be a veteran, and then Mark Kirk will love you. I’m hoping and praying that you come home safe and sound. Too bad Mark Kirk doesn’t care.

The Daily Gotham, on Jim Walsh

James Walsh believes that American soldiers should be sent into combat unready, unarmored, unfit to fight. James Walsh does not realize, or does not care, that his ass-kissing of his White House overlord will cost American lives.

James Walsh, ladies and gentlemen, is a pig.

UPDATE: Seems John Doolittle (R-CA) and John Peterson (R-PA) mysteriously "missed" the vote last week. Particularly mysterious because Doolittle was apparently at the markup, but just didn't vote. Hmm. Local bloggers, have any of you been able to learn why Doolittle or Peterson ducked their chance to Defend our American Soldiers?

This diary details the likely top battlegrounds in the Northeast for control of the House of Representatives in 2008.