Earl Sholley Candidate Challenging Barney Frank - photo: prnews
Earl Henry Sholley’s campaign issued a press release today announcing his candidacy for the Massachusetts 4th Congressional District. Sholley, a Norfolk resident, officially filed with the FEC on June 15. Sholley will run against Democrat incumbent, Barney Frank, of Freddie and Fannie fame.
Sholley has worked as a community activist, lobbied for budget transparency and the better use of tax dollars. He has been a guest on CBS this Morning and National Public Radio. Sholley attended the University of Scranton (BS History), University of Massachusetts and also studied at the University of Madrid Spain. He served in the Peace Corp and is also a veteran of the U.S. Army.
Earl is also is a supporter of term limits for members of the U.S. House and Senate. Earl Henry Sholley will bring his ethical, diverse background, and strong business and fiscal experience to bear for the 4th District. "I promise to serve all the people of the District, if given the honor and opportunity to serve in the U.S. Congress."
Sholley ran against Frank in the 2008 election, although he entered the race late, he managed to garner approximately 30% of the votes in the district.(MA Secretary of State) This time it appears Sholley is taking things seriously, hiring campaign manager, Lisa Camp key figure in the Huckabee campaign and according to his website he has hit the campaign trail early, attending events both in and outside of the State.
The 2010 4th Congressional District race, considering the incumbent’s infamous reputation, should prove to be interesting and one to watch.
6 comments:
Hi Sam,
Here is the link to the video on You Tube click right here - although I do not agree with the research Mr. Sholley was referring to, I do agree with his basic stance - he did not support gay marriage, which, President Obama and many other American's the same stance.
That said, it does not matter where either Mr. Sholley, or Congressman Frank's stands on the issue of gay marriage, and/or abortion for that matter, as each of these issues is used as a political football by both parties - and both of these issues are decided on a state, not a national level (at least the last time I checked - and at the rate things are going, it is going to remain that way for a very long time - the problem.)
Personally, I think that the term "marriage" has religious connotations, which should not be addressed by the government - What we have now are "marriage licenses", with "civil ceremonies" (those performed outside of a Temple, Mosque and/or Church (pick a denomination) merged - for tax purposes - (more government!). Therefore, to be fair to everyone, the term should be changed to "civil union", and those who are religious, would then get a "marriage" certificate from the church of their choice - this would take the term "marriage" out of the overall equation - satisfying everyone's tax purposes - and separating government and religion (constitutionally speaking).
At the moment, it is not fair to those gay couples who live outside of Massachusetts and the very few other states that have legalized gay marriage - and the process is not being addressed at the federal level, it is being address state by state - and slowly - additionally, with any "straight" marriage that fails, spouses are able to divorce regardless of which state they are living in - not so for gay couples - don't even get me started on the issue of what happens when a couple who has been together for 20 or 30 years, are separated at the deathbed, because "legally" one or the other is not considered "family".
I do not support Congressman Frank based on his performance re: Freddie and Fannie, his support of legalized on-line gambling, his support for more government intervention vis a vis a single-payer health care system (I prefer Hillary Clinton's plan.) I could care less about how someone running for a U.S. Congressional or Senate seat stands, and I would bet the house, I'm not alone. I believe that what is going to drive the next election is the economy, and possibly personal liberty (health care) - regardless of the district one is in, or if the incumbant is a Democrat or Republican (obviously other State's on the later).
Would like your take on the issue and welcome a debate.
I believe what will drive the next election/s will be a democratic party surge that can't be stopped in the wake of a continuing republican implosion, currently marked by outlandish claims about healthcare reform, about immigration, even about the president's citizenship. Let's face it : The GOP's only apparent national strategy is screaming "NO" while committing suicide, and they're doing quite well with it.
I've read some of your stuff, and you seem fair minded and somewhat moderate. Why can't you see that the GOP has been hijacked by lunatics? When your national de facto leaders, like Sarah Palin, make absurd remarks about "Obama's evil death panels" and supposed moderates like Chuck Grassly hop on that same bandwagon, something is severely wrong. And then there's Rep. Michelle Bachmann who thinks the census is some massive ACORN conspiracy. And neocon leftovers like John Bolton who would prefer that 2 Americans were still in prison in North Korea. And creepy Dick Cheney, still spinning his comic book fantasies about foreign policy. On and on, the hysterics never end. And it's not like any of them have constructive IDEAS, all they have is over-the-top kvetching about President Obama which serves only to inflame the crazies while turning off the sane people.
A moderate, pro-choice senior senator recently defected from your party. Why? Because the GOP has become the party of backwards social policy, war, debt, death, destruction and, of course, Jesus. The GOP has been evaporating in the North East for years now. "Yankee republicans" are no longer welcome in the party. I'm not sure how the democratic primary will turn out in PA, but i'll bet you anything a democrat - either Specter or Sestak- wins the seat. The GOP will run Loony Toomy "because he's a REAL republican" and lose. Fine with me. The party is well on its way to appealing only to older, white, MALE, religious people rural America. And you'll never win again with that as your primary constituency.
Sam, I am afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this point (re: GOP vs. DNC) –
I believe that both parties will be held accountable and that the issues of which you speak are being driven by independent minded individuals as well. It is just the way of it, of course, there is the partisan side (which I believe you have down to a t-) but as I stated, with the issue of health care, regardless of party, there will be a backlash against this bill – and it is not just health care, as you have pointed out, it is a myriad of issues – as to Obama’s citizenship – see my article on that one – It was written with some sarcasm. (And a note about Rapid conservatives – even Ann Flipping Coulter has said that there is nothing to the Obama Birth Certificate issue – go figure).
On hijacked by Lunatics: you see Sarah Palin, I see Nancy Pelosi – let’s face it – both parties have “baggage”, but that baggage does not represent every single member – it’s just not possible! That, Sam, is what makes me a moderate – I look at the big picture – not in terms of partisanship – but in terms of what I personally view as being best for the nation – (again opinion), regardless of Party – and, when I look at voting for a politician, it is the man (or in certain cases) woman (see Hillary), that is most qualified to do a job, based on voting records, and any actual governing experience, that gets my attention. I don’t care if it is a national or local election either, and this is what drives most American’s (contrary to perception).
Ah Arlen – he was polling in the proverbial tank – it was either switch parties or face retirement – either way, I’d say the man is toast, as to who will replace him? I’m not calling that one – yet.
I understand your point of view, and i appreciate it. I'm a partisan - i admit it. (And even more than that, i'm a cynic.) I look at issues primarily through a lense of political strategy. I read polls all the time...on candidates, sentiment, party affiliation trends. (Sestak is still polling behind Specter, but has tripled his support in 4 months.)
But, while PA is having this sort of "old vs. new" primary challenge, The GOP remains hellbent on purging everyone from its ranks who does not walk lockstep on a wide variety of issues - national secuirty, monetary and economic policy, abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage, gays in the military, etc. Their unwavering stances on social issues continue to alienate young voters. They have almost no support from minorities. An embarrasing 38 out of 2,400 delegates to the GOP 08 convention were black. In 08 they lost the hispanic/latino vote and have done nothing to repair the damage with their rhetoric on immigration and their Sotomayor circus...which was a CHOICE they deliberately made, knowing full well she was abundantly qualified and would be confirmed anyway. (One day, all those "anchor babies" will be voting, and they won't vote GOP, not in droves anyway.)
As i said, i'm a partisan, which can only work as long as there is a viable opposition. That's only possible if the GOP chooses fresh leadership, calm dialogue, a positive vision and constructive goals that reflect an ever-changing world. Simply screeching "NO" to everything is not leadership nor is it an intelligent political strategy when the country is faced with challenges on multiple fronts.
Hi Sam,
I like the fact that you shoot from the hip – I am also partisan, but – on occasion, seeing things in terms of black and white, with few grey areas – I also read polls, which, I have a problem with the accuracy – I believe that some pollsters have more to do with swaying public opinion than actually tracking public opinion – specifically the ones that use an extremely small sample (say 400 to 500 individuals) – On PA, I think Specter is in trouble and has been for quite a while - on the major parties as a whole, speaking of trends, historically – there are changes in the government every so often – which is not a bad thing at all, (partisanship aside) – that said, I don’t care which party is in the proverbial “drivers” seat, should all three branches be controlled by one party, it’s a problem (or develops into a problem) – GOP is a case in point – where they went wrong (from my perspective) is that they lost their core ideology - which, again, my pov, is grounded in being fiscally conservative (the socially conservative issues, as I had said, are used as political footballs – by both sides – nothing more and nothing less). They spent like drunken sailors – they failed to connect with their base and they lost their base – and enter the meddling religious right – I used to think it was a fabric of someone’s political imagination – however, the 2008 political cycle made me change my mind – there is a video that I’d like you to watch – its horrific – link is from my blog, April 2008 – A Republican President in 2008 – Against All Odds.
I am sure you will agree that both parties have “outside” forces, that impact the national party – and that the national party is not necessarily representative of all their members.
Now on the whole “lockstep thing” – both parties do the same thing (and a few years ago - the "No's" were coming from the other side – only reverse the issues – unless one fully supports abortion one can forget about a NARAL endorsement on the DNC side – and that is a whole lotta cash – on immigration and or minorities in general – I believe that the DNC has held minorities for decades – not just in recent years – (and Bush won, just an fyi, with Hispanic support and the support of the Religious right – which (if you watch that video) is why McCain lost (among other reasons but I daresay those two are pivotal.)
As to who emerges at the forefront of the GOP – that is yet to be determined – (or for that matter, in the DNC) I believe it’s a bit early to speculate (but it is fun to do so).
Hi Tina....
Interesting video. Yes, the religious right can be a useful tool. Rove successfully exploited it for Bush. But, even then, Bush was never handed a decisive electoral mandate - he won the presidency by less than 1% in Florida in 2000, (on the heels of 8 years of a Democratic administration) and then won re-election by less than 2% in Ohio in 2004. I realize that's a simplistic way to look at the election results, but it's true - had either state flipped the other way, it would have been Gore or Kerry. So, as far as the Oval Office is concerned, there hasn't been a real RNC "rally" since the 80's.
PA - in the last two years PA republicans have left the party in droves. In the run-up to the last election, democrats gained 200,000 registered voters. Roughly speaking, there are now 4 million registered Dems in the state vs. 3 million registered GOP. That trend may prove to be difficult to break, and especially so when the GOP runs candidates like Rick Santorum and Pat Toomey from the "gays/guns/God" crowd.
You're right as far as "fiscal conservatism" is concerned .. the GOP has lost its edge on that front. The familiar social issues aside, what does the GOP have to offer? They seem oblivious to the healthcare situation in America, many fully convinced that Obama is a homicidal maniac akin to Hitler and Stalin. They can't really talk national security after launching a meandering crusade in Afghanistan, and then attempting to establish New Iowa in Iraq....in the end, creating a brand new Shiite dominated government right next door to Iran...another favorite conservative boogeyman. So...what's left for the GOP to run on?
Post a Comment