Mom's for Tom Wesley (Running Against Richard Neal) Release 3rd Video

The Mom's for Tom's video, shown below, speaks to the Congressional Record of Richard Neal, and like the previous videos, includes personal testimonials for Tom Wesley from women who are from all backgrounds, political and socio economical. To learn more about Tara Kozubfounder, read her take on feminism and women's roles here .

2010 Election Recession - Pelosi and Democrat Leadership Begs Lawmakers for Unpaid DCCC Dues – Pelosi’s Last FEC Filing Cash On Hand Only $214,046?

Politico: Democrat House Leadership, lead by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has written a letter “to lawmakers beseeching them to either pony up their unpaid dues to the DCCC or commit to raising more money for the party from their own donors.” the letter went on to imply that unless members pay their dues, the leadership will be forced to choose which incumbents to aid in the upcoming election. The article closes with the fact that several house members have millions in reserves, which could be shared in an attempt to keep the four year old Democrat majority in the Congress.

That said, with a 9.6 unemployment rate going into September and employers across the country implementing hiring freezes and reductions in benefits it may be difficult for any politician to raise funds needed to spend the millions on advertising deemed necessary to win an election.

Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “war chest” has fallen to a cash on hand of $214, 046 based on the last Federal Election Commissions data available. The last data filed for the California 8th district, appears to be from June of 2010, therefore, there may be some changes with filings that were due as follows: the July (Quarterly)filing, due the 15th of July and or the August filing, due August 20th (Monthly).




In either event, going into a general election, as Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi’s finances should be as healthy as some of her troops noted in the Politico article:

As of their latest filings with the Federal Election Commission, Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey had $4.1 million, Ed Markey of Massachusetts had $3.4 million, Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania had $3.3 million, Lloyd Doggett of Texas had $3.2 million, Richard Neal of Massachusetts had $3 million, Brad Sherman of California had $2.8 million, Jerry Costello of Illinois had $2.5 million, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi had $2.1 million, and Carolyn Maloney of New York had $2 million. (Maloney, for her part, is locked in a contested primary on Manhattan's Upper East Side.)

(Note: Richard Neal cash on hand actual $2.9 Million, with a mere $177,067.20 received and reported in the third quarterly. Neal, who is also facing a tough re-election, is also lobbying for the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee (should the Democrats hold the house, which, as of today, appears unlikely). For a powerhouse like Neal to “rake in” under $200,000 in one quarter is telling. In addition, there has been little news since July of Democrat icon, President Bill Clinton coming into Springfield, MA to stump for the endangered Neal )

The fact that House Leadership under the Democrats are also those who approve the administration’s policies and literally “write the checks” for projects, and implement taxes, the state of the economy lays directly with the Congress and those who have held power since 2006 (Democrats).

With funding down, perhaps those that are up for reelection, such as Pelosi, Frank, Neal and the balance of the Democrats (and Republicans) up for reelection will have to go door to door, the old fashioned way, to convince voters that they deserve to keep their jobs. There may be good reason way some of those, such as Neal, who have sizable “war chests” are holding onto them – they may need them to try and regain seats lost this year.

2010 Primary Update – Voter Turnout Key – GOP up 50% in Florida Primary – Exceeds expectations in Major Swing State – Primary analysis and commentary.

Press Readies for 2010 Mid-terms - image fox baltimore

My Fox Tampais reporting that voter turnout far exceeded predicted levels in yesterdays Florida primary’s. The Florida Division of Elections noted voter turnout was 50% higher than that of 2006 mid-terms. This type of interest and drive to vote in a mid-term election signals an increasingly engaged electorate, one which is making choices that are more in-line with polls showing an anti-incumbent mood shift in the nation, regardless of political party.

In Florida, Marc Rubio easily won Republican Senate primary – he will go on to face former Govenor (now Independent) Charlie Christ and Democrat Kendrick Meeks: The Republican candidates received 1,252,494 votes to the Democrat’s 909,307 a statistic that speaks to voter enthusiasm by Party.

As economic conditions continue to worsen, incumbents are feeling the heat on both sides of the aisle. In Alaska, Republican incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski stands in danger of joining Arlan Specter in early retirement. With 84% of precincts reporting as of this morning,Murkowski has a deficit of 3 points. A 3 point deficit can be overcome, but due to the nature of Alaska geography, it may take more than a day to finalize results - the Alaska Press, at this point, is not calling the race.

Primary contests held yesterday in Arizona, Vermont, Florida and Oklahoma, The New York Times reports that Washington Veteran's take Senate Primaries” and include incumbents John McCain (R-AZ) and Lisa Murkoswki (R-AL). The article author apparently neglected to check the Alaska media prior to publishing results. This is apparent denial over the dreaded “Tea Party” and the notion that money rules elections.

In Alaska, Senator Lisa Murkowski also faced an insurgent candidate, the Tea Party favorite Joe Miller, but after outspending him significantly she appeared to have a comfortable lead heading into the primary.

Again, as of this morning, Alaska Media still shows Murkowski with a 3 point deficit.

The high voter turnout and obvious media angst and denial over both the high turnout on the GOP side and the anti-incumbent angst voters in both parties are displaying makes for a wild and wooly ride into November.

The bellwether state(s), will be the blue New England States, with the Massachusetts primary on September 14th being pivotal, specifically with the sheer number of Republicans running in all but one of the ten Congressional Districts. Should voter turnout exceed expectation in Massachusetts – then one will have an indicator of how big of a shift has taken hold of the nation’s political think.

With incumbents in Massachusetts showing signs of weakness (See article in the Washington Examiner: ”Fear and the Politics of Panic” which describes the battle incumbents face nationwide, specifically, the 4th Districts Barney Frank.) Incumbent Richard Neal, the Hampden Second, is calling in the Big Guns – former President Bill Clinton is coming to Western Massachusetts to stump for Neal. That spells trouble, specifically using the “Scott Brown model” where the Hampden Second, voted in record numbers for Brown, and the “throw the bums out” sentiment is stronger in late August than it was in January.

It is, as of this writing, probable that up to 5 of the 10 Massachusetts districts are in play to the point where Brown’s election, although notable, will be less touted as an anomaly by the press, after, of course, they recover from weeks of therapy.
In other words, in every State, in every district, the outcomes are not predictable this year, and the electorate is engaged, energetic and angry and they intend to take it out at the ballot box. With so many districts to cover nationwide, it is not conceivable for either party to devote resources necessary to protect incumbents at risk, not that throwing millions at a race in today’s political climate means a hill of beans (See Alaska and NY Times comments).

GOP Demonized by AP for Rep. Rangel’s Ethics Probe – Rangel Faces Republican Opponent, Reverend Michael Faulkner in 2010

Reverand Michael Falkner Challenger to Rangel in 2010 - image the right perspective.org


Charles Rangel, the Representative from New York’s 15th District, was charged yesterday with 13 violations of the U.S. Congressional Ethics Standards. Rangel, who is up for reelection this year,will face Conservative Reverend Michael Faulkner in November. Faulkner is characterized as the “lone Republican” in the race against Rangel, who must first get past two Democrat opponents in the New York State Primary, September 14th.

Rangel was charged by a bi-partisan panel – made up of equal members of both political parties. Ethics investigations into congressional members is nothing new, and carries little weight in most cases (specifically cases involving high profile Democrats – See Massachusetts Representative, Barney Frank, who was “reprimanded” by the House in 1990 and has enjoyed a considerably lucrative career ever since.) Therefore, a member of Congress who has done something not quite above board (in Rangel’s case it is tax evasion for the most part), faces the stiff penalty of being chastised by his peers.

How much this may factor into an election is unknown, as it appears that those Democrats, who have faced charges, have continued to retain their seats as well as lofty committee positions, as soon as they are “forgiven” by their peers. For the most part, the press appears to cover the cases, but with a bit of ho-hum, nothing to see here, move along attitude.

Not so with the AP, who is fighting back for Rangel. An article released this morning by the AP entitled “GOP Gets Wish: Rangel Case in Campaign Season” makes it appear as if the GOP engineered the probe against Rangel, and brought it conveniently to a trail during the election season. The fact that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and friend to Rangel, was forced to pull Rangel’s Ways and Means Committee Chair in March of this year was not mentioned in the article, only the fact that Rangel vows to fight for his seat.

This election cycle is somewhat different that those of the past, with anti-incumbent sentiment at an all-time high, and incumbents facing multiple challengers from both opposition parties as well as from their own party, and Rangel is no exception. The fact that polls, in general, show the opposition to incumbents with an estimated 6 point lead on most generic surveys, makes this case especially dangerous to Democrats, who hold the majority of seats in both the House and Senate.

Therefore, the press, appears to have taken sides in this case, and with this article, is intentionally and erroneously blaming the GOP for bringing charges against a Democrat who has violated the ethics rules of the House, and has refused to negotiate and or step down, although given the chance on multiple occasions.

It is no wonder therefore, that a recent poll by Gallop on “Confidence in Institutions” shows media right down there with Congress in the Trust Factor: Congress at the bottom of with an historic 11% trust factor, and Television News (22%) and Newspapers (25%) showing only one quarter of the population is confident that they are being provided with accurate reporting.

On Rangel’s evasion of taxes, one has to play devil’s advocate, as this nation was founded on the avoidance of paying taxes, however, as Democrats in general favor taxing everyone and their dogs (see Massachusetts), it is the hypocrisy, rather than the actual act, which is deserving of scorn by the populace. As to the news organizations, one knows that were Charlie Rangel a Republican, he would have already been tried, convicted and hung in the Press, effectively forcing his resignation in the perceived court of public opinion. However, moving forward, the press no longer, according to Gallop, has the ability to move mountains, or make much of an impact at all in elections (unless providing impeccable back-up including full length videos’, 8 X10 color glossy’s and a host of evidence (see Massachusetts favorite folk artist, Arlo Guthrie’s Thanksgiving Favorite; Alice’s Restaurant as a guide to excessive evidence required.) even then, scrutiny may be in order.

The only way that Rangel will be held accountable is by the voters, who, as previously stated now have a choice in November: One Reverend Michael Faulkner Faulkner for Congress.com go here to donate and or volunteer should one feel that Rangel needs more than a reprimand from Congress. The AP understands, anti-incumbency, all too well.

Election 2010 Impact - Progressive Democrats Lose Ground – NYC Closes its Wallet to Democrats, Teachers Union Not Trusted in formerly Blue New Jersey

An article from Politico on Independence Day spoke to the fact that Democrats are finding it difficult to raise campaign funds from wealthy Donors in New York City, which is a first. Logic (according to what has been long reported and assumed) is that Republicans rather than Democrats have had strong ties to “big money” on Wall Street; however, the DNC has been going to the Wall Street trough, according to Politico, for decades. In fact, up until this year, certain donors would not even “take a meeting” with a Republican – stunned Democrats find that now, wallets are closing and Republican Candidates have been seen in the Big Apple.

The fact that Wall Street, which drives our nations businesses, in spite of corruption, displays of extravagance and the like, has virtually shut down donations to the DNC. More over logic also dictates that this news coming as a surprise to Democrats is either the product of outright arrogance or plain stupidity, perhaps a combination of both.

The New York money comes from several sources, including Wall Street, Jewish Organizations and the Hamptons – where Politico talks about the loss of the Clinton's fundraising in the Hamptons, as if it would make any difference at this point in our economy. Additionally, with the administration being less than friendly to the State of Israel, those going to the Jewish Organizations with hat in hand are finding the door shut. As the administration and members of Congress have set their hearts on demonizing Wall Street, (rule and regulation aside) in order to campaign against Big Business and Republicans (the usual), they are seeing a severe cut in the amount of the donations given.

It’s the economy that has affected both the haves and the have not’s to the extent that giving to a political party, under who’s watch the economy has continued to degrade is not considered a good investment. Therefore, finding the doors shut to DNC fundraisers, should come as no surprise. The article noted that Obama, however, raised money from individuals rather than larger donors – which is bunk - one of the largest contributors to Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign: Goldman Sachs - you can only bite the hand that feeds you so often.

What of those individual donors? Now, in the same position as Wall Street, and with a change in political ideology which goes towards the poor performance of the administration – those individual donors may be slowing a bit – as they are strapped for cash.
July 15th is the next filing for campaigns and PAC’s with the FEC, what to expect, a slowing in donations across the board, but more specifically the Democrats - due to less cash on hand and a whole lot of hurt feelings and mistrust.

Comparing 2008 to 2010 for the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: Total raised in 2010: $2,856,945, compared to 2010 at $1,839, 722 – not much of a difference? Her campaign contributions come primarily from larger business concerns in California, and she faces a real challenger in Republican John Dennis. Should those who had donated to Dennis primary opponent, Walsh (who matched Pelosi in Fundraising in 2009-2010) turn to support Dennis, (which is more probable); his showing on the 15th should improve.

Of course, it’s not always about how much money a political organization or candidate has, that will determine a win or a loss – A recent poll by Quinnipiac on the governorship of one Chris Christie, New Jersey Republican, produced a startling by-product. The residents of the state of New Jersey no longer trust the Teacher’s Union - and by no narrow margin.

New Jersey voters like their teachers 56 – 26 percent, but by a 50 – 24 percent margin they have a negative opinion of the teachers’ union. Voters with children in public school like their teachers 65 – 23 percent, but dislike the teachers’ union 53 – 22 percent. While 45 percent trust the union more to make the right decisions about teacher contracts, 43 percent trust Christie more.
Teachers’ unions are doing the wrong thing in refusing to freeze wages or make other concessions, voters say 64 – 29 percent. Voters oppose 65 – 31 percent property tax increases to avoid cutting teachers and school programs in their district.
“Voters like their kids’ teachers but they sure don’t like the teachers’ union. Voters with kids in school like their teachers more and like the union even less,” Carroll said.

New Jersey Teachers Unions have spent, as of March, 2010, $6 million dollars on negative advertising aimed at the Governor. The fact that this was done, while the Unions refused to allow a wage freeze for teachers and union members for one year, did not set with those New Jersey Taxpayers. It should not sit well with those New Jersey Teachers, who pay $730 a month in Dues, which should go towards health care and pension – one would think. Instead, the bulk of union dues go towards supporting political causes and politicians directly (See Obama Donors link.)
In fact Christie has called on this same union to fore go charging the dues, in order to put into place the desire wage increases this union wants in this recession.

What is of interest is how well or not the DNC will do in total fundraising on July 15th, and if a nationwide survey on trust of unions were taken, how well they might fare in other parts of the country. One would hazard to guess that the poll taken in New Jersey, due to heavy concentration of Registered Democrats in the state, might have given them a few extra points. Therefore, advertisements run by the Teachers union (and other) might not be doing any initiatives or candidates any favors – it also remains to be seen how many teachers might actually end up buying out of their union, and going solo in order to save face and their jobs at the same time. (Yes, one must pay a fee not to belong to the Teaches union.)

As the nation readies for the 2010 and 2012 election cycle, Democrats will find themselves with less dollars for advertising, and if the unions continue to spend dues on negative advertising in a variety states, those watching may be less inclined to believe the union message. There are two basic lessons in this: one: know how thinly stretched the “masses” are before asking them for your trust, and tax dollars, two: don’t bite the hand that feeds you and most impotently: Progressive Politics don’t work in a Democratic Republic, the people balk, get disgusted and then go to the polls.

Dems Yet Another “Stimulus” Package – Billions for “Job Packages” – Flashback: Carters Failed Job Stimulus: 31.8 Billion to Create 1.5 Million Jobs

Democrats in the Congressare putting together a job stimulus package – legislators expect to get that to Obama’s desk by January 2010. It is unknown at this time, how much of the stimulus would fall under deficit spending. According to the Los Angeles Times, it is a matter of urgency to get this stimulus passed:

Having been preoccupied with passing a health care bill, the White House is eager to demonstrate it is sensitive to the economic hardship Americans face. To that end, the White House will host a jobs summit Thursday. And the next day, Obama will travel to Allentown, Pa. -- the first stop in a kind of economic "listening tour."
Polling shows that the health care overhaul is not as important to Americans as an economic recovery that yields jobs. With a midterm election next year, Democrats in control of the White House and Congress can't afford to look out of touch.

A Senate Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "Democrats have to address the No. 1 concern of their constituents -- and that is, by a long shot, jobs.

"We want to show we get it -- that we're responsible and in tune."

The key points in this particular article: “The White House is eager to demonstrate it is sensitive to the economic hardships Americans face.”, and Polling shows that the health care overall is not as important to Americans as an economic recovery that yields jobs”.

Polling data has not been overly kind to the administration and Congress with the President’s approval currently at 46% and Congressional Democrats at a 7 point deficit behind their Republican counterparts.
The logic, therefore, is to throw more money onto the deficit, in an effort to create a second “stimulus” – while the first “stimulus” has failed – jobs under the first stimulus, were, for all intents and purposes, jobs “saved”, not created.

Additionally, reports of costs per job created or saved are astronomical: A recent headline from the Star-Telegram Speaks to the Problem: “Cost of stimulus jobs in Texas so far: $545,000 per job”. Although figures were taken from the official, flawed, job reporting website: recovery.gov, the Telegram went further in finding data that showed the cost of creating jobs in Texas was, in a word, astronomical.

Granted, the members of Congress and the administration, are political animals, not economist, however, one would think that someone, somewhere would be smart enough to figure out this whole stimulus won’t work. It didn’t work in 1976, when then President Jimmy Carter, worked out a 31.8 Billion dollar job package that was estimated to produce 1.5 Million jobs. It failed within six months. Most of the money disbursed was used to re-hire layed off government employees, and the private sector jobs continued to decline.

It is apparent that the administration and members of Congress have no sense of history either, or are so wedded to their slogan “tax cuts for the rich”, that they are willing to further endanger the nation’s economic stability. What is perhaps, most mind-boggling is that, in an effort to produce polling that may help their efforts in 2010, and they are, once again, embarking on the idiocy of “job stimulus” through deficit spending – which, in the end, will produce higher unemployment, the dollar, already in the latrine, will be further damaged, causing the loss of more private sector jobs.

It's Official - Republican Simmons to Challenge Embattled Chris Dodd - Nutmeg State Senate Seat

Rob Simmons, Congressional Photo -NNBD.com

Former Popular US. Congressman, Rob Simons(R), announced his candidacy to run against embattled long-time incumbent Chris Dodd (D-CT), on Monday of this week. Dodd is facing criticism nationally for his ties to AIG and the current bonus fiasco. Dodd who came out against the insurance giant’s use of taxpayer dollars to pay executive bonuses, was the party responsible for placing a provision into the initial bailout that protected contractual bonuses for the firm . Additionally, Dodd was the highest paid politician by AIG, receiving over $175,000 in campaign contributions in 2008 - leaving some in the Nutmeg state asking why he hasn’t returned the cash. Add to the AIG boondoggle,Dodd’s dust-up with his constituents over a mortgage deal that smacked of impropriety. Some of these factors contributed to Dodd's recent dismal poll in CT. (The Poll was taken prior to AIG Bonus Bust) Quinnipiac released a poll this month showing Dodd losing to a here-to-fore, "unrecognizable" Republican opponent. That unrecognizable opponent is U.S. Congressman Simons. Although Dodd is receiving somewhat positive press from the New York Times, the paper of record in Connecticut (and subsequent television stations, and like media), are showing more than a little support for Rob Simmons.
In the March 17th, Courant, the article: “Democrats Go On Offensive Against Simmons”, is of interest. In the piece, the Democrats are planning to tie Rob Simmons to, of all people, George Bush and Dick Cheney in an attempt to vilify the former Congressman in the eyes of the Connecticut public. The Courant ridicules that strategy, and gives a fair assessment of the contender, calling Simmons “a fiscally conservative Republican who has broken with his party on several issues.” They go on to outline why the Democrat strategy may not work, but also include the likelihood of Dodd’s reelection: noting Dodd is a “nimble and experienced” politician. It's written as an afterthought - throwing Dodd a bone.

Chris Dodd with Obama - Boston.com

Connecticut, and neighboring Massachusetts, tend to have a mind of their own when electing public officials, and similarly, heavy concentrations of Independent (or unaffiliated) voters. Recall Joe Lieberman who faced a challenge from within his own party in 2006. He ran as an independent and soundly beat back the challenger. Mr. Simmons, who had a distinguished and scandal free congressional career, lost his seat in the Republican purge of 2006, by a small margin, in a heavily Democrat district. Given that there is a good deal of political buyer’s remorse at the moment that will, in all probability continue on through the 2010 elections. Mr. Simmons stands in good stead to unseat an unpopular Chris Dodd, this may be particularly true of the Democrat Party does try to tar him with the “Brush of Bush”, a tactic that worked in 2006 and 2008, yet, with the current “mess” and continued gaffes coming from their own leadership, it will backfire.

Mr. Simmons, who announced his intention to run this week, has not yet put up a website. That said, with the focus on AIG, and Dodd’s “popularity” in the state, he does have some time, but with the spotlight (national) on both Simmons and Dodd, a portal for donations would be in the candidates best interest. It would give him the same leverage as anyone running against, Massachusetts son, Barney Frank! (Also up for reelection in 2010)

Another possible “candidate” to face Dodd is financial guru Peter Schiff, whose “Draft Shiff 2010 Ron Paul style campaign website is here. Of interest, the talk of “money bombs” (where Ron Paul Donations are given to other candidates when the going get tough) are already being planned.
Therefore, it is not so much that defeats Chris Dodd for Connecticut Residents, as it is of import that Dodd be retired.

Watching the Numbers – Obama - 37% Now Strongly Approve Performance

Rasmussendaily tracking poll showed a slight decrease in President Obama’s scorecard, losing 4 points in a week, down from 41% on March 6. Meanwhile, Congress is enjoying a “resurgence” with 18% strongly approving performance – representing an increase in the past two weeks, where it stood at 12%.

What’s in a poll? One has to question the conventional wisdom of adding “leaner’s” (those who somewhat approve or somewhat disapprove”) into the final poll numbers, as is done in all pollsters analysis. Those that are “sitting on the fence”, should be factored into separate categories; not doing so leaves a false impression that the poll subject is either doing more poorly or much better than reality dictates.

In analysis over the drop in President Obama’s strongly approve numbers, one can point to several factors that are the driving force (including those shifting from somewhat approve to strongly disapprove) behind this startling decline in favor in less than two months of taking office. The economy is a factor, there is no doubt, but it is less the economy than the reaction to the “crisis” that is a problem. The daily insistence that the economy is in dire straits and will be for some time to come, not only affects the average voter, but the forces that drive the markets. Additionally, the lack of transparency, and the continued “business as usual” in regards to pork barrel projects, has the nation up in arms. The Spending Bill, signed into law yesterday, was done so without much ado (and also without great fanfare – see Stem Cell Reversal signing to compare), and contains pork spending that has seen no equal to date. Alternately, news stories abound about the rather opulent lifestyle that is being led in the White House, while most in the nation are being told to “tighten their belts” by the main occupant.

Is it no wonder, therefore, that comparisons are being drawn to former president Jimmy Carter? – It is so not much the similarities, (although some are eerily similar), it is that Carter’s popularity among the voters dropped significantly, due to his left of center approach to governing, and the appearance that certain decisions he made were not all that swift. (For lack of better phraseology). One has to take into consideration that the majority of the country is either moderately conservative or committed conservative, leaving a scant one third that identify themselves as “liberal”. It follows that, a backlash will occur, especially in this age of impatience. Speculation on 2010 elections has begun, and pollsters will be busy - one thing that is constant in government and this Republic – is the perception that the head of a Party is responsible for each party member, and therefore, a party “brand” can become damaged, regardless of an individual Congressional office holders performance. That was true in 2006 and again in 2008, and will, in all likelihood, repeat the performance in 2010.

New York Senate Seat – No Dynasty - Caroline Kennedy Bows Out

Politico.com is reporting that Caroline Kennedy has removed her bid for the New York Senate seat left vacant by Hillary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State. Citing personal reasons, Kennedy withdrew herself from consideration by email on Thursday. Apparently, her bid for the seat was promoted by President Obama’s aids, noting that both Caroline and Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama early on in the primary, were seen as critical to his candidacy. Politico sees Kennedy’s withdrawal in terms of national politics: ”her withdrawal is an early sign of the limits of the White House's power, at least over New York’s unpredictable governor, who will appoint a senator to replace Clinton.”.
That said there was the backlash from the citizens of New York, as well as many in the Democrat Party, who were vocal when it came to anointing another member of the Kennedy political dynasty. Governor Patterson may have been mindful that he is up for re-election in 2010.

Patterson has begun the vetting process for Democrats, Byron Brown, Mayor of Buffalo, and Kristen Gilibrand and Carolyn Maloney, both Congressional Representatives. Whoever is chosen by Patterson to fill the vacant seat will also be required to run for office in 2010. It is not without some interest that Maloney is reportedly receiving flack from constituents over the pending stimulus bill, the passage of which and the results, should they be less than touted by a White House and Congress in concert, may shorten her (or any Democrat running in 2010) Senate career.