On a noisy Thursday morning, members of the Occasional Planet team met with Robert Hazel. Hazel is running for Representative in Missouri’s 2nd Congressional district, and he does not have high expectations for the outcome of the race. He says, “…in the unlikely event that I get the Democratic nomination, I’m going to demand a recount, because something’s terribly, terribly wrong.”

Although Hazel does not have high hopes for winning, he feels that it is important to stay in the race. He says his viewpoint as an “old fashioned, new deal Democrat” is one that needs to be heard and that he has supporters who agree. Hazel argues that the Democratic party needs to be the party for everyone who wants to be a Democrat, and that “… everyone who doesn’t like what’s going on has to vote for the Democrats no matter who they are.” By running, he feels he is promoting the idea that there is room within the party for all levels of left-leaners. “Vote blue, no matter who, all the way through,” seems to be a slogan close to his heart, especially when speaking about this race.

Hazel’s background is in the nonprofit sector, organizational management, and resource development. He touts a 40-year career in these areas. He also worked in the Peace Corps and was stationed in Korea. “… I was in the Peace Corps in Korea and volunteered to get out of doing my daily job to man a table for the Korean Lung Association… But that made me realize that volunteerism… this was something that I wanted to do.” Clearly, he still feels a pull toward public service, despite the challenges he faces in his everyday life.

Unfortunately, Hazel has stage 4 esophageal cancer. He says he is managing it well, and that he feels strong. Despite this, he argues that the current climate renders it impossible for him not to run.

“…It was the Charlatan in Chief. We elected a deep cover sleeper agent of the former Soviet Union, with a question mark, or at least their dupe or stooge, as President of the United States, and that was like, ‘That’s it. That’s it for me.’ I’ve long since been wary or convinced that we have reached the end of the road with what conservatism as a political philosophy can do for us in any kind of positive manner.”

He has been disappointed by every president to come out of his generation, and is ready for some positive change.

On the issues, Hazel is progressive. Two of the issues he puts at the top of the docket are Medicare-for-All and abortion. He also mentioned the need for a massive infrastructure overhaul.

 “It’s certain basic services. That idea, that everyone gets certain basic services, and if you want more than that, you have to pay for it. If you can’t pay for it, maybe somebody will help you with that or otherwise, it’s too bad.”

Hazel calls himself a “recovering Methodist.” He says that the state should not meddle in the affairs of women.

“…‘I’m not in favor of abortion. I don’t think anyone’s in favor of abortion, but somebody has to decide, and I don’t think that’s the state’s responsibility.’ It’s interesting, Republicans want to have freedom except for when it comes to that. Somebody has to decide, and it oughtn’t be me.”

He feels that time and time again the GOP has let down the average person with their votes against healthcare, and votes to restrict abortion

Hazel is also fed up about taxes.

“First of all, clean up all the crap that’s going on about our tax system…My wife is in sales. She can now write off an awful lot of things… But I think we need to have some sort of system to where, no, you can’t write off the amount, you can only write off up to a certain amount.”

He also feels that there should be a “citizen’s tithe” which would be similar to a flat tax based on adjusted gross income where there are no deductions, but subsidies exist.

Overall, Hazel is a solid candidate. He has qualifications and a love of public service. Truly, he seems like a man with nothing to lose by running. He has no obligations to any PACs or establishment organizations and is not tied down by anyone. He has no connections to any big money and has not even had to file with the FEC. If you want a candidate who is unwavering in his beliefs, committed to service, and listens to his constituents, Robert Hazel is your man.

The post Robert Hazel: New Deal Democrat appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Missouri has produced great people who are a credit to our state and are known for their legacy of public service. Towering figures like Harry Truman, John Danforth, Thomas Eagleton, Dick Gephardt, Mel Carnahan, and Stuart Symington who’ve undeniably contributed in a meaningful way. Objectively speaking, great Missourians who we can all be proud of. Congresswoman Ann Wagner [R-MO CD 2] is not one of those great Missourians. Perhaps there was a time she could’ve been, but the Faustian bargain she has made with Donald Trump has divested her of whatever dignity she could’ve hoped to muster after what was an already lackluster congressional career.

In October 2016, Ann Wagner had the chance to stand on the right side of history with essentially no consequences. Donald Trump had just been heard on audio describing the ease at which he could commit sexual assault because “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” Wagner was running for re-election in a not especially competitive congressional district (which is true no longer) and had staked her career on fighting human sex trafficking. Wagner had every reason and arguably every responsibility to speak out against this candidate whose entire being dripped with misogyny.

She did speak out for those very reasons:

As a strong and vocal advocate for victims of sex trafficking and assault, I must be true to those survivors and myself and condemn the predatory and reprehensible comments of Donald Trump, I withdraw my endorsement and call for Governor Pence to take the lead.

This was a bold statement from a sitting congresswoman and could’ve been something that her constituents, many of them women, could’ve been proud of…it she hadn’t reneged on her position less than a month later.

Wagner, days before the election, appeared on disgraced St. Louis conservative Jamie Allman’s radio program to declare:

I have always been voting for Donald Trump, and I will do that next Tuesday, and I encourage everyone listening to vote for Trump as well.” She continued, “I don’t know why there has been some, perhaps some confusion here, but since last May, after Donald Trump released his list of Supreme Court justices, I made it clear that I am voting for Donald Trump. I want an entire ticket sweep up and down.

Since the 2016 election, Wagner has missed no opportunity to appear beside the President at bill signings and public events. Wagner’s sycophantic praises of the Trump administration, as well as the way she has clung to the McConnell/Trump agenda is baffling, considering there were about 177 GOP-held seats that gave the President a larger margin of victory than he received in Missouri’s 2nd. Therefore, it stands to reason that Wagner has tied herself to President Trump (voting with his position 96.6% of the time) because she thinks her constituents can be placated simply by the fact that she’s a die-hard Trump Republican. Wagner seems to have this notion that she doesn’t have to lower herself and meet with her constituents because (a) her conservative record inspires fundraisers, and (b) she thinks it’s enough to just be a reliable Republican vote and not necessarily represent the diverse views of the district.

In her three terms as a congresswoman, Wagner has never held a town hall meeting and has refused to debate democratic opponents. Her absence is so noticeable in the district that it has become an ongoing joke with all the Democratic candidates currently vying for the democratic nomination. One candidate, Cort VanOstran, frequently posts “Where’s Ann?” followed by his daily schedule declaring that voters can always find out “Where’s Cort.” Which is admittedly corny, but it wouldn’t work if Wagner didn’t have such a major communication problem. It’s a criticism that has stuck, at the Webster Groves 4^th of July parade, Wagner made a very brief appearance but didn’t appear at the end of the parade route. At the Gateway Arch re-opening, Wagner arrived for the ribbon cutting but was gone very soon after. When she does address voters, it’s exclusively at Republican township meetings and not the open forums that even notoriously reticent politicians like Mitch McConnell attend.

Wagner may not know it yet; however, I suspect she does after the release of her most recent ad that is intended to “re-introduce her to voters” (a problem she wouldn’t have if she showed up, but this election will likely be the fight of her political life.) It has always been true in politics that representatives shouldn’t forget the people who sent them to Washington, because it will eventually come back to haunt them. That’s true in not traditionally competitive states like Indiana, where Sen. Richard Lugar lost a Republican primary because of votes to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and to support the DREAM ACT. It’s even more true at the congressional level: Remember that Eric Cantor was defeated in his primary and lost his chance to become Speaker of the House. Wagner occupies a seat that is about 9% more Republican leaning than the nation as a whole, and several independent agencies have rated Missouri’s 2nd as competitive. Ann Wagner will not be defeated in her primary, but her lack of connection with her constituents and loyalty to a man whom 45% of Missourians (many in her own suburban district) disapprove of in a year of democratic energy If I worked for the Missouri GOP I’d start reading the writing on the wall.

The post Ann Wagner: Missouri Congresswoman in absentia appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Cort VanOstran is a candidate who is clearly thinking past the August 2018 Democratic primary. When we interviewed him last week, it seemed obvious that VanOstran is less focused on his primary opponents and more on defeating Ann Wagner, the Republican incumbent, in November. However, VanOstran does have to win the primary, and it’s shaping up to be more competitive, as undecideds make up their minds.

His strategy for winning your vote? Hard work. In the days before the August 7th primaries, VanOstran plans to use every last minute to win over voters in Missouri’s Second District with his grassroots campaign. If you live in Missouri’s Second Congressional district, you’ve probably seen a VanOstran sign along the road, or VanOstran himself. His schedule is available on Twitter and Facebook and he can be spotted at any of his public events, knocking on doors, or making phone calls in his field office.

The reason VanOstran is running is largely due to his background, and he sees the current administration in Washington as failing to make decisions that benefit families like his. VanOstran was raised in Joplin by his mother and two siblings, went to public school, attended Harvard on scholarship for his undergraduate degree, and eventually ended up in St. Louis to attend Washington University’s Law School. His drive for success comes from his observations of his mother, and he’d argue that she’s given him an appreciation for hard work.

“My dad passed away when I was eight… he took his own life… That was really the thing in my life that defined my worldview more than anything else,” he explained. VanOstran paused for a moment and ,then started to talk about his mother, as he often does on the campaign trail. “I watched my mom work to make ends meet. I learned a lot about people not always being responsible for the situations that they find themselves in, but I also learned a lot about what strength looks like.”

VanOstran understands what it is like to grow up struggling, and he wants to help families in similar situations find a path to the middle class. He listens well, and seems genuine about being in this line of work to see positive change in the lives of everyday people.

Even though VanOstran is not a native of Missouri’s Second District, he feels the values with which he was raised resonate as “core values’’ that other Missourians hold close to their hearts. He now lives in Clayton. He is especially disappointed with the leadership of Ann Wagner, his current representative. “My mom passed away of breast cancer a couple years ago. For the last couple of years of her life, she had a health that she had purchased through Missouri’s Affordable Care Act Exchange… It wasn’t perfect, but it worked well for my mom…I watched about a year ago, in May 2017, as Ann Wagner voted to cut 23 million people like my mom from their coverage, and that felt like a vote against my family,”  he said. “For me, I was already thinking about the fact that I was represented in Congress by Ann Wagner, somebody that I really didn’t feel shared my values… I said I think we can do much better than that.”

When it comes to the issues, VanOstran takes a progressive stance. He believes in access to quality health care for all, common sense gun laws, making higher education more affordable, and making our government more accountable for its actions. Although the issues he centers his campaign on look very similar to those of his opponents, his legislative solutions are carefully concocted. When asked about health care, VanOstran’s plan is to “…incentivize states like Missouri to expand their Medicaid program…I want to get to Medicare-for-all.” More specifically on Medicare, VanOstran feels that younger people should be allowed to buy into this system as we make the transition to Medicare-for-all. Younger people are typically more healthy and have less need for healthcare, therefore increasing the amount of money in the system to cover the costs of care for older people.

On the issue of gun violence, VanOstran says that legislation in urban areas and more rural areas “…can and should look different…” and seems willing to open dialogue with those who do not share his viewpoint. VanOstran seems to have done his homework on a number of issues, and plans to go into Congress with an outline of his goals and how to achieve them.

While the candidates have almost identical progressive ideas, their different campaign management styles may be the deciding factor for many Democrats. With a race this competitive, there’s an argument that Democrats need to be voting for the person with the best chance of winning against Wagner, and VanOstran argues that he has the best shot at securing this victory.  VanOstran is not shy about talking about how much work he’s put into campaigning, and his intensity seems like he’s running with a personal vendetta against Wagner.

Although he has not even come close to challenging Wagner’s more than $5 million campaign fund, VanOstran thinks he can still win. He contends that money is not the be-all-and-end-all.  “We’ve had a representative for so long who hasn’t shown up and listened and been willing to engage that I think people are hungry for somebody who will do that,” he said. “These are smart voters who want to talk about the issues, so I think that being able to engage with folks makes me a really good fit for this district.”

VanOstran’s detractors would argue that he has been the beneficiary of big money, which is a charge that he resents. According to reports from March, VanOstran has around $522,500. Most of his contributions come from individual donors, although he has taken some money from non-corporate PACs.

“I think PAC money, when it represents a cause or something that I strongly believe in and there’s alignment on the issues, I think that that can just be a form of support from other groups that care about the same things I care about,” he said. “In that sense, accepting money from PACs is not that different from accepting money from individuals who also believe in the same things that you believe in.” However, he is clear that a donation to him does not entitle the donor to anything from him once he is in office.

Although VanOstran is focused and driven, his confidence that he will make it to November could hinder rather than help. It’s fair to say that VanOstran is doing everything right. He shows up to listen, has raised significantly more than any of his primary opponents, and has won endorsements from many elected officials and liberal groups. His campaign is calculated, and no move comes without thorough critical thinking. However, this makes it very hard to see “Cort Unplugged,” and I wonder if his enthusiasm will carry over into office. If elected, VanOstran could become one of the most productive representatives we’ve seen in a while, but if his calculations fail, it could mean massive losses for progressives across the board.

Overall, VanOstran is a well-qualified candidate who would certainly give Ann Wagner a run for her money. He knows the law, he’s young, he’s charismatic and is the antithesis of everything Wagner stands for. He also is familiar with how to work the system to get what you need out of it. His calculated campaign based on hard work and perseverance makes him a force to be reckoned with in this race. If he does make it to the general election, not only will this be a hell of a race, but, conceivably, a very close one.

The post Cort VanOstran: Is he the Democrat who can defeat Ann Wagner? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The professor shakes our hands and starts right off with his policy ideas. He admits that small talk and working a room are not his forte, but the passion in his eyes for his reform ideas shines bright. John Messmer, a candidate for Missouri’s Second Congressional District, is a different kind of politician. His campaign is heavily focused on reform, and not just for the soundbite, either. With extensive background in political science, Messmer believes that his ideas, with the help of supporters and legislation, can make American democracy more fair.

Messmer, the son of immigrants who were union workers, studied political science and received his doctorate from the University of Missouri. Eventually, he moved back to his home in Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, where he has lived for most of his life,and has pursued a career as a political science professor at STL Community College at Meramec.

After years of teaching, Messmer says, “I started listening to my students. And there’s a disconnect. There’s a gap between what we need in a democracy and what the reality is among a lot of particularly young people. But I don’t think it’s just unique to young people.”.

Messmer thinks that this disconnect is dangerous, and that corruption has caused feelings of apathy and helplessness. This realization is what made Messmer decide that it was time for change, and so he announced his bid for Congress, saying, “That’s my first and foremost responsibility, to listen to my constituents, be their voice, and show that they do have a connection when it comes to having to navigate through the federal bureaucracy.”

Messmer wants to fix the disconnect, and he has the perfect role model to do just that. Citing the Bernie Sanders movement, Messmer explains, “Young people…think that American democracy is relatively fair. Yeah, there’s some injustices, but for the most part, it’s a pretty well-functioning machine…. You get into your teenage years, and then you get into high school and someone sticks a clipboard in your face… says, ‘You’ve gotta register to vote.’ You’re going to that responsibility seriously. Which means you’re going to start paying attention. When you start paying attention, you’re going to realize the system is not what the little cartoons in the little civics classes in fourth or fifth grade told you about. There’s a lot of injustice. A huge part of this system is rigged. Every other sentence out of Bernie Sanders’ mouth was about that.”

What Messmer realized (as many of us do when we come into our own in the political world) is that, “The status quo in our federal government, especially in Congress, is like a redwood in our backyard. Deep roots. One person isn’t going to do it. Two people aren’t going to do it. You’re going to need an army of people, just as Bernie Sanders talks about. An army of reformers that get in there. That is how ingrained the corruption and our status quo is.”

Yet, while identifying as a Democratic Socialist like Sanders, he clarifies, “I’m not a communist. I like money….Money should be allowed to buy a lot of things. But I’d be damned if money should buy better representation, and that’s what you’re getting.”

Messmer has surely learned this lesson, too. When asked about what his biggest lesson learned so far from the race, he states, “It is more obsessed with money than I dreamed… it’s not so much the importance of money, but…the importance of money for getting your message out, as much as the importance of money for when it comes to being treated seriously.”

Messmer does not have any endorsements. “I think they… don’t want to endorse someone who they think doesn’t have a chance. And unfortunately, we have become drunk on this mindset that when in doubt, go with the horse that has raised the most money.“

It is easy to see how frustrating this situation can be, because money should not buy better representation or buy a seat in the US House of Representatives.

So, how will Messmer combat this money obsession in politics? He has a simple answer: “I love coffee-maker coffee. I’m going to have a coffee maker in my office, and that’s the only coffee I’ll need. Not a cup of coffee accepted from a lobbyist.”

This policy will be true for himself and his whole staff. He wants to publish his appointments with people, maintain transparency, and be as true to his beliefs as possible. When we asked Messmer if he would take thousands of dollars from Edward Jones,  He replied, “No. No. Now, if individuals that just happened to work for Edward Jones were giving it to me, that might be a different story. I’d have to question, why are they giving it to me as individuals? If it’s coming from the Edward Jones Political Action Committee, forget it. Save your money.”

At the interview, our mentor Arthur Lieber mentioned, “I think what John said about endorsements and contributions is really distinctly different from others….and in my mind, John explains it in a way that makes a lot of sense and maintains integrity.”

Clearly, Messmer isn’t standing for any of the old money-focused politics. He wants to change the system, make it fair, and make government a place free of corruption and that is truly by and for the people. To him, “[Fighting] injustice is the guiding star of what it means to be a progressive. That was true 130 years ago, and it’s true today.”

You’re talking about an injustice that comes about because the powers that be abuse that power. Monopolize that power. [We] re not upholding the virtue of, in essence, as corny as it may sound, what our Constitution and our Bill of Rights are all about.”

It is only constitutional to protect our rights and protect ourselves from injustice. Messmer believes he is going to do just that, saying, “I don’t care if, again, if you’re liberal, conservative, or libertarian, if you’re urban, suburban or rural, you don’t want to be taken advantage of.”

With his heavy focus on reform, though, Messmer lost some footing with his social issues. During our interview, we talked briefly about how he planned to keep representing minority groups in his constituency. He said, “ I don’t think it’s outrageous to suggest that at job of least three of my staff members job would be to reach out to minorities in the district, whether or not they’re economic minorities, or racial minorities, or in the case of the LGBTQ community, marginalized communities.”

Yet, when asked about why he didn’t have any sections about people of color on his website, he promptly apologized and let us know that he would look into it. He did clarify his views, saying, “The racial injustice by our government, that’s systemic racism, that’s institutional racism. That’s racism by not just the government, our government. None of us should tolerate that. To answer your question is I don’t have it on there, I probably should”. He followed up with, “I will fight this to the death, that we need groups like Black Lives Matter”.

Clearly, he supports thee issues, and less than a week later, I received an email from him saying he had updated his website with the issues we discussed in the interview. To me, this shows Messmer’s commitment to listen to his constituents and do his best to represent everyone. Plus, if you haven’t checked out his website, you definitely should. It took the Civitas interns several hours to comb through the extensive platform issues and 15-point plan outlined for Messmer’s first 100 days in Congress.

In the middle of our interview, Messmer asked, “So, have we ever had truly fair elections? No, I suppose it’s like an ideal. Right? That you can only approach and never actually attain. And I think that’s unfortunately, not to become too philosophical here, but I think that’s just sort of part and parcel of being human. We can just try to approach true justice, we can approach pure perfection, but we’ll never get there.”

While things may never be perfect, perhaps we can have some faith that the American ideal is there. Fairness may never happen, but it is a horizon we must be ever-approaching, with people like Messmer at the front of that march.

The post John Messmer: professor, reformer, fighter for fairness appeared first on Occasional Planet.

“I want to be the candidate who happens to be a veteran, not the veteran who happens to be a candidate.” That was Mark Osmack’s response when we asked him what it’s like to run for office as a veteran. That question might not be asked in other races, but in Missouri, where we’re still reeling from the scandals of our former Governor Eric Greitens, who branded himself as the conservative Navy SEAL, we felt it was worth asking.

Osmack continued. “Governor Greitens was the veteran who happened to be a candidate. He rapelled off arenas, roofs. He fired Gatling guns. He used explosions. He made that a centerpiece of his campaign. Actually, what he did was, I think, a detriment to all veterans no matter the party. It was dripping with unnecessary machoism and testosterone and masculinity that I think poison a lot of things. But I wanted to be the … and hopefully am the complete opposite of him.”

You’d be forgiven if you haven’t heard the name Mark Osmack. National media has completely ignored a lot of congressional races and local media doesn’t give this one the attention it deserves. Osmack is running to be the Democrat who defeats Ann Wagner in Missouri’s Second Congressional District. He was born and raised in St.Louis, he comes from a double-wide trailer and divorced parents. He bounced around a lot of different school  districts (but he graduated from Lindbergh, for those of you ready to ask the St. Louis high school question). He earned a degree from Mizzou then enlisted in United States army, serving two tours in Afghanistan. He was a member of  UFCW Local 655 in St. Louis, and in Washington worked for Sen. Claire McCaskill and later then- Rep. Tammy Duckworth as a graduate policy intern. He earned his masters from George Washington University in 2016 and now he’s home continuing what might be a hereditary call to public service.

Osmack says “My dad is a nurse practitioner. My mom’s a chaplain. Both brothers were in the Marines. One still is in…. my sister’s a nurse. That’s where I learned service. To serve something or someone higher and better and bigger than you. To me, that’s this.”The “this” of course is serving in the United States House of Representatives. However, it’s harder to serve if you don’t win. so we asked Osmack how exactly do we flip the 2nd district, take back Congress, take back the Governor’s mansion and eventually win the White House.

“We beat them with policy,” he said. That’s fairly succinct, but it actually says a lot. We aren’t going to beat Donald Trump on personality or other Republicans on culture issues: They just simply are better at messaging. Right-to-Work doesn’t sound like it would gut the working class, but it does, and pro-life makes everyone else sound “anti-life.” So Osmack might be onto something, if we’re gonna take it to Republicans and be competitive everywhere, all we’ve got to win on is policy.

But what exactly do these policies look like? According to Osmack “strong” and “progressive,” which would represent a sea change from the “conservative values” that incumbent Congresswoman Ann Wagner extols on her campaign site.

There’s an aphorism in politics that states “If you play middle of the road, you’ll get run over. So you’d better pick a lane.” Osmack has picked a lane, and he isn’t pretending to be a centrist or exactly mincing words about where he stands. “I’m Mark. I’m a progressive. I’m a Democrat. We end the wars. Medicare for all.” According to Osmack, his accessibility (going so far to give out his private number on Facebook live) has been an asset in the sense that voters know him and he knows the voters. “We honestly do try to be everywhere as best we can with our staff and myself… I think it’s a big difference between Representative Wagner and myself but also maybe some of the other candidates,” he said.

About those voters, Osmack is running in a district that hasn’t elected a Democrat in nearly 30 years and was carried by Donald Trump by 10 points. If he wins the primary in August, it will almost certainly be an uphill battle in November. Winning will require turning out most Democrats who voted in 2016, staying competitive with independents, and peeling off some traditionally Republican voters who might have some frustration about Wagner’s lack of communication with her constituents or her steadfast support of the President’s agenda. But thanks to the energy of activist groups in the area. like Mom’s Demand Action, and a favorable generic ballot, the odds are slowly drifting in favor of Osmack, or whoever becomes the nominee.

Osmack and his democratic competitors don’t differ all that much on policy. Osmack supports Medicare for All (Sen. Claire McCaskill supports a Medicare buy-in for adults between the age of 55 and 65), he supports gun reform. and he doesn’t miss an opportunity to point out that Ann Wagner has “taken over $9,000 from the NRA.”He supports unions, reproductive freedom for women, an end to the war on drugs. He supports the fight against VA privatization, ending foreign wars, reversing the Citizens United decision, and is in synch with host of other progressive stances.

That last thing, Citizens United and reforming the fundraising culture of political campaigns, is personal for Osmack. We asked him about the extent some candidates go to raise campaign dollars, and he went on at some length about his thoughts on the subject. Osmack started talking about his own negative experiences with campaign money:  “Money is the biggest challenge,” he said. “I get asked that question more than anything else. Before I get asked, ‘Mark, you believe in Medicare? Mark, are you from here?’  It’s, ‘How much money do you have?’ Which is upsetting… It’s too easy and it’s actually a lazy approach to just look at FEC filings and say, ‘Candidate XYZ, whatever, has this much money,’ and therefore the implication is they must be doing something right. And if you don’t have that much money, you must be doing something wrong.”

It’s no secret that Osmack has been outraised by one of his opponents for the nomination, Cort VanOstran, by a significant amount. Osmack says that money should be a determining factor in who voters end up supporting. “It’s okay that people support my opponent… but when one reason is, ‘He has more money,’ that’s not support. Then, you know what? Support Ann Wagner. She has more money than all of us ever will,” he said.

Osmack believes that when we talk about money, we avoid talking about policy and it takes a tone that’s inherently elitist. Osmack said,  “We fall into this typically Republican mantra, if you’re poor you must be lazy. If you only worked harder, you’d have more money…  People who work 40, 50, 60, 70 hours a week for minimum wage or slightly above it work hard. The fact is, it’s very difficult, if not almost impossible, to get ahead when you’re working that much for that little. S,o to imply that whoever has the most money is working harder is a fallacy. Again, I think it’s dangerous, it’s going against basic democratic and I think American or even human ideals to say that if you don’t have money, if you’re poor, you must be lazy. That is a caste system that is outdated, it is not true and it is detrimental to, as subversive or as subliminal as it is, it is detrimental to where we need to go as a city, state and nation.”

But Osmack is still determined, in the face of people who like to compare fundraising numbers. He touts his endorsements from Sen. Tammy Duckworth, VoteVets, Rep. Sue Meredith, Rep. Bruce Franks, two Democratic townships, and the Fraternal Order of Police, which is a labor union that represents over 7,000 law enforcement officers. Osmack says, “I am humbled and honored to have the endorsements that we have earned and none of them have been because of the amount of my bank account. They’ve been because of the messaging or the experience.”

As of this writing, Osmack’s campaign has knocked on more than 14,000 doors, and yard signs are scattered across the district. Osmack told us that he’s focused on simply trying to give something back to the community that has given him so much. “This is my home,” he said. “I think if you’re going to represent an area, you should know the schools. I think you should know the damages that happened when the Chrysler plant closed in 2008 and ’09. The second and third order effects, not just the people employed at that Chrysler plant in Fenton, about 15,000 jobs and $45 billion…It does make me even more emboldened and committed. This, for me, is not a political convenience or a situational convenience. This is my home. It’s why I can’t run in Southwest Missouri. I’m not from there.”

The post To beat Ann Wagner, focus on policy, not money: Mark Osmack appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When we sat down with Bill Haas last week, he said in no uncertain terms, “I’m going to win this one. It’s not going to be pretty.” It was delivered with a confidence that left us taken aback, but through our conversation we came to get a better understanding of why Haas is running, and it’s deeper than politics.

If you live in Missouri, and the name Bill Haas sounds familiar to you, it should. You’re bound to have seen him on your ballot a number of times, once for Lieutenant Governor, other times for mayor or congress or the state house and even once for alderperson, if you live in Lyda Krewson’s former ward. But don’t be mistaken: Haas has run a lot of campaigns (apparently at least 21), but he is not a perennial candidate, and he resents the moniker. Haas says perennial candidates don’t win and, to his credit, Haas has won a number of times. In 2008, he beat out a crowded field of Democrats to become the nominee for Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, and he’s been re-elected a number of times to the St. Louis City school board. This year however, Haas is once again chasing the white whale that has evaded him so many times before: a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. The race is in some ways an attempt to get lightning to strike twice, since it’s in the Missouri 2nd, the same district where Haas won the nomination a decade before.

Whoever clinches the Democratic nomination is going to be a significant underdog in the general election. Incumbent Republican Ann Wagner has millions of dollars at her disposal in a district already drawn to give Republicans a partisan advantage of +8% (meaning the district is 8% more Republican leaning than the nation as a whole). But in a year of historic democratic turnout that some tenuously suggest is building to a blue wave, this may be the year the district finally flips.

Based on his social media and previous profiles in local periodicals, Haas seemed to be an eccentric character who relished fights with journalists and made off-color statements about current events. But the Haas we sat down with was more soft-spoken and thoughtful, and there was a refreshing quality about his sincerity in his ability and his beliefs.

Haas isn’t originally from St. Louis; he was born into a Jewish family in Shaker Heights, Ohio. After he graduated high school he went to Yale as a Phi Beta Kappa in the same freshman class as former. Sec. of State John Kerry. After Yale, he moved on to Harvard Law, but the transition was difficult.

Haas talked about the major depression he suffered during that period that caused him to drop out of law school. Later, he would return because he was advised that, “I could come back if I dropped out. It would be harder to come back if I flunked out.”

In the years that followed, Haas served in Detroit in VISTA, hitch-hiked across the country, ended up in New Orleans to interview for a position in Mayor Moon Landrieu’s administration. He didn’t become political until the early 70s, “I wasn’t married yet, I didn’t have that kind of fulfillment, law was boring but intellectually challenging,” he said. “So, I started working in campaigns, and one of the ones I worked in was Dennis Kucinich when he got elected mayor in ‘77. That’s when I really became politically ambitious.”

That part about not being married: there was once a woman in Haas’s life. To understand Haas is to also understand that his quest for political success is only eclipsed by his quest for companionship. I won’t be able to do it justice, so I’ll let Haas tell it in his own words:

“So, the woman I fell in love with in ’78. I met her at a dance club. I asked, do you dance?… She said, a little. She’d been going to New York dance clubs since she was 16 because that’s where the music was. So, she was the best dancer I’d ever seen. The first weekend after we met, we went campaigning. I was running for precinct committee person. I think. It was a lower income area. and she was walking up the stairs in her heels. I think, I don’t remember exactly. At some point I said when are we getting married? And she said when you give up politics and we go to the suburbs and have a good life. We fell in love, but we didn’t get married. The idea of falling in love with somebody who cares about you but not about politics…. Pam and I never got together. Though I waited 20 years for her come around and she’s married one or two people since.”

The rest is history. Haas moved to St. Louis as a corporate lawyer in 1988, met the residency requirement to run for mayor in 1995, and he’s been running ever since.

We asked Haas about his platform for this campaign, and it was actually quite extensive. Haas wants to be known as the “education congressperson,” and the central tenet of his campaign is early childhood education. Haas believes that we need a federally funded, trillion-dollar early-childhood-education program. “We’re going to find a way to get money for early childhood education,” he said.  “Nothing is more important. That’s where crime comes from, and that’s where our educated workforce will come from.” Haas sees a clear link between the societal ills that plague this country and a broken education system. “In the longer run, my solution for poverty and racism is good, quality education.”

There’s also a unique idea that Haas has put at the forefront of his campaign, a combination of public service announcements and a hotline that would exist for the purpose of violence prevention. Haas says, “That’s the mental health piece that should cut across political boundaries. It’s not about gun control.” We asked why include public service announcements.  Haas said, “The missing piece is telling people we care about them and that we love them, and that if they call, we’re going to do more than just give them some meds and lock them in a room and tell them therapy.”

On every other issue, Haas was fairly progressive. He supports the efforts by Moms Demand Action and the Parkland Students to achieve common sense gun control. He believes in protecting entitlements and is vehemently opposed to work requirements for Medicaid. He’d support raising the contribution cap, not the age of retirement to make Social Security solvent. He’s passionate about ending the abuses of factory farming (Haas is an animal lover who has had 24 animal companions over the years). When it comes to dealing with corporations, he believes that we should end “corporate welfare” and pass laws to fight automation.  “if you’re going to lay off because of automation, you have to give the people you’re laying off a fair severance, and if you can’t afford to do that then we have a problem,” he said.

Haas’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is rather bold for a Democrat, and he went on at length about his thoughts. Here are the most important bits:

“As a Jewish person, I’m glad that my people have a homeland but…Palestinians living in camps with open sores for generations can’t possibly be God’s plan. That’s not the reason for all the terrorism, but it certainly doesn’t help any. We need a Marshall plan for the Palestinians. We can’t define the peace process, but we can try to drive it. Settlements are part of it. My bill that I’m going to propose, I’ll lose the Jewish vote for a while, but you either want to do good or you don’t. if Israel won’t agree with a plan over 10 years to dismantle the settlements, or give Palestinians equivalent land, then I’m going to put a bill in to cut the aid to Israel in half and use it to fund Palestinian development in Gaza and the West Bank. People living in Gaza, horrendous conditions as we know. That’s not good for anybody. Israel is finally beginning to help people in Gaza. This was in the last month. Some sort of economic thing. That should resonate. I don’t want to be a demagogue, but I really believe in this stuff.”

So, you may ask yourself, why is Haas running and why does he run even in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds again and again?

When we asked Haas about what keeps him going, he got misty eyed. He paused for quite a bit, because it was clearly very emotional for him. As a tear rolled down his cheek. Haas said, “You don’t always gets your dreams. and the reason I want to be in public service is, my dream is to be in public service to help other people’s more simple dreams come true.”  There’s also a spiritual element to Haas’s thinking, “I long thought I had some gifts for public service and I don’t think god would’ve given me them if she didn’t expect me to find a place to use them. So, it would be disrespectful to her and to myself to give up.”

It seemed to all of us that Haas had sacrificed more than most to run for office, potentially fulfilling careers, personal relationships, quite a bit of money and perhaps a life that would have borne more fruit than the one he’s lived so far. So, for Haas, to finally be elected to such a significant office would be more than electoral victory, it would be the event that brought meaning to the life he’s built around chasing this goal.

Haas believes that he can win this primary because of his name recognition, his heavy use of radio ads, and most importantly, his ideas. There has not been any polling of this race, but I’ve yet to meet a person other than Haas that shares his optimism. The odds seem somewhat long due to the quality of candidates that this cycle has produced, who are younger and better funded than Haas. Some people are willing to write Haas off, but I actually believe that there is possibly a path to victory for him. That being said, I don’t know who the nominee will be and I would genuinely be surprised if it were Haas.

All things considered, Haas is a serious candidate and he deserves a serious look. You can learn more about his positions at http://voteHaashaas.com, and his book Pink Collar Blue is available on Amazon.

The post Bill Haas: Optimistic candidate in a long-shot bid for Congress appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Noga Sachs is a candidate for Missouri’s 2^nd Congressional District in the upcoming Republican primary. She’s running against long-time incumbent Ann Wagner. Recently, I was part of a group that interviewed Sachs about her views. [The interview was part of an internship project sponsored by Civitas, a St. Louis non-profit that encourages young people to become civically engaged.] While we definitely did background research (including watching her jogging to a gym video discussing birth control), we didn’t expect our conversations to be as full as they were. From her past to her purpose as a politician, Sachs is full of heart.

Many Republicans are hostile to Sachs and worry her red politics may be more blue than they thought. Some refer to her candidacy as a “trojan horse, ” and she says that that label has contributed to her limited media coverage, The GOP even attempted to kick her out of events, and, she said, one leader said to her face that “there is no other candidate here [other than Ann Wagner]”. Plus, she claims that her rivals are trying to mix up her name to make her lose.They substitute  “Noah” for Noga, and all of a sudden voters can’t find her name in the media. Clearly, this candidate faces a lot of obstacles in the upcoming primary.

Parkland was a pivotal moment for Sachs, who was working in South America when it happened. Although she had never before been civically involved, the shootings motivated her to return to the U.S. to join other people working for political change. Realizing that Ann Wagner was up for re-election, uncontested, Sachs saw an opportunity.

Sachs calls her brother her “moral guiding light” for her political involvement He is a Democrat, and at first, she listened blindly to his opinions. After a while, though, Sachs says, “I realized that both sides are guilty of a lot of really not nice things.” However, when asked about why she is running as a Republican, she did not offer an immediate answer. [Editor’s note: In a post-interview phone call, Sachs said that she was running as a Republican because she sees Republicans as more organized in their approach to policies and legislation.] Her claim to “no labels” is somewhat misleading, since she, is in fact, running under the very red Republican label.

Red doesn’t mean, however, that Sachs couldn’t vote for Hillary, oppose Ann Wagner, and criticize Trump. She’s done all of those things, actually, and she’s proud of it. To her, Democrats protect freedom of choice, but “it ends up sort of this capitalistic sort of orientation, whereas the Republicans say…they’re protecting morals,” she says.

One of her strongest opinions centers around Israel, from which her parents emigrated. Her eyes were filled with passion as she discussed the topic without even being prompted. To her, Jerusalem is the obvious choice for the U.S. embassy. “It’s a completely laughable thing that anybody talked about putting the embassy outside the capital,” she says. “That’s just impractical, it just doesn’t make any sense. The capital of Israel is Jerusalem.”

Sachs’ pro-Israel stance coincides with some of her other more conservative leanings, and her passions (red or blue) don’t stop there.

On campaign financing, Sachs says, “You shouldn’t be extravagant during your campaign if you’d like to indicate that you’re going to be responsible with tax dollars.” That commitment to financial responsibility would work well for her, she says, because “I’m seeing a lot of people who are looking for a fresh face, looking for an honest person, an authentic person.”  And, when asked about avoiding corruption, Sachs notes that she is self-employed, making her financially independent.

Some of Sachs’ stances are a little more vague. She calls pro-choice and pro-life “too late,” stating that she thinks intervention should happen before a pregnancy ever occurs.

“Insemination education” is the best solution, she says, because it avoids  uncomfortable feelings around sex-education while still teaching about safe-sex practices. When asked about how to implement those plans when in Washington, though, Sachs did not offer specific solutions.

Sachs emphasized the need to have open lines of communication with her district at all times. “How can I bring home groceries if I don’t know you needed bacon?” she says.

On gun control, she says that taking away one gun would lead you to find another. To her, the answer is not gun control but, instead, culture change. [Editor’s note: After the interview, Sachs stated that she is an expert on culture change, giving her special perspective and know-how.]

With all of these policy issues, it’s hard to imagine anything happening without bipartisan action. Sachs’s solution: “Talk to people on both sides. Figure out what matters to them, and figure out where those two intersect. And then bring the two together. And actually what I’ve been doing…is exactly that. So I talked to Democrats, they love me. They’re willing to pick up the red ticket and vote for me. I’m flattered. I talk to Republicans and they’re also willing to do the same. We’re all on same page, we all want to get Ann out.”

Sachs reaches across party lines, listens to her voters, attends events, and blurs the blue and red lines into a nice, even purple. Sachs’ views are optimistic and hopeful. She wants to push for a change of culture. “’We need to re-establish a culture which is pro-social. One which enables us to live together, thrive together, work together,” she says.

While she admits to a lack of political experience, she makes up for it with gusto and heart. She said, in closing, “The number one thing is we need to be working together, and I love that you guys are working together on making this country a better place, and it’s not just a better place for me or for you, but it’s a better for place for us.”

Sachs clearly has the best intentions for her constituents and for democracy. Her work across party lines is a clear model for how politics should be able to function. With Trump in the White House, and a never-ending stream of polarized media coverage, it is easy to see how America could be leaving behind the moderates in a storm of extremist opinions. What hope do we have left for people who are (like the majority of America) moderate? In Sachs, we may have found a candidate who can navigate that predicament in a polarized world, where she claims her only labels are the four on her birth certificate: “Noga Chana Louis Sachs.”

The post Purple politics in Missouri’s CD2: Noga Sachs appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Five Democrats—all male—are vying for the honor of trying to defeat entrenched Republican Ann Wagner, in Missouri’s 2^nd Congressional District. Here are my impressions of them, from my seat in the audience of a League of Women Voters candidate forum last night. [PS, if you were looking for coverage of this event in St. Louis mainstream media, you’re out of luck, as Arthur Lieber notes in another post on this site .]

On the dais were : Mark Osmack, Bill Haas, Cort Van Ostran, John Messmer, and Robert Hazel.  They range in age from early 30s to early 70s. Their origin stories vary: Osmack is a union guy who served as an artillery officer in Afghanistan. Haas is a perennial candidate, having run for Congress in the 2^nd District five times previously. VanOstran is the Ivy-League educated up-and-comer favored by Missouri’s Democratic political elite; Messmer is a Ph.D. professor of political science at St. Louis Community College. Hazel calls himself “an old-fashioned, New Deal Democrat,” who filed for office because he is fed up with the current political situation.

During the 90-minute forum,  all appeared to agree on basic, progressive-platform planks, such as Medicare for All; the need for electoral, political and campaign-finance reform; common-sense gun laws; a national minimum/living wage; workers’ rights; and immigration reform that would offer either permanent-resident status or a path to citizenship for Dreamers.

All of these views are in direct opposition to those of Congresswoman Wagner, and that’s a good thing. But their unanimity on issues does make it harder to figure out who should get your vote. [Spoiler alert: I’m still undecided.]

I took a lot of notes, and if I tried really hard, I could probably transcribe them into a reasonable facsimile of the discussion. Instead, I’m offering the following candidate-by-candidate summary of some of what was said in response to the 11 questions posed by the moderator. For what it’s worth, I’ll add my commentary on each candidate as we go along.

Robert W. Hazel

Hazel said that his number one legislative priority would be to push for a New-Deal-style infrastructure program—“the kinds of projects built to last for generations.” He added, “We need to look for things that help all of us, not just the privileged few. The Democratic party needs to be the party of everyone.”

Hazel was particularly outspoken when asked for his view of the political climate. “We’re living under a perverted, Christian-conservative rule,” he said. “Self-government—Western civilization itself—is in peril…In the White House, we now have a deep-cover agent of the former Soviet Union—or at least a stooge for Vladimir Putin. He is the charlatan-in-chief.”

He spoke in favor of a national minimum wage of $20/hr., adding that “We can’t afford not to do this.”

I gave Hazel first place among the five candidates for self-deprecating humor. Clear-eyed about his limited chance to win the Democratic nomination, he said, “If I win the primary, the first thing I’d do would be to demand a recount.”

Commentary: With no grassroots campaign organization and very little funding, Hazel is the odds-on favorite finish last in the primary. But you’ve got to respect his gumption and passion: He filed for the race because, he said, “I just can’t stand the way the US is going.” He’s a pure protest candidate, just doing it because somebody has to. His answers at the forum were spontaneous, conversational and unscripted—a refreshing break from political business-as-usual.

John Messmer

Messmer calls his extensive background in political science one of his most important assets. Armed with a Ph.D., he has drafted and reviewed bills for the Missouri legislature and has taught political science for 16 years. At the forum, he called for fundamental governmental reform, with the top three priorities—of  his 15-point plan—being reforms in campaign finance, ethics rules, and election procedures. “Our democratic foundation is crumbling. We need to remind people that reform is in the DNA of Democrats,” he said.

On healthcare, Messmer described the current system as one of the worst in the world. “You could throw a dart anywhere on a world map and land on a more efficient, effective and popular system. We should look closely at the successful systems in Australia and Switzerland.”

In a political era in which the Republican mantra is that government is the enemy, Messmer sees things differently. In his years of teaching, he says, there has been a change in attitude among his students. “They no longer call it ‘my’ government or ‘our’ government, they call it ‘the’ government. That is significant. I make my students read the Federalist Papers as a way of helping them understand why we need a federal government. Issues like income inequality and the need for low-income housing are prime reasons for having a federal system.”

On immigration policy, Messmer said, “Trump has declared war on immigrants, but immigration is our history. These policies are not who we are.”

Commentary: Messmer strikes me as the candidate with the most baked-in understanding of the issues facing our country and the reforms needed to make things work better. He comes by his knowledge organically, from years of study, teaching and practical experience. He would make a very wise, approachable and fact-based Congressman. Although he will probably be eclipsed in the voting by a flashier contender, I would strongly recommend that the winner call Messmer on day one of the general campaign, to enlist him as a policy adviser—and then listen to him closely.

Mark Osmack

“There’s no higher calling than public service,” said Mark Osmack, explaining why he’s running for Congress. Osmack’s background includes his stint in Aghanistan, and learning about policy as an intern for Claire McCaskill and Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth.  “I know that life has given me privilege and advantages, so the first thing I need to do as a candidate and as a Congressman is to shut up and listen.”

Very much in agreement with the other candidates on the issue of healthcare, Osmack asserted his support for Medicare for All, and called for a fully not-for-profit system. To get to a Medicare for All system, Osmack proposed a gradual lowering of the Medicare eligibility age. “We have the money for it, but, so far, not the Congressional courage,” he said.

Asked about the issues he feels most passionately about, Osmack invoked a term that is rarely heard in contemporary political dialogue: “the greater good.” “We need more focus on things that serve the common good:  healthcare, transportation and education…We are gradually phasing out educational opportunities. We need to minimize the costs and reduce the barriers to entry.”

In a Congressional district drawn to favor Republican voters, Osmack—as well as the other candidates—will be challenged to attract Republicans, leaning Democrats and independents. He said he’s optimistic about his chances. “We’ll have to win over swing voters. We have to step up and push back on policies we disagree with. We have to speak loudly and clearly about racial inequality. We have to show voters that we have a spine, to give them a reason to vote for Democratic candidates… And, by the way, I do not see Republican failures as Democratic successes.”

Commentary: Osmack has a lot going for him: Intelligence, articulateness, an approachable demeanor, optimism, and the positive aura bestowed by today’s military-worshipping political zeitgeist. He’s young, a fresh face at a time when established political leaders seem almost fossilized in their beliefs and tactics. [Unfortunately, Osmack’s and Van Ostran’s names, which share the letters O and S and the “os” syllable, have the potential to cause confusion in the primary.] But if he can overcome that orthographic obstacle, I think he could give Ann Wagner a run for the money.

Bill Haas

People who follow St. Louis-area politics recognize Haas’ name from the many electoral contests he has run in. His main success was being elected to the Board of Education for the City of St. Louis. He is proud of his 50 years of political experience and public service, and he said that name recognition is one of his strongest selling points.

At the forum, Haas called “ending violence” his most significant issue. He proposed establishing a violence-prevention hotline that would operate 24/7, encouraging people to call in when they are feeling as though they might hurt themselves or others.

Of the five candidates at the forum, Haas stood out as the one who offered the most specific programmatic approaches to issues. In addition to the hotline, he said that he favors the federal government establishing “a subsistence income of $20,000 per person, with the next $30,000 of income being tax-free.” As a partial solution to housing issues and homelessness, he suggested “training unemployed people in the skills needed for home building.”

And, as an approach to curbing illegal immigration, he voiced his support for an idea, suggested by columnist Paul Krugman, for the U.S. to invest in industry in Mexico, “so that people don’t have to come to the United States to earn a living.” On immigration reform, Haas suggested that limiting Dreamers to permanent resident status, rather than offering them full citizenship, might be a way of getting Republicans to get on board with DACA. “Republicans don’t want DACA recipients to get full citizenship because they fear that the new citizens will tend to vote for Democrats.”

Commentary: You’ve got to give Haas points for perseverance and creativity. While his persona comes off as a bit off-beat, he is unabashedly who he is. Some of his positions offer novel insights into the issues—such as those immigration ideas described above. I don’t think he’s going to get the chance to run against Wagner, but his name-recognition factor could play a role in swinging the primary vote away from one of the other candidates.

Cort VanOstran

“There’s a tremendous opportunity this year to flip Missouri’s Second District seat,” said VanOstran, when asked why he is running for Congress. “Democrats and Republicans alike are concerned about the same issues. But our representative in Washington isn’t listening to us. Ann Wagner has held no town halls in her district.”

“We all face the same challenge: We are embarrassed by what is coming out of DC,” he added. “We want accountability, common sense. Everyone has an interest in that.”

That’s why he’ll be able to attract a wide spectrum voters to his message, he said. “There is no shortage of people who want change. We need to find those voters, speak to all voters—not just Democrats—and turn them out to vote on Election Day.”

VanOstran was particularly outspoken on the subject of immigration. “Our driving value should be to treat people with dignity,” he said. “It’s disgusting that the Republican party,  which claims to be ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-family,’ treats immigrants so poorly.”

He also took a strong stand on the need for common-sense gun laws. “Guns are a top issue. Ann Wagner has taken large amounts of money from the NRA,” said VanOstran. “We need universal background checks, no bump-stock sales, and no high-capacity magazines.”

Calling healthcare the number one issue on his agenda, VanOstran said, “Single payer is the right thing to do and it’s fiscally sensible. We need to pass aggressive legislation to expand Medicaid.”

Commentary: VanOstran looks the part, speaks in paragraphs, and is saying all the right things. He will be very appealing to many Democratic voters, on both personal and political grounds. He’s the darling of the Missouri Democratic establishment and—if money counts [which it does—too much, unfortunately]—he’s out-raising everybody else in the race by a lot. He’s already seen by party insiders as the front-runner in the primary, but in terms of actual voter engagement, it’s still early. If he gets the nomination, and if the stars align, and if he doesn’t somehow trip over himself, he could very well be the person who could flip the district.

The post Who’s who & who said what at candidate forum in MO 2nd Congressional district appeared first on Occasional Planet.