What a bizarre month this has been.

We’ve had Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) ask if the National Forest Service might change Earth’s orbit around the sun to alter the effects of climate change. An Ohio doctor pushes the idea that the vaccines can magnetize people and make them susceptible to government monitoring — an idea readily accepted by Republican legislators there.

Now comes Rep. Ann Wagner, (R-Missouri) proposing a bill that would hold China accountable for “deliberate, reckless action that allowed the coronavirus to spread, killing millions worldwide.”

She recently warned constituents that the government must pass this legislation, “to make sure China pays for their reckless actions.”

Talk about reckless actions, I bet she can’t wait to read “Nightmare Scenario: Inside the Trump Administration’s Response to the Pandemic That Changed History,” a new book by Washington Post journalists Yasmeen Abutaleb and Damian Paletta that captures the Trump administration’s dysfunctional response to the unfolding pandemic.

The book details some of the inner workings of Trump world early on in the pandemic. We knew he wanted to block cruise ship passengers from re-entering the country. But did we know he also wanted to bar infected Americans returning from abroad? His solution: send them to Guantanamo. All to keep the COVID numbers down in the U.S.A.

The book is not without its ironic moments…

“Testing is killing me!” Trump reportedly exclaimed in a phone call to then-Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on March 18, yelling so loudly that Azar’s aides overheard every word. “I’m going to lose the election because of testing! What idiot had the federal government do testing?”
“Uh, do you mean Jared?” Azar responded, citing the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
– Washington Post

Trump fired key people to stifle sound scientific commentary. And, of course, he espoused ideas like using hydroxychloroquine and bleach injection. He repeatedly claimed the whole pandemic was all a hoax. He downplayed the need for masks and he failed to encourage widespread vaccination.

Crazy, right? We laughed. But Abutaleb and Paletta take a more somber view.

“One of the biggest flaws in the Trump administration’s response is that no one was in charge of the response… Was it Birx, the task force coordinator? Was it Pence, head of the task force? Was it Trump, the boss? Was it Kushner, running the shadow task force until he wasn’t? Was it Marc Short or Mark Meadows, often at odds, rarely in sync?… Ultimately, there was no accountability, and the response was rudderless”

Yeah, Ann Wagner, people need to be held responsible for making the pandemic much worse than it needed to be.

The post Strange times, reckless behavior, nightmare scenarios appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The post Ann Wagner: a hypocrite in her own words appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Well, we all make mistakes, but this is a whopper. Congresswoman Ann Wagner (MO-02) thinks that she has made name for herself opposing sex-trafficking. Never mind that this issue is about as much of a lay-up as any could be, but to her credit, Ann has made her voice known on the issue. Other than victims of sex trafficking, Ann has shown little empathy for people who are “not like her.”

She is running for re-election, and for once, she has to dig into her deep pockets and actually run television advertisements. It seems that she is a little unschooled on this. You see, when touting her work on sex trafficking, she has clips from various people, possibly in Missouri’s Second District, who have been impacted by it. One of them is named Jennifer, and here is how she is identified in the ad:

So, let me get this straight. Ann is including an endorsement from a woman who is a sex trafficking advocate. If my understanding of English serves me correctly, this means that Jennifer advocates sex trafficking. Does it mean that Jennifer is actually running an operation; selling young women and men into sexual servitude? Jennifer seems far too nice for that, but this is what Ann implies that she does.

I really had no idea that anyone would publicly identify themselves as a sex trafficking advocate, and if they did, wouldn’t they be the last person who Ann would want in her ad?

Maybe the fact that Ann may have less real interaction with constituents than any other member of Congress contributes to a certain tone-deafness. But the fact that this problem would exist with her professional advisors, ad creators, and maybe even a focus audience that she pulled in to check it out, only compounds the problem.

I’m going to give Ann the benefit of the doubt and say that she is opposed to sex trafficking. However, when it comes to critical thinking, attention to detail, and common sense, she just doesn’t have it. She’s deserving of a DQ – a disqualification.

Here is the ad as revealed through an Ann Wagner tweet:

Sex trafficking is hiding in plain sight all across the country. After hearing stories from survivors like Kathy & Chelsie, I authored legislation to provide justice for victims and shut down sites that sell our sons & daughters.

I will always fight on behalf of survivors. pic.twitter.com/ulLJAr9DDl

— Ann Wagner (@AnnLWagner) October 8, 2018

The post Ann Wagner has support of Sex Trafficking Advocate? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Nate Silver’s 538 website is considered by many to be the gold standard in political handicapping. It gets a lot right, although like most of the rest of the world, a day before the 2016 presidential election it had Hillary Clinton winning with a measure of comfort.

Recently 538 published the current odds for all thirty-four U.S. Senate seats up for election as well as the 435 House seats. While they measure the chances of each candidate winning down to a tenth of a percentage point, they help us by categorizing each race in the following color-coded categories.

I have to admit that I am somewhat mystified by their analysis of Missouri’s Second Congressional District. This is a region that includes most of suburban St. Louis County as well as parts of ex-urban St. Charles and Jefferson Counties.

As of Monday, September 3, 2018, 538 gives Democrat Cort VanOstran only a 7% of winning his race against incumbent Republican Ann Wagner. Before we look at 538’s methodology, let’ look at some historical and current information that would indicate that VanOstran has a much better chance:

1. In 2008, Barack Obama came close to carrying MO-02, at a time when the district boundaries were more conservative than now.
2. In 2012, Senator Claire McCaskill overwhelmingly defeated Republican Todd Akin in MO-02, his old district.
3. In the August 2018 Missouri primaries, Republicans did not field serious candidates for either the St. Louis County Executive or the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney. The Democrats will slide to victory essentially unopposed this November.

Cort VanOstran is a strong candidate for the Democrats, and while Ann Wagner is an entrenched candidate for the Republicans, she has many weaknesses including her phobias about meeting with voters or engaging in public forums or debates. Cort also has a very well-organized campaign with legions of volunteers. He has pushed the right buttons to raise significant amounts of money. He was very gracious with the four Democratic candidates who he defeated in the August primary and they have all pledged their support to him.

So why is Cort seemingly trailing by so much, behind to a point where 538 gives Wagner a fourteen-to-one chance of winning?

Seemingly there can be only two reasons: one is that 538 simply has it wrong; two being that VanOstran is not lighting the fire under Democratic voters to put himself in a more competitive position.

538’s methodology is complex and seemingly thorough. You can read the entire explanation from Nate Silver by clicking here. He recognizes that it is very difficult to prognosticate congressional races because there is far less polling data than there is for presidential races, or even senate races. But here are some of the factors that it uses:

1. Polling, to the extent that it exists for individual House races.
2. Analysis of polls in similar districts, to the extent that they exist.
3. Previous election returns in the district.
4. How each candidate fared with primary opponents.
5. Money raised
6. Support by PACs and Super-PACs.
7. Partisan lean; how the district voted in the two previous presidential elections.
8. Congressional approval ratings; how incumbents in Congress are generally regarded.
9. Examining micro-issues unique to the district.

By these criteria, Ann Wagner has certain clear advantages; the district was carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016. She has far more money than Cort, but he will be by far the best-financed Democrat in this election in the 2000s. Cort clearly has an advantage when it comes to the general perception of incumbents in Congress, although most voters give their own representative a pass on this criterion. It is difficult to define micro issues on the district that are different from national concerns. Without crunching the 538 numbers, it would seem that the race could be reasonably close.

538 works with algorithms, AKA an unambiguous specification of how to solve a class of problems. Algorithms can perform calculation, data processing and automated reasoning tasks. But there initially has to be human input, and we are not privy as to how 538 determines that. Clearly, the likes of Nate Silver are much smarter than I, but they too are prone to making mistakes. Perhaps the assumptions that they make into defining their algorithms simply are not a good match for Missouri’s Second District.

Then again, despite a strong conventional campaign, perhaps Cort VanOstran is not lighting a fire under voters; one that the likes of 538 could see becomes part of a micro issue in the Second District. A year ago, there was another candidate in MO-02 named Kelli Dunaway who said that any Democrat had to find a way to get noticed and she was thinking about chaining herself to the fence at the toxic Westlake Landfill in St. Louis County. It has pizzazz, the kind that may be needed to get the mainstream media off dead-center and to raise voter awareness.

Kelli later dropped out of the race, in part because she did not think that she had the financial resources to keep up with other Democratic candidates such as VanOstran. But her outside-the-box thinking should carry on.

Wagner’s Achilles Heel is her hermit-like visibility on the campaign trail. Not only has she refused debates and forums; she will not appear any place where an opponent of hers might be. She carefully scripts her appearances to only be in front of “friendly audiences” and questions are essentially screened.

For six years, the media has given her a pass on this. Her previous Democratic opponents have put pressure on her, but without the financial resources that Cort now has or a mainstream media seeing Wagner’s invisibility as a threat to democracy, most voters are unaware of Silent Ann’s strategy.

Here’s an unsolicited suggestion to Cort. With the money that you have, get a jump on Ann through television ads, still a very effective means of messaging. I remember in 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for re-election and he saturated the airwaves with pre-emptive ads that essentially prevented Republican Bob Dole from ever getting his campaign in gear.

What if Cort ran a television ad similar to this:

1. Visual: Cort talking into the camera.
2. Audio (a rough sample):

“Hi, I’m Cort VanOstran, Democratic candidate for Missouri’s Second Congressional District. While I want to win this race, it’s far more important to me that the voters in the district are able to make an informed decision about for whom to cast their vote.

For six years, Ann Wagner has refused to appear either in front of a neutral audience or with another candidate. I would like to have an open forum with Ann, the kind that the League of Women Voters sponsors. It is not my nature to attack or to be nasty. I just want voters to have an opportunity to hear both your and my ideas. Regardless of what you say, I will not be personal in attack, although I think that your positions on many issues require strong challenge.

Voters, if you would like to encourage Ann to join me in an open forum, please text “Please, Ann” to xxxxx.

I don’t know if this would tilt the 538 needle, but I think that it needs a stimulus. If Cort has a better idea, I’m all for it. I hate to go to a football analogy, but before Cort needs to throw a “Hail, Mary,” it would be better to construct a very effective two-minute offense. Time is running out.

For a different take on MO-02, read Sarah Fenske’s article in Riverfront Times.

The post It’s difficult to handicap Missouri’s Second Congressional District 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.

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.

First-time political candidate Kelli Dunaway thought she had a shot at unseating Ann Wagner, the conservative Republican Congresswoman from Missouri’s 2nd District. She never really got the chance.

Dunaway dropped out of the four-way Democratic race in the St. Louis area last month, but she learned some valuable lessons from her attempt. In a recent interview with Occasional Planet, she candidly shared her insights into what she did wrong, how the political system worked against her, and what other female candidates can do to overcome the obstacles.

“The bottom line was that I just couldn’t raise as much money as the other candidates,” she said, noting that in our political system, money raised is the measure of viability for a candidate. “I kept hearing—from potential donors—‘You are not raising enough money,’ and ‘You are not visible enough’—from grassroots supporters. It was a Catch 22.”

But more important than her fundraising totals are the reasons behind her inability to wring cash from donors.

“It’s a structural problem,” said Dunaway, a a single mom with two young children. “The system is set up so that only two kinds of people can successfully run for office: People who are wealthy, or people who are retired. There’s no place for a single mom. I was trying as hard as I could. But I felt anxious and stressed, because I was disappointing everyone. I wasn’t a good Mom, I wasn’t a good employee, and I wasn’t a good candidate.”

“There just wasn’t enough of a support system for a candidate like me,” she added. “I thought women would get excited about a strong capable woman taking the risk of running. I thought they’d help me more—be surrogates when I couldn’t be at events, give a little more of their time to help when my family responsibilities made being a candidate extra difficult. That didn’t happen enough.”

“Now that I’ve done this,” she said, “I see that no one benefits from the system as it is. Even if you win, you’re going to spend 20 hours a week on the phone raising money. It’s grueling, and it’s not good for anyone.”

Dunaway acknowledges that her opponents worked the system more effectively than she did. “They lined up donors early. They got endorsements from the Missouri Democratic elite. They made better connections earlier in the process. Maybe if I’d have been doing what they were doing a year before announcing my candidacy, I’d still be in it,” she said.

Dunaway admits to being frustrated by her opponents’ ability to get those “power elite” endorsements. “It was unfortunate that women in power didn’t really give me a chance, because I got into the race later, and they had already decided to back my opponent. But I was surprised that they were supporting a 29-year-old male. I got into the race in the first place to help make Congress more reflective of the overall population. Congress is only 20 percent women. I wanted to be part of the change. I thought having a woman in the race this time would give us a shot to put a Democrat in that seat.”

Issues—or, rather, the lack of them—played a role in Dunaway’s truncated campaign, too. An unashamed progressive, Dunaway wanted to talk about guns, reproductive rights and other hot-button topics, so she posted her views on her campaign website. That tactic, she learned, defied conventional wisdom. Other candidates, she learned, just ask for money—they don’t take public stands on issues on their websites.

“I am not just about money. The issues are important to me,” she said. “I don’t listen to establishment advice. We’re at a critical time in our history—we need to talk about these issues. But I learned that you get more money when you do not talk about these things. We are democratically electing a kleptocracy—donors see issues as a distraction. Other candidates keep their views on issues beneath the radar, because that’s what the donors want them to do. It’s sad, but that is the system.”

The solution, said Dunaway, is for more people to care about what is happening. “As of now, we leave it all to the donor class,” she said. They make the money decisions and that determines who runs. The people who care about issues—like me—are on the outs: we’re the weirdos.”

Dunaway says she has learned her lessons the hard way, and she seems resigned to the notion that, to be successful, future women candidates will probably have to play the system according to the current rules of engagement. Will she run again? She’s not sure what’s next for her, other than a general idea about helping to empower women.

“I want to help position women to take 50 percent of the seats in Congress—50 percent of everything: board rooms, executive suites, all the areas of power,” she says. “The last thing America needs right now are more privileged, Harvard-educated men.”

The post Lessons learned: Kelli Dunaway’s candid take on running for office appeared first on Occasional Planet.