Bob Kaufman of Baltimore Maryland picks up an endorsement for Maryland US Senate

Subject: FW: Bob Kaufman picks up an endorsement
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:50:35 -0500

>To members of the press:
>
>Below is an endorsement of Bob Kaufman for U.S. Senate from Chris Bush,
>member of "Democracy for Baltimore." I have sent along only the last two of
>a seven page report he wrote on the answers that he received from the Senate
>candidates from Maryland on the following question:
>
>If elected, will you oppose Harry Reid as Leader because he failed to apply
>opposition discipline to the filibuster of Samuel Alito, such failure
>causing the filibuster to collapse and allowing Alito to be confirmed to the
>Supreme Court?
>
>I will be glad to send along his full report upon request.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Michael Melick
>Campaign Manager for A. Robert Kaufman for U.S. Senate
>(410) 523-9291
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Who's the Hero Here? Bob Kaufman
>
>Bob Kaufman is the only candidate- of those who responded and those who
>didn't- who unqualifiedly would oppose Harry Reid. Kaufman understands
>clearly the power calculus in the Senate. If the opposition won't stay
>united, it has no power.
>
>Is it a Waste of Your Vote to Vote for Bob Kaufman, or a Waste of Your Vote
>to Vote for Anyone Else?
>
>Bob Kaufman is a well known name in Maryland politics, and many folks might,
>at first, want to dismiss him as a "perennial candidate" or a "gadfly" or an
>"also ran". I'm sure many of you have heard the refrain: "You'd be wasting
>your vote by voting for Bob Kaufman".
>
>But, is this accurate? Kaufman would vote to get rid of Reid. He would
>support a Leader who maintains discipline of the opposition (he made it
>clear that he would oppose any other Democratic Senator who follows in
>Reid's jello-spined footsteps as well; he sharply criticized other
>corporate/ militarist Senators in the party, the kinds of Senators who would
>all too readily cave in to Bush and surrender the opposition).
>
>Moreover, this isn't as hard as it seems- if Senators are ready to take Reid
>on. To replace the Leader, all you need is a majority of the Caucus. In a
>caucus of 45 Senators, this means you'd only need 23 votes. This is
>possible.
>
>And, maybe someone like Barbara Boxer could be supported to take Reid's
>place. It could happen, and it would make a world of difference whether
>there is a tough leader in place, or a weak one.
>
>Besides Kaufman, none of the other candidates is ready to do this. Cardin
>gives an answer not on point. Mfume didn't answer at all. Same for Rales and
>Rasmussen.
>
>Zeese says the Dems need to replace Reid, but indicates that he isn't
>comfortable with being part of the solution to making this happen. Lichtman
>is upset with Reid, but not ready to throw him overboard- at least not yet.
>Van Susteren won't single out Reid or hold him accountable.
>
>Picture this: as of right now, any of these other candidates wins the
>election, and Harry Reid stays on as Leader.
>
>Then, Bush decides to attack Iran. Or Venezuela. Or Cuba. Or all the above.
>Some Senators try to filibuster, but Reid can't hold the opposition together
>on cloture, and Bush prevails. Again.
>
>Or, John Paul Stevens-one of the more liberal Supreme Court Justices-
>resigns from the Supreme Court. Bush appoints J. Harvie Wilkerson III from
>the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals- a real right-winger- to replace him. Some
>Senators try to filibuster this appointment, but, again, Harry Reid fails to
>hold the opposition together. Wilkerson gets confirmed, pulling the already
>right-wing Court way over further to the right.
>
>Or, Bush decides to make the tax cuts permanent- completely eliminating the
>estate tax. Several Senators take to the well of the Senate to filibuster
>this, but Harry Reid can't hold the opposition together, and Bush wins.
>Again.
>
>You get the idea.
>
>Even if the Democrats retook the Senate this fall, it's not clear that they
>could block Bush even then.
>
>So, do you want one of the other candidates to win? They'll leave Harry Reid
>in place. Or, do you vote for Bob Kaufman, who will try to replace him.
>
>You tell me under which of these scenarios you're really wasting your vote.
>
>Conclusion- Reality Check Time
>
>While I have heretofore respected Bob Kaufman's candidacy and positions, I
>hadn't considered him to be a significant candidate in this race. That's
>about to change.
>
>Yes, there's still time for the other Senate candidates to evolve their
>positions on this. But, for today, Bob Kaufman is showing us the way. He
>plainly, and clearly, outlines what we have to do. (And yes, Bob can give an
>extended analysis of events, a rhetorical exercise in presenting issues of
>the day. He is as accomplished a phrasemaker as anyone. But he also knows
>when to cut to the chase, to give the direct answer which people need to
>hear).
>
>So, I have a question for everyone out there- including the other candidates
>(who are getting a copy of this report):
>
>Do we want someone as a Senator who may give great speeches, who will dish
>out layers and layers of purple prose, who will wax grand-eloquent on the
>issues of the day?
>
>Or, do we want to stop Bush?
>
>Chris