I'm Moe Shanfield. I am running for Congress in the Illinois 9th Congressional District.
A year ago last summer, my Democratic opponent, the 9th District incumbent, together with sixty-two Democratic progressive Congressional representatives, handed me a slam-dunk issue on a silver platter. She confirmed my decision to enter the race. Here’s what happened.
In July, 2007, the 76 members of the House Democratic Progressive Caucus signed a letter to the President: They would vote against any war appropriation bill which failed to include a time table for troop withdrawal.
Then, on August 5, 2007, something changed. A total of 62 of those “progressives”, including the 9th District incumbent, cast “Aye!” votes for the Department of Defense annual appropriation bill--providing more than $100 billion to keep the war going. There was no troop-withdrawal time table.
In addition to lone Republican Ron Paul, voting against were just 11 of the 76 signatories from the caucus, including: Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Barbara Lee, and John Lewis.
With one of those four, even Ron Paul, as our Congressperson, I wouldn't be running. But the glaring daylight which the 9th District incumbent introduced between her words and her actions cried out for someone to spotlight support of the war by a self proclaimed war opponent.
Also voting for the billions to keep the war going were each of other 18 Illinois’ Congressional representatives.
On August 25, at a public meeting, 30 questioners tried and failed to elicit any plan by the Democratic Congressional majority to end the war. I confronted the incumbent with an audience poll, taken as she spoke. Respondents (43-3) wanted votes against war appropriations.
“That’s where the audience stands. Where do you stand.?” I asked.
“I stand with the audience,” she snapped right back.
“Does that mean that you will vote against war appropriations?” I asked.
“Yes, it does.” Her responses were quick.
One month later, on September 26, she voted more billions for the war, despite repeated demonstrations by 9th District voters of their overwhelming desire to end the war promptly. That September vote was the second time she diverged from a commitment to vote against war appropriations.
That's why I'm running.
But why vote for a third party candidate? How could it be possible that votes for a maverick exert greater pressure than votes for a sure thing? Here's the answer.
In 1840 5 million Americans voted for the Whigs or Democrats. The real deciding votes were the mere 7 thousand votes cast for the Abolitionist candidate. Those votes for a "loser" were the votes that set the nation on the path to freeing the slaves. They split the Whig and Democratic Parties and paved the way for Lincoln. The Democratic and Whig votes were the votes that were wasted.
A vote for me will pressure our Congresswoman to stop voting for war dollars.
