Bipartisanship Can Be Great-- Or It Can Be Horrific... Michael McCaul (R-TX) & Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) Prefer The Horrific Variety

When Blue Dogs and Republicans Get Together, Only Bad Can Come Of It

Americans love bipartisanship. When Long Island Republican Peter King signed on as the first Republican cosponsor of the bill to ban the sale of assault weapons, he may have been the only Republican to do so-- but he was joining Tom Suozzi, a Democrat in the Long Island district just north of his. (To the east is NRA-owned-and-operated Lee Zeldin (R), who opposes any ban on assault weapons.) "When everything is said and done," Rep. Suozzi told me earlier, "bipartisanship is hard in the current climate, but it is the only way to truly get things done on behalf of the people we serve."

Similarly, Ro Khanna, arguably the most progressive member of Congress, teamed up with Matt Gaetz, arguably the most reactionary, to prevent Trump from initiating a war against Iran.

But there's also a toxic kind of bipartisanship. Between 1905 and 1965, conservative Democrats and House Republicans were able to work together to defeat Medicare. Over those 6 decades they whittled it down to exclude dental care and hearing aids and eye care and they took a program that was meant for all Americans and made it into one only for the elderly. That's a different kind of bipartisanship. When voters rushed to the polls to vote down far right extremist Barry Goldwater-- not an extremist by today's GOP standards-- they also voted (by 10 million votes) to relieve a net of 36 Republicans of their House seats, bringing the Democratic majority to 295 and leaving the GOP with 140 seats. (In the Old Confederacy the opposite happened; Republicans gained 7 seats in reactionary states like Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi). The Republicans also lost 2 Senate seats, giving the Democrats a 68 to 32 majority.

The Democrats no longer needed GOP and reactionary Southern support to pass Medicare-- so the next year they did just that. Conservatives have been working to destroy it ever since-- often in a very bipartisan way.

Texas' most conservative Democrat, corrupt Blue Dog/shitbag Henry Cuellar got busy working with Trump enabler Michael McCaul to take advantage of the hysteria over the white nationalist gun massacres this month in El Paso, Gilroy and Dayton. Like Trump, they decided to pretend the massacres are being carried out by "both sides," not solely 100% by white nationalists, racists and demented Trump fanatics. The "bipartisan" bill they wrote appears to be aimed more at anti-pipeline protestors than the kinds of neo-fascists and NRA extremists that support politicians like McCaul and Cuellar.

The progressive Democrat taking on McCaul, Mike Siegel, noticed-- and responded with a powerful tweet storm, which I've made into a narrative below.

This week, Rep. Michael McCaul released a bill to create new crimes for "domestic terrorism."

Like many, I believe we need immediate action to address mass shootings and racist attacks like El Paso. But this bill will do something very different: criminalize dissent.

1st, the context: in 2018 there were 25 race-based terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, all by white supremacists. The Trump Administration has buried the true nature of the threat. And McCaul, former Chairman of Homeland Security, never addressed it.

McCaul's bill doesn't address hate groups. Instead, it focuses on property damage. Here’s how: it creates a new crime, with 25-year sentences, for property damage that might "affect" or "influence" a government policy. This is aimed at Ferguson and Standing Rock-type protests.

The proposed McCaul-Cuellar-Weber bill is the exact law that the fossil fuel industry has been asking for since Standing Rock. Read Lee Fang’s recent piece for some of that context.

The bill does three things: (1) define the “intent” to commit domestic terrorism; (2) identify five qualifying offenses; and (3) punish unsuccessful “attempts” and “conspiracies” to commit these offenses.

An act is “domestic terrorism” if it is performed “with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence, affect, or retaliate against the policy or conduct of a government.” Focus on the vague language. That's where the threat to our Constitution lies. The definition of “intent” is key.

Under this bill, federal prosecutors could charge terrorism if actions might “affect” or “influence” a government policy. This is an extremely broad definition of terroristic intent. Especially when you consider that a "terrorist act" could include property damage.

Five crimes are included in the bill: murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, simple assault, and property damage. Most are punishable under existing state and federal law. But property damage would get a 25-year sentence, far beyond any state vandalism law.

Note how the bill treats attempts and conspiracies. “Attempts or conspiracies to commit an offense . . . shall be punished in the same manner as a completed act of such offense.” Don’t talk to anyone planning political property damage, or you can be a terrorist, too.

Context matters. Trump is ranting daily against “antifa” (i.e., anti-fascists). In Portland, white supremacists clashed with anti-fascists. This bill would give prosecutors blanket authority to charge terrorism. And Trump has made clear which group he would focus on.

Think about recent inspiring protests. Bree Newsome climbed a flagpole and removed a Confederate flag, following the Charleston massacre. She changed policy: the state permanently removed the flag from its capitol. Under this bill, Bree could be prosecuted for terrorism.

Under this bill, the Boston Tea Party was terrorism. “Property damage, intended to influence a government policy.” This is not how we reduce mass shootings or confront white supremacy. This is an invitation to trample the Constitution and encourage dictatorship. No thanks.

As you probably know, Blue America has endorsed Mike Siegel for Congress to replace McCaul. He nearly beat him in 2018 with the DCCC ignoring the race entirely. This time the DCCC isn't ignoring the race. They and EMILY's List have recruited a tepid conservative, garden variety Democrat to run against Mike. Even if she can't defeat McCaul, the DCCC is hoping she will drain all Mike's resources in a primary so that another independent-minded progressive who supports Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, free public colleges, increased minimum wage ($15/hour) and a ban on assault weapons doesn't wind up in the House to make it more difficult for the conservative establishment leadership to do what they like most: nothing controversial. Please consider contributing what you can to Mike's campaign-- and to the campaign of Jessica Cisneros, the progressive Democrat running against McCaul's partner, Henry Cuellar. Just click on the Take Back Texas thermometer on the right and do what you can. There are just 35 Democrats left opposed to banning assault weapons. Cuellar is one of them... right along with his pal McCaul.