A Slightly Different Way To Look At The Races Blue America Is Involved With So Far This Cycle: DACA

Courtesy of USC's Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, we've looked at the Numbers of DACA recipients in each district where we have an endorsee and where we have a candidate far along in the vetting process. We also noted the annual GDP loss in each district that would result in the deportation of the DACA workers. This is a very big issue in Texas, as you might guess from looking at the stats. Top of the list is Jason Westin's Houston district. Look at those figures! This morning Westin told us that "Ending DACA would have an enormous negative impact on Houston, and specifically the TX-07 community. The state of Texas has over 120,000 DREAMers, and more than 5,000 live in our Congressional district. We saw first hand their dedication to their country during Hurricane Harvey, when paramedic and DREAMer Jesus Contreras risked his own life to save others. Another DREAMer, Alonso Guillen, drowned in the floodwaters he entered to save strangers in need. In addition to the loss of 5,000 educated and productive members of our society, it is estimated our community would lose $290,000,000 in GDP. Let's be clear: John Culberson wants to send DREAMers to countries they have no memory of for a cheap political win, and a costly community loss.

And Derrick Crowe, the Texan running for the Austin-San Antonio corridor seat held by anti-immigrant fanatic Lamar Smith, summed up what most Blue America-endorsed candidates said about this burning issue. "We knew that scapegoating young people and breaking our word was a massive moral failure. Now we know that repealing DACA for the 2,600 recipients in Texas' 21st District inflicts huge financial damage on us as well. More than $110 million in lost annual revenue--another deep cost that Lamar Smith is willing to impose on his constituents to prop up Trump's ugly agenda."

• TX-07- Jason Westin vs John Culberson
• 5,500 DACA recipients
• $290,500,000 in lost annual revenue

• TX-32- Lillian Salerno vs Pete Sessions
• 5,200 DACA recipients
• $274,800,000 in lost annual revenue

• IL-03- Marie Newman vs Dan Lipinski
• 4,200 DACA recipients
• $237,300,000 in lost annual revenue

• CA-39- Sam Jammal vs Ed Royce
• 3,700 DACA recipients
• $202,000,000 in lost annual revenue

• CA-48- Laura Oatman vs Dana Rohrabacher
• 3,700 DACA recipients
• $199,400,000 in lost annual revenue

• CA-25- Katie Hall vs Steve Knight
• 2,900 DACA recipients
• $159,600,000 in lost annual revenue

• IL-06- Geoffrey Petzel vs Peter Roskam
• 2,700 DACA recipients
• $154,900,000 in lost annual revenue

• FL-25- Alina Valdes vs Mario Diaz-Balart
• 2,700 DACA recipients
• $128,900,000 in lost annual revenue

• NC-05- Jenny Marshall vs Virginia Foxx
• 2,600 DACA recipients
• $120,100,000 in lost annual revenue

• TX-21- Derrick Crowe vs Lamar Smith
• 2,600 DACA recipents
• $110,700,000 in lost annual revenue

• CA-49- Doug Applegate vs Darrell Issa
•1,800 DACA recipients
• $99,900,000 in lost annual revenue

• KS-04- James Thompson vs Ron Estes
• 1,600- DACA recipients
• $83,800,000 in lost annual revenue

• WI-01- Randy Bryce vs Paul Ryan
• 700 DACA recipients
• $28,600,000 in lost annual revenue

• IN-09- Dan Canon vs Trey Hollingsworth
• 600 DACA recipients
• $32,400,000 in lost annual revenue

• MI-06- Paul Clements vs Fred Upton
• 500 DACA recipients
• $36,800,000 n lost annual revenue

• MI-11- Haley Stevens vs [open]
• 500 DACA recipients
• $34,400,000 in lost annual revenue

• IL-13- David Gill vs Rodney Davis
• 400 DACA recipients
• $20,900,000 in lost annual revenue

Marie Newman is the progressive reformer running for the seat Dan Lipinski has been holding onto. "My opponent, Dan Lipinski has spent his career siding with Republicans on every immigration issue," she told us. "This is both a moral issue and an economic issue. Families will be broken apart, people will be punished arbitrarily and small businesses will fail at dramatic rates in the Third District if Dan Lipinski gets his way on immigration."

I doubt the folks in north central North Carolina want to see $120,100,000 disappear from their local economy (annually). But Virginia Foxx, herself a multimillionaire couldn't care less. She's very anti-immigrant and also very opposed to DACA. Jenny Marshall is the progressive running for the seat Foxx holds. This morning, she told is that she's "strongly against the deportation of DACA recipients. This is the only home they have ever known. They are simply seeking a legal way to work and contribute to their communities. Not only does deportation have emotional costs it will hurt our district in millions in lost annual revenue. These dreamers are not a drain on society or stealing anyone's job. They are citizens in every other sense and I would like to see them set on a path to citizenship, not deported."

Alina Valdes, the physician running for the south Florida seat that Ryan rubber stamp Mario Diaz holds. She's passionate about Trump's DACA betrayal. "As an immigrant and as a Latina, I find it difficult to comprehend how 800,000 Dreamers, brought into the US by their parents as children, could be up for deportation. They are upstanding adults, educated despite having to pay out of state tuition while not being eligible for school loans, speak perfect English, hold jobs with many being skilled and professional, pay taxes including social security and Medicare, own businesses and homes, have never been incarcerated, and have families. In other words, they are part of the melting pot that makes America the land of opportunity. These young people trusted that if they declared themselves and followed the rules, they would be allowed some deferments for being undocumented, ultimately leading to legal residency and citizenship. Instead, despite the economic benefit they bring to their states and districts of residence, they are being vilified and threatened with a disruption in the life and stability they have made for themselves. As a Trump enabler, Diaz-Balart and many others like him should be ashamed of themselves in not outwardly supporting DACA and the people it was meant to protect."

Health Care... Who Needs It Anyway!

Yesterday, writing for the Washington Post James Hohmann made the case that the blundering moron has wrecked the American health-care system by immediately halting cost-sharing reductions for 7 million Americans and now owns the dire consequences.

This is not “letting” Obamacare fail. Many nonpartisan experts believe that these active measures are likely to undermine the pillars of the 2010 law and hasten the collapse of the marketplaces.

The Pottery Barn rule comes to mind: You break it, you own it. Yes, the plate you just shattered had some cracks in it. But if you dropped it on the ground, the store is going to blame you.

As Barack Obama learned after the Great Recession, with heavy Democratic losses in the 2010 midterms, it’s hard to blame your predecessor for problems two years after you take office. Especially when your party has unified control of the federal government. No matter how much it might be the previous guy’s fault, many voters won’t buy it. People have very short attention spans.

The uncertainty about what Trump would do has already driven premium prices higher for 2018. Now it’s going to get worse. Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin explain why: “Trump has threatened for months to stop the payments, which go to insurers that are required by the laws to help eligible consumers afford their deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. But he held off while other administration officials warned him such a move would cause an implosion of the ACA marketplaces that could be blamed on Republicans … The fifth year’s open-enrollment season for consumers to buy coverage through ACA exchanges will start in less than three weeks, and insurers have said that stopping the cost-sharing payments would be the single greatest step the Trump administration could take to damage the marketplaces … Ending the payments is grounds for any insurer to back out of its federal contract to sell health plans for 2018.”

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the dean of the Florida Republican delegation to Congress, complained that Trump's mind-boggling decision to unilaterally and precipitously cut health care subsidies "will mean more uninsured in my district." She reminded him that he promised "more access, affordable coverage" complaining that his actions do the opposite. Is it possible that she's the only Republican with the integrity and guts to even question Trump on this decision that will so drastically impact the lives of so many millions of Americans?

Carol Shea Porter (D-NH) told her constituents what most Democrats in Congress are telling theirs. "Late last night, President Trump announced that he will torpedo the individual insurance market by ordering the government to stop making the Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) payments it owes. He is right to be so ashamed of this spiteful action he would only announce it in the dead of night. Stopping these payments won’t just hurt the lower-income people whose out-of-pocket costs are defrayed by CSRs, it will also hurt every one of the millions of Americans who buy their own coverage. That’s because insurance companies say they are going to charge everyone more to make up for the lost funding. Congress must act immediately to fund CSRs and protect our constituents from Trump’s vengeful and destructive actions." Friday another Republican sheepishly joined Ros-Lehtinen in trying to separate himself from Trump's insanity. Tom Reed (R-NY): "If Congress doesn't get it done the people who suffer are the people back home."

We reached out to Laura Oatman, the progressive running for the Orange County seat (CA-48, just downgraded by Cook from "leans Republican" to "toss-up") occupied by Trump rubber-stamp Dana Rohrabacher. "What Trump has done with the stroke of his pen," she told us, "now ends government subsidies that help our nation’s poorest people obtain the life-saving health care they need. There are more than 6 million low-income people across our country that will be affected by this, and in our district, there may be as many as 76,000 that will be left without health insurance. Rohrabacher’s record is clear-- he has voted with Trump to dismantle Obamacare every step of the way, and seems to have no regard for those 76,000 people that he’s supposed to represent and whose very lives will now be at risk. This is immoral and unacceptable. No one should have to worry about dying or going bankrupt because they cannot afford the lifesaving medicine or surgery they need to survive. It is time for him to go. We need strong, bold, progressive leadership here in District-48 to represent us in DC now, to fight for health care as a human right."

When I reached Kendra Fershee in a West Virginia district where Trump beat Hillary 68.0-26.4%-- but where Bernie also beat Hillary and, in many counties got more votes than Trump did on primary day-- she told me that my question made her think we were separated at birth. "I drafted a post about this exact issue this morning. Over the last couple of weeks, voters in the West Virginia First have been receiving a glossy tri-fold mailing from David McKinley, who pats himself on the back for his vote for the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would kick 14 million Americans out of their healthcare plans by next year. The AARP said the bill could cost many older West Virginians "$6,332 to $8,482 more per year" for healthcare (and inflict a lot of pain district-wide). Despite knowing all of this, Rep. McKinley voted for the bill, which he reports in the mailer under a heading that says, 'Promises Kept.' Is this the kind of promise we want our Representative to make?" She continued with her own communication to people in the northern third of West Virginia, district that includes the Panhandle, Wheeling, Parkersburg, Morgantown and Clarksburg:

Yesterday, President Trump slashed subsidies to health insurance companies, which will strip insurance from the people who need it most (despite his promise in January that he would provide "insurance for everyone"). Rep. Paul Ryan said the move was appropriate because Congress controls the "power of the purse." So, West Virginians want to know whether Rep. McKinley is going to use the power his constituents granted him to do the right thing and seek support in Congress to fund the subsidies. After his vote to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with a much worse option (the AHCA), it's hard to imagine he will step up now. We need leadership who will ensure that this political gamesmanship will stop and fight for universal healthcare. I'm ready to be that leader.

State Senator Daylin Leach is the leading candidate contesting Pat Meehan's seat in the suburbs of Philadelphia (PA-07). He told us just what he's telling voters in Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster and Chester counties. "It's clear that America's access to health care is more under attack than ever. And Pat is not someone you can have confidence will fight for us and our families on this. He was for the awful Republican health care bill before he was against it. But don't forget, he voted to completely and totally repeal the Affordable Care Act, with NO replacement at all, over 50 times. That's no replacement, zero protection for pre-existing conditions, zero minimum coverage, no subsidies to help families afford it, nothing. So like most of the rest of his Republican colleagues, ideology was more important than making sure kids can go to the doctor when they are sick."

Dayna Steele is running against one of the most extreme anti-healthcare Republicans in East Texas; maybe Louie Gohmert is worse, although Babin and Gohmert usually vote in tandem. "It is unfathomable to me how many times the incumbent Babin has voted to take away health care from thousands of his constituents in Southeast Texas," Dayna told me yesterday. "Instead of improving during his watch, the health of people in the district and their health care has declined every year. We have a large populated county in the district without a hospital. Texas has the #1 maternal death rate in the U.S. (and higher than many industrialized countries.) Women's clinics have been shut down. CHIP is being taken away. Veterans benefits will decrease. the list goes on. And now, in the aftermath of Harvey, national media is referring to the Gulf of Mexico and the Houston Ship channel as a "toxic gumbo" after all the leaks, spills, and explosions caused by the hurricane. This will add to an already catastrophic health situation in CD-36 over the next few years. It is as if they are 'culling the herd' as we say in Texas. One of the many reasons #whyIrun."

Lillian Salerno is another strong and brilliant progressive woman running in a completely different part of Texas (north Dallas) for a seat held by a slippery member of Paul Ryan's leadership team, Pete Sessions. Yesterday, she told us that she's "seen first hand how Sessions and the Washington elite use their positions as a way to line their own pockets from a broken healthcare system at the expense of working families. Pete Sessions does not have the background to understand healthcare, but that does not stop him from writing bills meant to gut Obamacare. By ending cost-sharing reduction payments, many ACA enrollees may see steep premium increases and some insurers may pull out of the marketplace all together. It has never been more critical for the people of Texas-32 to have a real leader in Congress-- let me have at 'em."

Here in California, 673,104 people rely on the cost-sharing reduction payments Trump just abolished, primarily so he could give the wealthiest 1% of Americans tax reductions-- while driving up the cost of insurance by around 20%. Any California Republicans willing to stand up to Trump's reckless gambling with the lives of so many of the state's citizens? Not Mimi Walters, that's for sure. Kia Hamadanchy, one of the progressives vying for the nomination to take her on told us that "Trump is going out of his way to deliberately sabotage and undermine the Affordable Care Act. His actions will lead to less people in this country having health insurance. There is no healthcare policy expert who thinks this is a good idea or that will it do anything to make health insurance more affordable or accessible. But yet again Mimi Walters continues to remain silent and refuses to say or do anything to contradict Donald Trump, even when she knows he is acting against the interests of her constituents. I've said a number of times that I think we need to transition to single payer. But that does not mean we should actively work to make the healthcare system worse, which Donald Trump and Mimi Walters are doing."

Predictably, three physicians running for Republican held seats felt very strongly about Trump's action. Alina Valdes is running for the south Florida seat occupied by Trump rubber-stamp Mario Diaz-Balart. She sent us a statement that says it all:

As a physician, who has taken care of the poor and uninsured for 35 years, I have always felt that a one payer health care system, without private for-profit companies, is the way to go in this country. Politicizing health care makes it seem like it is optional in people's lives, like something that could be bought or not. Sooner or later, we all need medical care and that is why I support Medicare for All or HR 676 and its counterpart in the Senate, S 1782.

While I support fixing the ACA as a temporary measure to continue healthcare coverage for the maximum number of people possible, the only way to guarantee healthcare, which is a human right, is to make it a benefit for all Americans guaranteed by the US government regardless of ability to pay.

Right now, for profit insurance companies, who are beholding to their investors and stock holders, determine who gets certain benefits and this, in turn, is determined by the users ability to pay. This translates into better healthcare for those able to pay more and many with no healthcare because they cannot afford it.  We need a humane, all inclusive option that will be cost effective while covering every single American. This leads to a one payer healthcare system run by the government, like Medicare, which has a 3% administrative cost when compared to a privatized insurance system, many having as high as 30% administrative costs.

Insurance is generally based on risk and this determines premiums but how can you assess risk on a newborn? By covering all 350 million with a minor increase in Medicare payroll deduction, you eliminate for profit companies and the attached premiums these bring. No matter which company provides your healthcare now, they are all increasing their premiums and crying poverty while their stocks continue to rake in record profits. Employers are removing many choices from their employee benefits because of these ever increasing costs to their bottom line.

We can eliminate all other forms of insurance beholding to Congress and its whims like CHIP, which has not been funded past this year, leaving 9 million children uninsured and Medicaid, which covers the destitute, disabled, and many elderly now being cut in the proposed budget. Businesses, especially small ones, can benefit by eliminating workmen's compensation, which now consumes a large portion of costs to companies.

I conclude that the logical solution to the difficult logistics of providing healthcare to the maximum number of people for the minimum cost is a one payer healthcare system backed by the US government, like Medicare For All. Until you have walked in somebody's shoes or side by side with them, healthcare may be a luxury many cannot afford but by making it available to all regardless of ability to pay, we can have a healthier, generally more productive working class.

Dr. David Gill, running for a seat in central Illinois, is laser focused on improving the healthcare system, not wrecking it. He just said "My Republican opponent, Rodney Davis, stated in a radio interview yesterday that President Trump's cut to health care subsidies will 'lower premiums.' This couldn't be further from the truth. There may be some small number of residents in the district that will see lower premiums, but the vast majority of IL-13 residents will see steep increases in premiums; in many cases, this will make health insurance completely unaffordable for families here in central Illinois. Mr. Davis' deceit and support of the president is not at all surprising-- he has backed every version of TrumpCare, and he has repeatedly lied in stating that TrumpCare would prevent insurers from billing higher premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. Mr. Davis and I are like night and day on the topic of health care: he stands with the for-profit private health insurance industry that subsidizes his campaigns, while I, as a 25-year member of Physicians for a National Health Program, advocate for the single-payer system which Americans have been deprived of for decades. I look forward to sending Mr. Davis home from Washington, and once I've taken his seat, I intend to speak as a boldly progressive physician in providing leadership toward the effort to finally bring a single-payer plan to fruition here in America."

Our third physician is an award winning oncologist and cancer researcher in Houston, Jason Westin. Early this morning he told us that "After Trump decided to allow 'junk' insurance plans and refused to pay critical CSR subsidies, it was clear to all that he was deliberately working to sabotage the ACA. Two Republican Members of Congress had the courage of their convictions to rightly declare Trump's moves to be wrong-- John Culberson was not one. Once again, Culberson has decided to stand with Donald Trump and turn his back on us in Texas 7th. After I take Culberson's seat in 2018, I will fight for true universal coverage, to bring down the drivers of healthcare costs like prescription drug prices, and to speed up our search for new cures. It's long past time for our leaders to lead on healthcare, and if career politicians like Culberson want to play partisan political games instead, we will need to elect new leaders to get the job done."

Tom Guild's campaign keeps picking up steam in Oklahoma City and we could wind up with a progressive Democrat in Congress from Oklahoma for the first time in more decades than anyone remembers. "Trump," he said, "has done it again! He never misses an opportunity to disappoint us. Although he said all the politically correct things running for president about health care, at every opportunity he does everything in his power to undermine health care for Americans. He has undermined Medicare, Medicaid, and gone after the Affordable Care Act with a vengeance rarely seen in American politics. Steve Russell goes merrily along with each and every attempt the Donald cooks up to hurt hard working Americans. He wants to cut trillions from Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA, and Russell supports Trump at every turn. The new federal budget, voted for by Russell takes from working people and the middle class and gives to the top 1% in huge tax cuts. Both must have been distracted when their teachers read the story of Robin Hood to their classes. Now Trump has signed an executive order with the intent of further weakening the ACA and destroying the individual market place created under the law. Once again, like two peas in a pod, Russell is on board and a member of the Trump Wrecking Crew. I am disgusted that Trump and Russell have intentionally sabotaged the ACA, needlessly leaving 130,000 Oklahomans seeking health care coverage with an avoidable 30% increase in their premiums. Dr. Terry Cline, Oklahoma’s Secretary of Health and Human Services and Commissioner of Health at the Oklahoma State Department of Health recently chided both Trump and his recently departed HHS Secretary Tom Price for denying the state of Oklahoma a waiver provided for in the ACA that would have helped more than 130,000 Oklahomans struggling with dramatic increases in premiums. It would have afforded a more than 30% premium reduction for 130,000 Oklahomans, who now are forced to buy health insurance under the ACA rendered unreasonably more expensive because of the malicious actions of Trump’s appointees, supported by his lackeys in Congress like Russell. Russell does the bidding of a treacherous and toxic president while laying waste to working people in our congressional district. It is time to repeal and replace Russell in the 2018 elections and elect a hard working progressive to represent the fifth district of Oklahoma. The more the twin towers of tyranny work to destroy health care coverage for Americans, the more inevitable and necessary universal affordable healthcare becomes. Single payer. Dragon slayer."

Paul Clements is running for a seat in southwest Michigan held by one of the architects of Trumpcare, Fred Upton. He told us today that "at the end of April Upton opposed the Republican health care plan. Then Donald Trump called him for a meeting and promised $8 billion dollars to address insurance costs for pre-existing conditions-- a pittance compared to their actual cost, and Upton flipped. On May 4 the Upton Amendment got the bill the final handful of votes it needed to pass the House. This bill would have hurt poor people, older Americans, people with pre-existing conditions, state governments, hospitals, and Planned Parenthood. It would have helped high-income earners and people who wish to go without health insurance. If Upton had held firm, Congress would have had a chance to actually start a bipartisan discussion. Now Trump is throwing our health care system into chaos, doing even more to hurt poor people, older Americans, and people with pre-existing conditions. Sadly, evidence on how the health of Americans can actually be improved at lower cost has had no role in Republican plans. Opposing President Obama seems to have been a priority. For the evidence is clear-- it is the private health insurance system that gave us the most expensive health care system in the world, one that yields worse health results. The way to make care cheaper and better is to move to single payer, such as, for a first step, by making an expanded Medicare available to all."

Dan Canon is running against right-wing Indiana freshman Trey Hollingsworth (IN-09) and the two couldn't be more different when it comes to healthcare. "I've been very clear that I believe healthcare is a human right," said Canon, "and should be accessible to everyone regardless of how wealthy they are. Representative Hollingsworth voted to repeal the ACA but, like most of his colleagues, hasn't offered any solutions to replace it. Now, as Trump unilaterally dismantles the ACA from the inside out, Hollingsworth lacks the integrity to speak on the matter at all, even as his fellow Republicans are finally starting to show some courage. Hollingsworth knows full well that Trump's actions will take away meaningful access to healthcare from hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers. He just doesn't care."

Today the DCCC was railing against Republicans who support Trump's healthcare plans and who voted against aid for the victims of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Virginia Foxx fits both categories to a "t." Yet, for all their bluster, the DCCC is just collecting money for itself and doing absolutely nothing for the candidates running against these Republicans who fit that description. Nothing! Jenny Marshall is taking on Foxx on her own. Yesterday she told us that Foxx "has sought to dismantle the ACA at every turn since it's passage. In Foxx's opinion 'The American people desperately need relief from a failed health care law that has increased costs, taken away choices, destroyed jobs, and burdened small businesses. Republicans are committed to delivering that relief.' Well, the past 24 hours gave Foxx what she has been seeking, the dismantling of the ACA. A position that will increase costs and raise the uninsured rates across the country. I, on the other hand, advocate for a single payer universal healthcare system that would cover everyone without worry of co-pays or deductibles. We must join the rest of the industrialized countries by investing in our citizens and accepting that healthcare is a basic human right."

Trump And Cuba-- And How The DCCC Is Making Sure Diaz-Balart Keeps His FL-25 House Seat

Writing for The Atlantic this morning, Ben Rhodes, the architect of Obama’s Cuba opening—dug down into why Trump’s ill-thought out Cuba policy will fail. Short version: tossing political bones to the reactionary Marco Rubio and Mario Diaz-Balart and their elderly supporters isn’t “policy.” It’s a pointless mistake. Rhodes pointed out that one of the most depressing things about Trump’s decision to partially roll back parts of the Cuba opening is how predictable it was. “A Republican candidate for president makes last-minute campaign promises to a hard-line Cuban American audience in South Florida. Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart hold him to those promises. The U.S. government announces changes that will hurt ordinary Cubans, harm the image of the United States, and make it harder for Americans to do business and travel somewhere they want to go.”

While President Obama raised the hopes of Americans and Cubans alike with a forward-looking opening in diplomatic, commercial and people-to-people ties, President Trump is turning back the clock to a tragically failed Cold War mindset by reimposing restrictions on those activities. While not a full reversal of the Obama opening, Trump’s actions have put relations between the United States and Cuba back into the prison of the past—setting back the prospects for reform inside of Cuba, and ignoring the voices of the Cuban people and a majority of Americans just so that he can reward a small and dwindling political constituency.

It didn’t have to be this way, and it won’t stay this way.

…Last month, President Trump travelled to Saudi Arabia-- a country ruled by a family, where people are beheaded and women can’t drive. He announced tens of billions of dollars in arms sales, and said: “We are not here to lecture. We are not here to tell other people how to live.” Can anyone credibly argue that Trump’s Cuba policy is motivated by a commitment to promote human rights around the world? No. Moreover, as a democracy-promotion vehicle, the embargo has been a failure. For more than 50 years, it has been in place; for more than 50 years, a Castro has governed Cuba. If anything, the embargo has provided a justification for the Cuban government to suppress political dissent in the name of protecting Cuban sovereignty.

By breaking with this past, the Obama administration improved the lives of the Cuban people, and brought hope to people who had learned to live without it. The nascent Cuban private sector-- shops, restaurants, taxis-- grew dramatically, fueled by unlimited remittances from the United States. Over a quarter of Cubans today work in the private sector. This represents both an improvement in their quality of life, and in their human rights, as they are no longer reliant on the state for their livelihoods.

…[Trump’s actions] represent a step backwards. By restricting engagement with large swaths of the Cuban economy controlled by the military, Trump is simultaneously demanding that Cuba embrace capitalism while making it harder for them to do so. Cuba will be exposed to less engagement from American companies and less incentives from American revenue. U.S. businesses can only press for reforms in how Cuba structures its economy-- like allowing foreign companies to hire Cubans directly-- if they can actually do business in Cuba. Meanwhile, the Cuban government is not going to let go of their holdings because the U.S tells them to; they’re far more likely to turn to Russia and China. By removing America from the equation, Trump delivered a better deal for Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

While Trump did not take dramatic steps to restrict travel, he made it more difficult. U.S. travelers now have to go through the absurd process of figuring out if a hotel they’re staying at is owned by the Cuban military, which applies to most of Old Havana. Ominous language about requiring Americans to document their activities, and warning that they could be audited, will have a chilling effect. Despite rhetoric about supporting Cuban entrepreneurs, any reduction in travel is going to hit them-- common sense suggests that someone who stays at a military-owned hotel will also ride in taxis, eat in restaurants, and shop at stores owned by ordinary Cubans. Those are the Cubans that Trump is hurting--not hotel owners who will still welcome tourists other countries.

So what is gained by these actions? Trump will say he is promoting democracy, but the opposite is true. Cuba is going through its own leadership transition, with Raul Castro set to step aside later this year. What could have been an opportunity for the United States to support an evolution in Cuba’s system through engagement has now become an opportunity for hard-liners to tighten their grip on power. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the Cuban government is about to collapse and give way to a democratic movement. On the contrary, the Cuban government is comfortable containing the dissidents that the United States supports.

…The instinct for isolation that Trump embraced will fail. Ironically, the hard-liners who pressed Trump to make these changes are only condemning themselves to future irrelevance. Polls show that over 70 percent of Americans-- including a majority of Republicans--support lifting the embargo. Younger Cuban Americans are far more likely to support lifting the embargo than their parents and grandparents. Fifty-five senators have co-sponsored a bill to lift the travel ban, and Republicans from states that depend on agriculture want to promote business in Cuba. Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that a poll showed 97 percent of the Cuban people supporting normalization with the United States.

Donald Trump is delivering his remarks on Cuba at the Manuel Artime Theater, named for a leader of the Bay of Pigs Invasion. He couldn’t have found a better symbol for the past. But ultimately, the past must give way to the wishes of the people. Fidel Castro is dead. A new generation, in Cuba and the United States, doesn’t want to be defined by quarrels that pre-date their birth. The embargo should--and will-- be discarded. Engagement should-- and will-- prevail. That is why Trump’s announcement should be seen for what it is: not as a step forward for democracy, but as the last illogical gasp of a strain of American politics with a 50-year track record of failure; one that wrongly presumes we can control what happens in Cuba. The future of Cuba will be determined by the Cuban people, and those Americans who want to help them, not hurt them.

In return for the bones Trump threw him, Mario Diaz-Balart, agreed to vote for TrumpCare, a bill that will devastate the healthcare system in South Florida and take away real access to healthcare from tens of thousands of Diaz-Balart’s own constituents. Last year, a year that saw Hillary win overwhelmingly in Miami-Dade (two to one) and come within 2 points of winning FL-25, the DCCC ignored the Democratic candidate, Dr. Alina Valdes running for the seat. “Too progressive,” “too independent-minded,” and “too grassroots” is how the establishment powerbrokers saw her. She’s running again in 2018… but the DCCC has other ideas about how to deal with Diaz-Balart, a close crony of corrupt South Florida political boss Debbie Wassermann Schultz’s, someone whose seat she has endeavored to protect in past election cycles. The DCCC and the Wassermann Schultz establishment are working to insert the man Al Gore famously described as “the single most treacherous and dishonest person I dealt with” in the 2000 election-- Alex Penelas-- as the party’s nominee. Penelas, a corrupt conservative Democrat, has been trying to get back into politics for years and sees a weakened Diaz-Balart as his ticket.

Alina Valdes showed the DCCC and Florida Democrats that defeating Diaz-Balart is within grasp so… leave it too them to turn to a loathed and reviled figure who can’t galvanize energy or support and who can’t win instead of getting behind Valdes’ campaign. Her new campaign website lays out her agenda and the issues motivating her run.

Last year Valdes described Debbie Wasserman Schultz as "hateful and vindictive" towards her candidacy and told me that the then-DNC chair, since forced out after being caught trying to rig elections, was doing all she could behind the scenes to bolster Diaz-Balart. "When I first started this race over a year and a half ago," Valdes told me 11 months ago, "I did not know that I would be maligned by the DNC chair. I naively thought that she would be happy to have a Democrat challenging a career Republican who doesn't do much to help his district. What I have found out since then has been indeed eye opening. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, from what I keep hearing, has blacklisted me so I do not get the support of organizations and unions in order to support her friend Mario Diaz-Balart. How could a DNC chair, tasked with electing Democrats up and down the ticket, as she keeps saying every time she gets interviewed, do something like this? Democrats in South Florida are afraid of her and the amount of damage she could inflict on them by not supporting them. Mario Diaz-Balart has not been challenged by a Democrat in 8 years and I dared do the unthinkable.”

Even In Red Districts GOP Votes For TrumpCare Are Going To Come Back To Bite Them-- Mario Diaz-Balart

Steve Stivers (R-OH), the chair of the NRCC, told the NY Times a few days ago that the Republicans had to pass Ryan's TrumpCare bill to "keep our own base excited." But even the GOP base isn't excited. A new poll shows 78% of Hillary voters strongly opposed to it while just 23% of Trump voters are strongly in favor of it. After Ileana Ros-Lehtinen denounced the Ryan plan to devastate Medicaid in order to further enrich America's wealthiest families, the two other South Florida Republicans, Mario Diaz-Balart and Carlos Curbelo, started making noises to indicate that they were "undecided" about TrumpCare 3.0 and might vote against it. Had they, it would have failed with a 215-215 tie, instead of a 217-213 win (win for Ryan and Trump; loss for the American people).

Last year Dr. Alina Valdes, a dedicated physician for the disenfranchised and marginalized poor, most of whom, she's told us, "have at least two jobs and find it hard to make ends meet, took on Diaz-Balart with no help from the DCCC, no help from the Florida Democratic Party and no help from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was busy trying to wipe out all traces of Democrats who backed Bernie and his progressive platform. Diaz-Balart spent $1,512,687 against her $37,074 grassroots campaign. She still managed to take 95,319 votes. She's determined to do much better in 2018. She told us that it's been an honor for her to care for the health for 3 decades of the disadvantaged people who are her patients. "Since the ACA went into effect," she told us, "many of these patients finally had the opportunity to see a doctor for the first time in their lives. Others were finally able to see a doctor for chronic conditions long ignored due to lack of resources and inability to qualify for affordable health insurance. They were either too 'well off' to be eligible for Medicaid but too poor to afford private health insurance." She wrote a guest post for us about her differences with Diaz-Balart on public health policy.

There is nothing wrong with the ACA that can't be fixed; it has provided health insurance for millions Americans since its implementation. Private insurers have been whining about how they cannot continue to provide health care to all with the regulations and fees set up to protect the consumer, but a quick look at the stock market shows that they are raking in record profits.

Now the House Republicans have launched a cruel and vicious attack on the health care for the most vulnerable and needy in our society after having finally garnished enough votes in their quest to repeal and replace the ACA or Obamacare. The AHCA or Trumpcare rolls back just about all the protections that were afforded by the ACA and allows insurance companies to set the rules again about who and what they will cover. They have basically passed a bill that would give massive tax breaks to the wealthy and well connected while denying affordable healthcare to the most needy.

After this vote was taken on Thursday, I decided to run against the same man I challenged in 2016 and one of the supporters of the bill, Mario Diaz-Balart, U.S, Congressman, FL CD-25. He is one of Trump's most ardent supporters and approves of denying healthcare to his constituents, many of whom live in Hialeah, a city in Miami-Dade county with the highest enrollment in the ACA last year. Instead of following the will of his constituents, Diaz-Balart has chosen to follow the Republican Party line of giving to the rich while taking from the poor. Many of these hard working Americans will be left without health insurance yet again so their Representative can take special interest and lobbyist money to line his pockets. This law will also affect Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements making it harder for the elderly to be able to afford added costs to their premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

Diaz-Balart also has another ulterior motive... to have the Trump administration roll back the diplomatic gains the Obama administration made towards Cuba. He is a man with a mission and a family grudge dating back to his father and the Batista regime. He has been hell bent on punishing the Castros for what they have done to his family 58 years ago when Mario was not even a twinkle in his parents' eyes. All he has managed to do in this regard is to hurt the Cuban people by continuing an embargo that has long outlived its usefulness.

My views on healthcare are completely different than those of Diaz-Balart... we need to add the public option back into the ACA and let the free market decide as most Republicans keep saying they want to do. They, however, do not include this as one of the logical choices in any healthcare plan because it will once and for all conclude in a one-payer health system. This is ultimately what we need to work towards... a system that covers all from birth to death regardless of their ability to pay. As I have advocated for over 30 years and reinforced in my treatment of the poor, HEALTH CARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT and should be available to all Americans.

My name is Alina Valdes, MD, a proud American, Cuban immigrant, and physician to the needy and I am running for FL CD-25 as a Democrat for the 2018 elections. I hereby challenge Mr. Diaz-Balart to a debate on healthcare, during which time he will have the opportunity to defend his yes vote on the AHCA. Please support my campaign by donating what you can to help me defeat this incumbent who no longer has his finger on the pulse of his district.

Sugar's Missing From The New Cuba Reforms... Wasserman Schultz Is Smiling... And Counting Her Fat Bribes

By the 1860s Cuba was the chief sugar producer in the world and by the 1880s the US consumed most of Cuba’s exported sugar. In 1898, following the Spanish-American War, the US effectively acquired Cuba. The U.S. came close to annexing Cuba but sugar beet producers in Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming and Colorado were able to prevent it so that Cuban sugar wouldn't destroy their profits. By the time of the Cuban Revolution in 1959 the value of U.S. investments in Cuba was over three times that for all the rest of Latin America, with american companies owning about half of the country's sugar refineries. In the 1960s the embargo ended the sugar trade with the U.S. entirely. Sugarcane is still Cuba's top crop and number 1 export-- but not to the U.S., where Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R-FL) have worked to keep U.S. consumer prices high on behalf of the domestic sugar industry that has financed both of their political careers. The three anti-Cuba reactionaries have effectively kept inexpensive Cuban sugar out of the U.S. and forced American consumers to spend billions of dollars more for food items that includes sugar.

Yesterday, President Obama issued a presidential directive on Cuba that seeks to cement his policy changes toward the island and encourage further engagement even after he leaves office. In another step towards normalization of relations, the administration released a sixth set of regulatory changes designed to enhance business and trade between the United States and Cuba. Under the new rules, which go into effect Monday, travelers can purchase unlimited quantities of Cuban rum and cigars in any country where they are sold so long as they are for personal consumption.

Obama also called on Congress to end the dysfunctional 50-year-old economic embargo, something Wasserman Schultz and Ros-Lehtinen will never allow to happen while they are still wielding any power whatsoever. Anyone who is playing attention to what did and did not happen, will have notcied that there is no change in American policy towards Wasserman Schultz's, Ros-Lehtinen's and Diaz-Balart's financiers in the surf industry. The cartel stands. Obama:

Today, I approved a Presidential Policy Directive that takes another major step forward in our efforts to normalize relations with Cuba. This Directive takes a comprehensive and whole-of-government approach to promote engagement with the Cuban government and people, and make our opening to Cuba irreversible.

In December 2014, following more than 50 years of failed policy, I announced that the United States would begin a process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Since then, we've worked with the people and the government of Cuba to do exactly that-- re-establishing diplomatic relations, opening embassies, expanding travel and commerce, and launching initiatives to help our people cooperate and innovate. This new directive consolidates and builds upon the changes we've already made, promotes transparency by being clear about our policy and intentions, and encourages further engagement between our countries and our people.

Consistent with this approach, the Departments of Treasury and Commerce issued further regulatory changes today, building on the progress made over the last two years, to continue to facilitate more interaction between the Cuban and American people, including through travel and commercial opportunities, and more access to information. This follows previous changes that helped facilitate interconnectivity between our peoples, and to promote economic reforms on the island by providing access to the dollar in international transactions. These changes are representative of the progress I saw firsthand when I visited Havana to personally extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people. The quick flight over 90 miles of blue water belied the real barriers of the past that were crossed that day, but my interactions with everyday Cubans told a promising story of neighbors working to build broader ties of cooperation across the Americas.

Challenges remain-- and very real differences between our governments persist on issues of democracy and human rights-- but I believe that engagement is the best way to address those differences and make progress on behalf of our interests and values. The progress of the last two years, bolstered by today's action, should remind the world of what's possible when we look to the future together.

By the way Wasserman Schultz has taken $138,450 in direct bribes from Big Sugar since being elected to Congress. She has also been their bag man among Democrats, tell the Fanjul brothers which Democrats to grease and which ones not to pay off. Mario Diaz-Balart has taken $121,350 and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, more cautious about easily stackable bribes, has gobbled up $70,415.

Diaz-Balart has an opponent this cycle, progressive physician Alina Valdes, who Wasserman Schultz has managed to sabotage inside the Florida Democratic Party and inside the DCCC. Blue America is supporting Alina and you can contribute to her grassroots campaign here. Moments ago, she told is that her district (FL-25) "is an enigma. Comprising parts of urban Miami-Dade, suburban east Collier, and rural Hendry counties, it is difficult to represent the interests of some without affecting those of others. One thing that for sure is that the incumbent takes so much special interest money from Big Sugar that he represents the interests of those who pay for his vote and not the constituents of the actual district. There are many sugar fields that go unused because of government subsidies Big Sugar gets to leave them unused. We, as Americans, are paying to have sugar present in just about all of our processed foods and this may explain why the incidence of obesity and diabetes have been going up in this country. While many of the people of Hendry live off of Big Sugar and their influence in the community, the use of fertilizers are causing many problems to the drinking water people to the south depend on. We recently had an algae bloom which affected said waters and, coupled with climate change and its consequences (which is also denied by the incumbent and the Republican governor and legislature)... a delicate balance needs to be worked out between the needs of the working people and their right to clean, safe water.

"We also have to consider the steps that President Obama has been taking towards diplomacy and and advocacy to lifting the Cuban embargo, which will affect Big Sugar in South Florida. It is time that we work on removing a decades-long failed policy and begin trade and travel with our island neighbors to the southeast, with conditions that if broken, will lift the embargo again. Generations of politically exiled Cubans have lived and died without ever seeing their families or their homeland since leaving. I think it is time to end this separation of families which is long overdue and is supported by my opponent. Let us work towards a mutually beneficial agreement that will help the most. If elected to Congress, I will study this issue in detail and work to enact policy that will benefit the people and not the special interests. PEOPLE before PROFITS... COUNTRY before PARTY... ALWAYS!!!"

GOP Imploding

This hasn't been a good election cycle for Paul Ryan. He got muscled out of the early running for the presidential nomination by a a bunch of buffoons The Deep Bench and then he wound up jumping on the Trump Train to nowhere. It's been all downhill from there and yesterday Trump took a couple of seconds out of his busy schedule attacking CNN to fart in Ryan's face:

This morning Trump was on twitter again, attacking Ryan again, delusional and ranting that he won the debate-- he didn't-- and that Ryan is a "very weak and ineffective leader," adding that Ryan had "had a bad conference call where his members went wild at his disloyalty." He seems to be setting Ryan up as someone he can blame after he loses next month. "It's hard to do well," he tweeted this morning, "when Paul Ryan and others give zero support." Ryan may soon learn with the ire of the deplorables is worth in terms of votes.

Now pundits on Politico are debating whether or not he'll unendorse his party's vulgarian presidential nominee. "He feels torn between his own conscience and his obligations as the top Republican in the country... about saving his massive 60-seat majority... Many of his closest allies say left to his own devices, he'd dump Trump. But Ryan, who's seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2020, has held on, despite some possible long-term political upside of abandoning Trump. The immediate calculation is this: If Ryan pulls his endorsement, the base could revolt or stay home on Election Day, damaging GOP House candidates. Plus, in some of the deep red districts around the country, constituents want House Republicans to rally around Trump no matter what." Trump was reacting to the conference call that Ryan had with the House Republican conference early Monday morning after a tumultuous weekend for Trump that ended in another disastrous debate performance Sunday night. Trump allies inside Ryan's conference immediately reported to Trump Tower that Ryan had signaled he was giving up on the idea of the GOP winning the White House and is now strictly focused on "ensuring Hillary Clinton doesn't get a blank check as president with a Democratic-controlled Congress."

Even as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel called on Paul Ryan to unendorse Trump, Ryan said he's done defendingTrump's outlandish statements and that he won't campaign with him or for him and that other members are on their own in deciding what to do about Trump. "You all need to do what's best for you in your district," he was reported to have said. In their reporting, for the NYTimes, Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin called Ryan's call "a hammer blow to Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy Monday, dashing any remaining semblance of party unity and inviting fierce backlash from his own caucus." The Journal Sentinel editors wrote that Ryan "has tiptoed to the water’s edge but he still won’t jump in. If he really wants to maintain the integrity of the Republican Party and its principles-- and save down ticket candidates-- Ryan needs to repudiate his endorsement of GOP nominee Donald Trump. Instead, Ryan keeps dancing around the edges... [H]e thinks by doing so, he would endanger his party’s chances of winning other elections, especially in the House. But by continuing to stand by (if somewhat apart) the GOP pretender for the presidency, Ryan calls into question the party’s basic principles, which ultimately may have the opposite effect of what he wants... Ryan and other Republican leaders should make clear that they will fight tooth and nail for the Republican Party but that Donald Trump does not deserve their endorsements."

There was a backlash from Trumpists on Ryan's call-- the kind of Republicans who voted against the Violence Against Women Act and see nothing wrong with Trump's attitude and behavior towards women. Like California nincompoop Dana Rohrabacher (who sits safely in an R+7 district the DCCC isn't contesting. Rohrabacher raised $713,881 compared to his grassroots opponent's $54,155). He "attacked Republicans stepping away from Mr. Trump as 'cowards,' three lawmakers said. Another, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona, used graphic language to describe abortion and said allowing Mrs. Clinton into the White House would end with fetuses being destroyed 'limb from limb.'" Franks, who many inside the GOP caucus say is certifiably insane-- torn apart internally because by his struggle against his own homosexuality while attempting to be the most anti-gay member of a very anti-gay party-- is in an even redder district that Rohrabacher. His hellhole in the Arizona desert has a PVI of R+15 and his district is so ignored by the DCCC that his only opponent is a write-in candidate!

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Mr. Ryan, confirmed that his sole priority for the remainder of the election would be defending congressional Republicans.

“The speaker is going to spend the next month focused entirely on protecting our congressional majorities,” Ms. Strong said.

Ms. Strong said there was “no update” regarding Mr. Ryan’s endorsement of Mr. Trump.

The breach between Mr. Ryan and Mr. Trump concluded five months in which the two men have alternated between friction and courtship, eventually forging an uneasy working relationship only to see it collapse in the final weeks of the race.

The consequences for both men are enormous. Mr. Ryan and other Republican leaders fear that Mr. Trump’s flagging campaign could unwind their majorities in the House and Senate, while Mr. Trump can ill afford rejection from more prominent Republicans.

...Representative Scott Rigell of Virginia, a Republican who has long been opposed to Mr. Trump, said there was a general sense in the House that more humiliating disclosures about Mr. Trump were likely to come before Nov. 8, Election Day.

“There’s a consensus, even among supporters, that the likelihood of something else breaking in a very embarrassing and negative fashion, is certainly better than 50-50,” said Mr. Rigell, who joined the call on Monday. “The conference, members, et cetera, are bracing themselves for another salvo of this.”

...[I]n a potentially ominous sign for the party, Kellyanne Conway, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, also offered a note of warning for Republicans fleeing Mr. Trump. Mr. Ryan, she noted on television, had been booed by Trump fans over the weekend in Wisconsin after asking Mr. Trump not to attend a political event in his home state.

Ms. Conway also repeatedly indicated that she was aware of Republican lawmakers who had behaved inappropriately toward young women, and whose criticism of Mr. Trump was therefore hypocritical.

And it wasn't just Kellyanne signaling that there would be a price to pay if the GOP officially abandons Trump. Trump's somewhat psychotic official spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, tweeted Monday that "people from all over the country" will vote for Trump but not for down ballot candidates. Music to Ryan's ears? Yeah... Ted Nugent's unreleased solo album.

Back to Ryan's call for a moment. The fear, of course, isn't really about Trump-- they all wish Trump Force One would crash and burn-- it's about the "best" strategy for keeping a House majority they feel is starting to slip from their grasp.

Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, urged members on the conference call to take new polls in their districts to gauge the impact of Mr. Trump’s political slide.

Mr. Walden said they should brace for a steep erosion of support for Mr. Trump and acknowledged the falloff could undermine congressional candidates, too. He asked the entire caucus to contribute quickly to the party’s campaign arm, making it clear they needed to bolster their defenses across the country.

Still, many members were pointed in their expressions of dismay, warning Mr. Ryan of grave consequences, in November and beyond, if Mr. Trump’s campaign collapses altogether. Representative Billy Long of Missouri spoke up in Mr. Trump’s defense, citing the danger of losing the Supreme Court in the event of a Clinton victory.

“Many of us commented that if Hillary picks the next two to four judges, it will change the fabric of our country of 40, 50 years,” Mr. Long said of the call. “Abortion and the Second Amendment, also, and lots of Supreme Court concerns.”

The DSCC is running ads based on the video above. Republicans are in a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation with Trump. And many of them are too frightened to take a coherent stand. Very endangered Long Island Congressman Peter King, for example, tells people on one day that Trump is unfit for office and follows that up the next day by urging them to vote for him. Voters are starting it think he's as crazy as Trump is. Yesterday, the Cincinnati Enquirer, in light of the new TV that and all but dead Ted Strickland campaign just released (below), wrote that late on Saturday, Senator Rob Portman, "who had spent months defending or dodging Trump's missteps, said he couldn't vote for the GOP nominee. He would write in GOP vice presidential candidate Mike Pence instead. (Although a vote for Pence wouldn't even count because he isn't an official write-in candidate.)"

Portman's about-face almost certainly hurts him with devoted Trump supporters. At a Warren County debate watch party Sunday night, Betty Dubin said she wouldn't vote for Portman after the senator abandoned Trump. Voters like Dubin won't vote for Strickland, but Democrats hope they skip the Senate race when casting their ballots.

Portman's change of heart might play well with GOP voters who find Trump unsavory. But are those new voters for Portman? Probably not.

And Portman's destiny is still tied-- however tightly or tenuously-- to Trump's. If Republicans frustrated with Trump stay home, that's bad news for Portman.

In South Florida, Trump's last remaining loyalist, Mario Diaz-Balart, is being tormented by the same forces. Progressive Democrat Alina Valdes, as well as independents and mainstream Republicans, are calling on him to drop his support for Trump while Trump supporters are threatening to not vote for him if he does. Yesterday the Miami Herald's Patricia Mazzei reported that Diaz-Balart is so tied up in knots that he can't even give a straight answer about whether he backs Trump or not. After Diaz-Balart carefully distanced himself from Trump's pussy-grabbing comments Saturday, he was asked if he's dropping his support for Trump. He's not capable of giving a straight-forward answer. How do you say "weasel" in Spanish? Is it "comadreja?"

His spokeswoman, Katrina Valdés, responded to the Miami Herald by saying Diaz-Balart never said he'd vote for Trump in the first place. She pointed to a statement from the congressman in May declaring his intention to "vote for the Republican nominee."

That would be Trump, of course.

And yet, Valdés insisted, Diaz-Balart "has not endorsed a candidate in the general election."

Diaz-Balart certainly hasn't used the word endorsement, and he's repeatedly said he won't vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton. But does he still intend to vote for him?

"His statement has not changed," Valdés said late Saturday. "His vote is conditioned on the clarification of a number of important issues that he has repeatedly said need to addressed by the nominee. As of tonight at 8:15 PM, several of those issues have not been clarified. That is where he still stands."

Diaz-Balart hasn't said what he'll do if he doesn't get his requested "clarification" from Trump. The congressman praised Trump for adopting a hard line on Cuba policy last month in Miami. Diaz-Balart then said he needed more evidence before he could condemn a report that Trump's casino company broke the Cuban trade embargo in 1998.

Alina Valdes, who has been endorsed by Blue America-- you can contribute to her grassroots campaign here-- pointed out that "Diaz-Balart is the only South Florida Cuban-American who still supports the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, for president. Despite all the horrible things Teflon Don has said about Latinos, women, African-Americans, Muslims, and anything not white and male, he has maintained his loyalty to party over country."

Jon Ralston has a smart take on this today. Writing for the Reno Gazette Journal He looked at Joe Heck's and Cresent Hardy's recent jettisoning of now toxic Trump. He also brought up Brian Sandoval and Dean Heller on charges of hypocrisy.

They came to bury Trump, and they expect praise.

They are all honorable men, these elected officials in the Nevada GOP, who bravely decided after all of this time that Donald Trump is unfit for office. And like their counterparts across the country, they are trying to kill Trump to avoid their own funerals.

The day after the tape emerged showing Trump sounding like a sexual predator and just a few hours after he apologized in a video in which he was held hostage by a teleprompter, Reps. Joe Heck and Cresent Hardy disavowed him Saturday at a Southern Nevada rally, ironically standing near the man who lost the last presidential race, Mitt Romney. They joined a countrywide chorus of Louis Renaults, shocked, shocked to discover Trump is a sociopath.

...Just look at the words they all used and see the blatant hypocrisy unmasked, the foundation of their arguments crumble. They even talked about Trump’s pattern of behavior, an admission of their guilt; they all should be convicted of failed leadership followed by rank opportunism.

It wasn’t repulsive enough to the governor of Mexican heritage when Trump announced in June 2015 and talked about Mexican rapists and murderers and later when he smeared a judge of Mexican descent?

It wasn’t lacking ethical and moral decency for the congressman cum brigadier general when Trump derided John McCain’s service, saying he likes his heroes not to be captured, or when he claimed to have raised money for veterans that he did not?

It didn’t degrade women enough for the rookie congressman when Trump alluded to Megyn Kelly’s menstruation or called Rosie O’Donnell a “fat pig” or criticized a former Miss Universe for gaining weight?

It would fill up too much internet bandwidth to list all of the Trumpian depredations that should have led these men to disavow the GOP nominee long ago. These were disqualifying acts then just as the videotaped comments are now.

They can say this is much worse because Trump essentially says he committed sexual assault, but is that the standard these elected officials use? I will support him despite his misogyny, nativism and racism, but this is a bridge too far? This is what they considered praiseworthy?

The irony here, of course, is while this is purely political and temporal-- exactly two weeks before early voting begins-- this is a no-win situation for them. But by lying down with Trump for so long, they have made their own bed.

And that is the problem every single Republican office holder has to grapple with now. They are so lucky the DCCC is the most incompetent organization that ever existed. One more example: the Democratic candidate for Congress in northern Nevada, Chip Evans, released the following statement on incumbent Mark Amodei's decision to remain Trump's Nevada campaign chairman.

"Governor Sandoval had it right when he renounced his support for Donald Trump-- ‘this video exposed not just words, but now an established pattern which I find repulsive and unacceptable for a candidate for President of the United States.’ I agree. Congressman Amodei’s choice to remain as Trump’s Nevada Campaign Chairman does not show the same principled leadership. It’s another example of Amodei’s poor judgment and consistent pattern of putting his party and his own interests before the people he was elected to represent. Remember, Trump’s already had his ‘30 days’ and then some to audition for the job. If Amodei is ‘genuinely concerned about the future of our country’ and looking for someone ‘who will set the tone in foreign policy, our economy… and gender,’ how can Amodei continue to embrace a candidate that has insulted our military by calling them ‘a disaster,’ wants to put nukes in Japan and South Korea, threatens to ‘shoot out of the water’ Iranian ships that make rude gestures to our navy, and proposes a tax plan that will hammer the middle class and cause a loss of 3.5 million jobs while adding $10 trillion to the deficit? It is time for a change. I’m confident northern Nevada’s hard-working families will see Amodei’s poor judgment and blind partisanship for what it is and bring him home in November."