Today Kentucky's Two Biggest Newspapers Told The Voters Why They Should Send McConnell Packing

Although the right-wing crackpot newspaper in Cincinnati, Ohio endorsed McConnell, yesterday Kentucky's two biggest newspapers, the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader, both recommended that Kentucky voters fire McConnell and replace him with Secretary of State Alison Grimes. The latest polling shows a dead-heat, within the margin of error, although McConnell had already spent $21,494,327 by the September 30 FEC reporting deadline (and has written his campaign another $1.8 million check in the past couple of days), in the same time that Grimes spent $11,862,353. Right-wing attack groups have spent another $14,471,946 smearing Grimes plus $4,582,271 trying to paint a positive image of McConnell and make him look like less of an alien from another planet.

The Herald-Leader editors tell their readers that "Kentuckians should do themselves-- and the country-- a favor by electing Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes." The Courier-Journal editors came to a similar conclusion: "Kentucky needs a U.S. senator who sees a higher calling than personal ambition and a greater goal than self-aggrandizement. For those reasons and for her evident potential, we endorse Ms. Grimes for election on Nov. 4." More from the Courier-Journal:

On Nov. 4, voters could choose the familiar persona of Republican incumbent Mitch McConnell, 72, who is seeking a sixth Senate term after 30 years in office.

Or Kentuckians can risk crossing the threshold into the future by voting for a young, relatively untested Democratic challenger who nonetheless offers intelligence, energy and clear potential to take on the job as Kentucky’s next U.S. senator.

We urge voters to choose the future and elect Alison Lundergan Grimes.

...Grimes, to her credit, was willing to appear before this newspaper’s editorial board, fielding an hour’s worth of questions in an interview that was streamed live online and remains archived on the C-J website. She did this fully aware that Mr. McConnell’s campaign could-- and did-- seize on snippets to use in political attacks.

Mr. McConnell, in turn, never accepted a similar invitation dating back to early September to appear before the C-J editorial board, thus shielding himself from scrutiny as well as any potential for attack ads based on his responses. Kentuckians should take measure of that: Thirty years in the Senate, and no comment.

More discouraging-- and most important to voters-- is that he appears lacking a vision for Kentucky or the country as a whole. Rather, his decades-long drive to increase his power and political standing has resulted in this campaign based on his boast that if he is re-elected and Republicans win a Senate majority, he would become Senate majority leader. Some voters believe Kentucky will benefit from keeping Mr. McConnell in such a national leadership position, but we believe that alone is not a reason for giving him another term.

Both candidates have failed the voters through limited access, rote talking points, slickly packaged appearances and a barrage of attack ads that at best are misleading and at worst, outright false.

But Ms. Grimes has laid out positions on a number of issues that matter to voters, ones that separate her from her opponent.

• Health care. Ms. Grimes supports the Affordable Care Act and Kynect, Kentucky’s version of the federal health law that now provides about 520,000 Kentuckians with health coverage and access to care. While Ms. Grimes says she would work to “streamline” and improve the law, she does not seek its repeal.

Mr. McConnell repeatedly has vowed to repeal it “root and branch.” More recently, as Kynect grows in acceptance and popularity, he has adopted the bizarre claim that Kynect is just “a website” that somehow could operate independently if the federal law is repealed.

Of course it can’t-- it’s a fully operational, online state health exchange with a website Kentuckians are using by the hundreds of thousands to purchase health insurance or sign up for Medicaid through the federally backed program.

• Coal and jobs. While both candidates have indulged in “War on Coal” rhetoric, Ms. Grimes offers proposals to save coal jobs through investing in clean coal technology. She also supports creating jobs outside coal through increased federal job training programs, expanding apprenticeships, improving technical and vocational education and expanding high speed Internet throughout Kentucky to lure employers.

She also has won the endorsement of the United Mine Workers Union through pledges to enforce coal safety regulations and improve processing of claims for black lung disease, which stubbornly persists among miners.

• Workers, women and families. Ms. Grimes supports an increase in the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. She supports eliminating the wage gap between men and women. And she supports federal help making child care more affordable to working parents.

• Education. Early childhood education including pre-school and Head Start is a priority for Ms. Grimes who says the U.S. must invest more in such programs reduce poverty and improve opportunities for children.

• Social issues. Though voters have not ranked these as important as others in the Bluegrass Poll, Ms. Grimes supports abortion access, describing it as “a personal choice between a woman, her doctor and her God” and she believes all couples, regardless of gender, should be able to make the commitment of marriage.

In his long career in politics, starting as Jefferson County judge-executive, Mr. McConnell has in the past effectively served his community and his state. In more recent years, some credited him with roles in pulling the nation from the brink of the fiscal cliff and breaking several deadlocks in Congress, including helping end the 16-day government shutdown last year.

But as the stakes grew higher and campaigns more costly, he lost his way to the point where he now is identified largely as the master of obstruction and gridlock in Washington.

The Herald-Leader also urged their readers to go to the polls a week from tomorrow and end McConnell's corrupt, obstructionist career.

Grimes has tirelessly reached out to every corner of the state. She has shown that, as the Senate's first Kentucky woman, she would bring energy, focus and independence to helping build a more secure future for Kentuckians and other average Americans.

But, wait, you say: How can our poor state afford to give up the power that Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has amassed in 30 years in Washington, especially if Republicans take the Senate, making him the majority leader?

McConnell does have power. He commands a perpetual-motion money machine; dollars flow in, favors flow out. 
The problem is how McConnell uses his power. He has repeatedly hurt the country to advance his political strategy.

McConnell has sabotaged jobs and transportation bills, even as Kentucky's unemployment exceeds the nation's and an Interstate 75 bridge crumbles over the Ohio River. He blocked tax credits for companies that move jobs back to this country while preserving breaks for those that move jobs overseas. He opposed extending unemployment benefits, while bemoaning the "jobless" recovery. He brags about resolving crises that he helped create.

The Senate may never recover from the bitter paralysis McConnell has inflicted through record filibusters that allow his minority to rule by obstruction.

Even before Barack Obama was sworn in, McConnell told his fellow Republicans that their strategy was to deny the new president any big wins. The country was in two wars and at deep risk of sliding into a depression, but making an adversary look bad was McConnell's main mission.

His signature cause-- flooding elections with ever more money-- corrupts. He poses as a champion of the right to criticize the government, but it's really his rich buddies' right to buy the government that he champions.

If McConnell had a better record, he would not have to argue for six more years by obsessively linking Grimes to Obama, who will be gone in two years no matter what.

McConnell, 72, insists that Grimes would be a partisan puppet, unable to think for herself or steer an independent course. Grimes, 35, a state official for three years, is as qualified as McConnell was when he pulled an upset in 1984. Win this and she's a rising star, commanding respect and attention. She's already formed alliances with Senate women and would be part of a women's caucus that is the most effective bipartisan force in Congress today.

Grimes has emerged as an authentic voice for pro-business Kentucky Democrats. She staunchly defends the coal industry and gun rights. She also recognizes there's no prosperity when working people can't live on their pay. She supports a minimum wage increase, lower student loan rates, child care, equal rights for women and gays, and letting immigrants earn citizenship.

McConnell opposes a minimum wage increase and refinancing student loans. He has said that discrimination against women is no longer a problem; he's fine with discriminating against gays. He undermined immigration reform this year even as Kentucky farms struggle to find workers.

And McConnell is pushing two outlandish deceptions:


• This election's outcome can reverse coal's decline in Eastern Kentucky. McConnell harps on 7,000 coal jobs lost under Obama. But what of the 20,000 coal jobs lost in his first 24 years in Washington? Why has he offered no plan for this inevitable economic transition, even now? Grimes pledges support for economic diversification and benefits for sick miners.

• You can keep Kynect while he repeals the Affordable Care Act. Reality: If McConnell has his way, a half-million Kentuckians will lose access to health care and the state will lose a chance to tackle costly ills like addiction, diabetes and cancer.

Kentuckians can't do much to stop a Supreme Court majority that's enabling the corrosion of our democracy by unlimited, secret contributions, in court cases bearing McConnell's stamp.

Kentuckians can send a powerful message on Nov. 4 and carve out a better future by retiring McConnell and making Grimes their senator.




DSCC: Dereliction Of Duty

Conservative Democrats who cannot win

Progressive Democrats who can win

Recent polls-- like this morning's release of the latest NBC News/Marist poll in Kentucky-- confirm what astute observers have been saying for some time: the DSCC braintrust-- Harry Reid, Michael Bennet and Guy Cecil-- are wasting their money on conservative candidates in deep red states. The DSCC has helped Alison Lundergan Grimes raise $11,353,760 and they and their Senate Majority Pac have spent close to another $4 million on TV ads in Kentucky already. Similarly, in Georgia, the DSCC has helped Michelle Nunn raise $9,211,931 while they and EMILY's List have spent over a million dollars on outside ads so far.

The most recent SurveyUSA polls shows Republican David Perdue beating Michelle Nunn 50-41%. Today's Marist poll has McConnell absolutely trouncing Grimes, 47-39%. OK, maybe Nunn and Grimes, both conservative Democrats eagerly wrecking the Democratic brand in their state to promote their own doomed candidacies, will lose less badly with DSCC support. So?

If the DSCC and its allies were funneling that kind of money and support into two winnable states they are ignoring-- Maine, where an outstanding progressive, Shenna Bellows, is taking on tired conservative hack Susan Collins, and South Dakota, where a plucky populist is hammering conservative corporate whore Mike Rounds-- the Democrats would have a far better chance to hold onto the Senate… and keep the majority without putting it's effectiveness into the hands of two idiots who will spend the next six years worrying about if they are voting conservatively enough for their reelection challenge.

Shenna Bellows, with no help from the DSCC or from EMILY's List beyond lip service, has raised $1,330,516 to Collins' $5,380,803 (45% of it-- $2,404,553-- legalistic bribes from PACs with agendas antithetical to the voters of Maine. The DSCC and its allies have spent exactly zero dollars in Maine this cycle. How could they when they're dumping so much down the toilets in Kentucky and Georgia? On her own-- and without a single Democratic senator with the guys to go up against Collins (and that, alas, includes Grimes-booster Liz Warren)-- Bellows is closing the gap between herself an Collins. She's now in a position where some help from the DSCC could help her do to Collins what Democrat Bill Hathaway did ("impossibly") against Margaret Chase Smith in 1972. Today's Portland Press Herald featured a debate between former Republican state Senator Phil Harriman and former Democratic state Senator Ethan Strimling on how the contours of the race are shaping up:

Phil: Now I understand why Mary thinks you need help. How about the U.S. Senate race? Is Shenna Bellows gonna be able to break 30 percent against Susan Collins?

Ethan: For sure. She has positioned herself well for the final stretch. The “walk across Maine” solidified her standing among Democrats and introduced her to many people who wouldn’t know her otherwise.

Phil: And many people smiled politely, shook her hand, and will then go into the voting booth to vote for Susan Collins. Collins’ level of popularity is verging on iconic (rightfully so) and will put her on the same plane as Margaret Chase Smith and George Mitchell.

Ethan: I am just saying that Shenna is turning out to be a much stronger candidate than many expected. She has money in the bank. She is very likable on camera. And she is working her butt off. She is turning out to be the Little Engine That Could.

Similarly, Rick Weiland's grassroots campaign in South Dakota-- for an open blue seat-- is getting no help (what would be the opposite of "help?") from the DSCC. Weiland has raised $1,094,098 (to Mike Rounds' $3,716,986). The DSCC has stubbornly refused to spend a dime in South Dakota, even though the most recent polls show him consistently gaining on Rounds.

Public Policy Polling’s newest South Dakota survey finds that Rick Weiland is continuing to cut into Mike Rounds’ once double digit lead in the race to replace Tim Johnson.

Key findings from the survey include:

• Rounds’ lead now stands at just 6 points- he’s at 39% to 33% for Weiland, 17% for Larry Pressler, and 4% for Gordon Howie. Rounds’ lead has dropped from 10 points in April to 8 points in early August to now just 6 points in late August as Weiland has become better known and more popular.

• Weiland is considerably more well liked by voters than Rounds. 48% see him favorably to only 27% with an unfavorable opinion. That +21 net favorability rating for Weiland is up from +15 earlier in the month, and it’s 24 points better than Rounds’-- only 44% of voters see him positively to 47% who have a negative opinion.

• There are several reasons to think the race could close further. Among voters who are familiar with Weiland, whether they have a positive or negative opinion of him, he leads Rounds 42/36. Rounds is ahead in large part thanks to greater name recognition, but as Weiland has become better known, Rounds’ lead has gotten smaller and smaller.

Additionally Pressler supporters say that if they had to pick, they’d choose Weiland over Rounds 48/29. Third party candidates tend to see their support fade as an election gets closer. If Pressler sees a decline in his support over the next two months, Weiland is likely to be the beneficiary-- he trails Rounds only 45/42 when you take Pressler out of the mix.

Rick Weiland has the momentum in this race. The more voters get to know him, the more they like him, and it’s making what was once a wide lead for Mike Rounds less and less comfortable.

If you've been waiting, now's the time to put your money to work for the two progressive Democrats who can save the Senate despite the jaw-dropping incompetence of Michael Bennet and Guy Cecil. Please give what you can to Rick and Shenna here.

There's A Winnable Seat In Ohio-- If The DCCC Does Its Job

Hard core right-wing GOP voters, particularly in the former Confederate states-- something between a quarter and a third of all voters-- are pretty gung-ho on shutting down the government. Normal voters, on the other hand, just hate it. Last week, when first McConnell and then Paul Ryan let it slip that the Republicans plan to stay quiet about triggering more government shut-downs until after the election-- and then move in for the kill. (And by "kill," of course, they mean you, your family, the American economy and democracy itself.)

Alison Lundergan Grimes responded to McConnell's "slip of the tongue" with the web ad above. But she isn't the only Democrat who recognizes an opportunity. Michael Wager, the only Democrat in Ohio who has a shot to replace a Republican in that state, can benefit from the resuscitation of an issue that had died down. When MoveOn.org had polled OH-14 between Cleveland and the Pennsylvania border, they found most people concerned. 59% of the people in the district said they opposed the government shut down. And on being informed that David Joyce had voted to shut it down, only 44% of respondents said they would vote to reelect him. 47% said they would vote for his Democratic opponent.

That's Michael Wager, the only Democratic challenger in Ohio who has raised over-- or even close to-- a million dollars. But Steve Israel has been urging Democrats and Democratic support groups to contribute to a recruit in an impossibly red district (OH-06-- R+8), where a drastically right-wing, anti-Choice/anti-gay/pro-NRA/pro-fracking recruit of his, Jennifer Garrison, is running a miserable, losing campaign. Israel won't win the OH-06 seat but he could well blow the chance to win the OH-14 seat. But that isn't how Wager is looking at it. He and his grassroots team don't think much about the DCCC. They think about the voters in Ashtabula, Mayfield Heights, Mentor, Chardon, Solon, Middlefield and Painesville instead.

"The dysfunction of the 113th Congress," Wager told us this morning, "is all too evident in their lack of action on so many of our nation’s critical needs, but the truly emblematic failure of this Congress will be the several votes in October 2013 to shutdown the government and put our nation in economic peril. Once again, Republican leaders, like Senator McConnell, talk about advancing extreme and ideologically-driven spending bills, potentially causing another shutdown of the federal government.

"Regrettably, my opponent, Republican Congressman David Joyce, has shown his willingness to vote again (as he did three separate times in October) for these extreme measures, as Republicans push our nation to the economic precipice to wantonly advance their agenda of obstructionism. In November, I will call upon voters in the 14th District to hold David Joyce  accountable for his betrayal of public trust and his lack of truthfulness about his extreme voting record."

You can give Wager a hand here and help Blue America try to plug some holes the DCCC is leaving in his campaign. This is the one Democrat who can win in Ohio. Steve Israel doesn't like backing progressives and he won't allow the DCCC to help Wager win the seat. Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown has tried to turn things around for Wager, but Israel is a pig-headed jackass and he absolutely refuses to change his approach. It's a winnable seat and we shouldn't let Joyce waltz back into office.

The Elizabeth Warren Wing Of The Democratic Party?

Several of my friends have been grumbling about Elizabeth Warren's support for conservative border state and Southern Democrats, Alison Lundergan Grimes (KY), Natlaie Tennant (WV), Mary Landrieu (LA), Sam Nunn's daughter (GA), Mark Pryor (AR) and Kay Hagan (NC). On a national level, she's, by far, the biggest star in the Senate. Other than lobbyists, Wall Street brokers and special interests who would go out to a rally headlined by Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Warner, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Donnelly? Most people don't even know what states these people are from. Cory Booker? Developing story… but, for now… mostly Wall Street brokers. Liz Warren is the star and every campaign wants her to help them turn out audiences, voters, grassroots donors. Democrats and independents love her powerful Wall Street vs Main Street message. That would be a tough one for Schumer, Gillibrand or Booker to deliver.

Real people recognize something they don't see in other senators: authenticity and concern for their interests. Progressives aren't necessarily overjoyed that she's using that to bolster people like Landrieu-- whose vote allowed Alito to be confirmed and who's campaigning against Climate Change amelioration-- and Alison Lundergan Grimes, whose tepid, consultant-driven campaign is the antithesis of how a bold progressive, populist wins, of how Elizabeth Warren won last cycle against Wall Street's favorite senator (who the banksters gave $7,233,298-- almost as much as the $9,891,795 they gave McConnell).

Warren has already raised over $2 million for endangered incumbents and some of the Democratic candidates. A few months ago she bucked EMILY's List, which had guaranteed ConservaDem Colleen Hanabusa they could deliver her support, and endorsed progressive champion Brian Schatz in the contentious Hawaii Senate primary. She's been raising him money as well and helping clarify the contrast between the corrupt New Dem Hanabusa and Schatz who has identified himself clearly as part of the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party and campaigns on the same populist issues that won her a smashing victory against Scott Brown in 2012.

Similarly, when Harry Reid, Michael Bennet, Guy Cecil (in effect, the DSCC) decided prairie populist Rick Weiland should be shunned for being too liberal and for scaring Blue Dog lobbyist/loser Stephanie Herseth Sandlin out of the South Dakota Senate race, Warren stepped in with an endorsement and some real money. Yesterday she sent out a letter asking for contributions from her followers for Weiland:

Democrat Tim Johnson is retiring from the Senate this year, and we're in for a tough fight in South Dakota. Luckily our candidate is ready to fight: former Tom Daschle aide and state AARP leader Rick Weiland. He's actively fighting for campaign finance reform and taking back government for hard-working people. Rick is running hard on a truly progressive agenda, and he needs your help to keep South Dakota's seat in Democratic hands.

In less than 24 hours, 936 Warren supporters gave Weiland $16,657.25, his biggest single ActBlue haul since getting into the race. (And his second biggest ActBlue haul, $12,217.31 from PCCC, was entitled "Give Elizabeth Warren the allies she needs in the Senate.")

She's helping progressives like Jeff Merkley in Oregon, moderates Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire and conservatives like Mark Pryor in Arkansas. If DSCC chairman Michael Bennet has been a 2 on a 1-10 scale, Warren has been an 11. She's going to states where Obama and Reid are not especially welcome-- like West Virginia.

Obama is unpopular in the Mountain State, having lost there by 27 points in 2012, and would not be welcomed by the Tennant campaign. But the candidate invited Warren to help her roll out her education policy agenda on July 14 in the state's eastern panhandle and to help her paint Capito as a supporter of Wall Street.

"Like Tennant, Warren grew up in a working-class family and worked to help make ends meet," the West Virginian's campaign said. "Warren took babysitting jobs and worked at her aunt's restaurant after her dad had a heart attack and lost his job. Tennant worked her way through college at WVU on a minimum wage job at a Morgantown florist shop-- her dad helped make up the rest of her tuition by selling cows."

A couple days ago, Kate Nocera speculated that "if Democrats hold onto the Senate this year, the biggest winner may be Elizabeth Warren. "Warren’s ability to fundraise for fellow Democrats," she wrote, "could help her own future aspirations, whatever they may be. Though she has emphatically denied she has any plans to run for president, it certainly doesn’t hurt to give generously to colleagues now." She's building a power base in the Senate-- and people in the crowd wore t-shirts that said, "I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party." They wanted photos with her, notespecially with Grimes. Gary Turner, who was at the rally, told Nocera, "Would I have 100% been here if Warren wasn’t coming? No." He was there for Warren. "She’s like what Obama was, she’s just got something about her. I am all for Alison and I hope she wins but I wanted the chance to see Warren."

Warren told Nocera in Louisville over the weekend that "Democrats are the same page on what’s happening to America economically. That’s what we’re all out there talking about. I don’t agree with every Democratic candidate on every issue. But on the core economic issues, the fact the playing field is tilted, on the need to fight for working families, we are all in the same place and that’s why I’m out here." And she told the crowd, "You send us Alison Grimes instead of Mitch McConnell and you change the world."

And while Grimes has tried to distance herself from President Obama and certain Democratic issues, there was little daylight between Grimes and Warren on Sunday. The two stood on stage together railing against Grimes’ opponent, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and declared that on issues of the economy they were perfectly in sync.

Grimes called Warren "someone who has fought as hard as anyone could fight in the United States Senate." And if Kentucky sends her to the Senate, Grimes noted, "will have someone to fight for the middle class right along with her."

"As the middle child, I’m used to operating from the center," Grimes added. "My husband and I don’t agree on every issue; as Sen. Warren said, we don’t agree on every issue, but we do agree that Washington isn’t working for Kentucky families or American families."

Watch a clip from her speech up top: "Alison and I don't agree on everything; we don't. But Alison and I agree that there is a lot on the line here: our economy, our country, our values. We want to work together wherever we can. We want to build a great future for this country, a great future for our children and our grandchildren. And we are willing to fight shoulder to shoulder to make that happen. That's what tough women do."

No one is perfect-- not even Warren-- and its gigantically disappointing that she is pointedly not campaigning for this cycle's Elizabeth Warren: Shenna Bellows in Maine. A contact at the DSCC told me Warren has refused to do anything that could be interpreted as a slight against Maine incumbent Susan Collins, something many progressives will remember for a very long time. One of my friends, knowing what a big supporter of hers I am, railed at me, "She's backing Nunn and Grimes and Pryor and ignoring Bellows. She's just like all the DC phonies." I just finished reading her new book, A Fighting Chance. Last night I read the epilogue as I was eating dinner. It was written after she had been in the Senate for just over a year. "I've seen our Congress up close," she wrote, "and parts of it are truly dysfunctional." But her epilogue is upbeat and filled with the kind of hope she's bringing voters in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Georgia… even as she ignores Mainers. "Every day I wrestle with the same ruthless reality that I've known for many years: Change-- real change-- is hard. Uphill, grind-grind-grind, sweat-it-out hard."

Yes, change is hard, but it is possible-- and that's the part that fires me up.

I've heard a lot of talk about what can't be done. People said the new consumer agency was a pipe dream. But now it's the law of the land, and in July, 2013 I presided over the US Senate as Rich Cordray finally became the first full-fledged, real-deal director. That agency is here to stay. After Rich's confirmation, one headline read: ELIZABETH WARREN SMILES BIG AFTER RICH CORDRAY CONFIRMATION. Got that right!

There are other ways to make change happen. Committee hearings are pretty dull affairs, the stuff that fills the 3:00 A.M. slot on CSPAN. But those hearings offer a chance to make some progress. At my first Banking Committee hearing, I pushed regulators to name the last time they took a big bank all the way to trial. They stumbled and fumbled and a video of the exchange [she below] shot around the Internet and was viewed by more than a million people. Maybe, just maybe, more government officials will think twice before deciding that some bank executive is too big to jail.

And student loans? No, I didn't get the Bank on Students Act passed. But at least the final deal on student loan interest was better than where it started: $15 billion better for students over the next ten years. And, in the end, I wasn't alone. More than a dozen senators from around the country stood up to me to say no to any deal in which the government makes a profit off the backs of our students. That's not a bad place to begin the next round in the battle-- and, believe me, we will come back to this issue again.

Of course, student loans are just a start. There are many more fights ahead, and more work to be done-- and I worry that we're running out of time. For generations now, America's middle class has been squeezed, chipped away, and hammered so hard that the foundations of our economic security are beginning to crumble.

Every day I think about the people I've met who are part of the battle. The woman in New Bedford who walked two miles so she could talk to someone who would fight for her. The father who worried that basic fairness would be denied to his transgender child. The woman who brought her tall, good-looking husband to a rally and talked with me about his slide into the darkness of Alzheimer's. The big guy at the construction site who went nine months without work last year. I remember their faces, their fears, their determination.

Every one of them worries about our future. Every one of them has anxious days and sleepless nights. Every one of them is tough and resourceful. And every one of them-- every single one of them-- has a deep core of optimism that says we can do better.

I believe that it's this optimism about the future that sets us apart as a people, this optimism that makes America an exceptional nation. We built this country by striking out on new adventures and propelling ourselves forward on a path we named progress. Along the way, we learned that when we invest in one another, when we build school and roads and research lanes, we build a better future-- a better future for ourselves and our children and our grandchildren.

Equality. Opportunity. The pursuit of happiness. An America that builds something better for the next kid and the kid after that and the kid after that.

No one is asking for a handout. All we want is a country where everyone pays a fair share, a country where we build opportunities for all of us; a country where everyone plays by the same rules and everyone is held accountable. and we have begun to fight for it.

I believe in us. I believe in what we can do together, in what we will do together. All we need is a fighting chance.

The Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party-- right here… especially Shenna Bellows.

Do Bluegrass Voters Want To Give Up On Their Old Kentucky Homo?

I have no dog in this fight-- or in the battles in any of the states where corporate ConservaDems are opposing reactionary Republicans. I would like to see Shenna Bellows (ME) and Rick Weiland (SD) win their races-- and I'm contributing regularly (can you, too?)-- but who wins Senate seats in Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Kentucky is pretty academic for me. Or maybe a better way to describe it-- and why I write about these races-- is that they are pure entertainment. If a charismatic coke freak causes Lindsey Graham to lose to a right-wing Democrat in South Carolina, it's just fun and funny. But nothing would be more fun and more funny this cycle than to see venal closet case Mitch "Miss" McConnell lose his Senate seat in November.

And it is looking a lot more plausible than anyone could have imagined a few months ago that centrist Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes-- who has been running a nearly flawless campaign against the increasingly desperate and hysterical McConnell machine-- could beat him. Most legitimate polls have shown her slightly ahead of him. Rasmussen, of course, is just a GOP propaganda operation and McConnell's own firm, VCR has the worst record of almost any polling firm in the country, rivaling the GOP operation that predicted a landslide win for Eric Cantor. SurveyUSA has Grimes up by 1 point and even Republican pollsters Magellan showed Grimes beating McConnell (2 weeks ago) by 3 points.

But VCR has McConnell up by 7 points. As DailyKos has consistently pointed out, there are very good reasons why no one takes VCR seriously as a reputable polling firm. The track record, their delusional clients pay them for, is hilarious. In 2012, working for Republican Linda Lingle, they showed Mazie Hirono beating her by a very narrow 47-43. But Hirono won by 25 points, not 3. In the Democratic primary that year they also showed Hirono, a progressive, beat reactionary Blue Dog Ed Case by 1 point. Hirono beat him by 16 points. They polled Iowa a couple months before the presidential election and they showed Romney beating Obama by 1 point. Every legitimate polling firm-- so, obviously not Rasmussen-- showed Obama winning. And Obama did win, 822,544 (52%) to 730,617 (46%). They were off ny 7 points; that a lot and it's why VCR is considered worthless by everyone except desperate politicians trying to generate "good news" for a credulous media.

Americans for Tax Fairness hired PPP to do a survey this week and, of course, they were looking for real numbers, not propaganda. "The poll, "they reported, "reveals that Kentucky voters overwhelmingly support making the federal tax system fairer to middle-class families by requiring the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Public support for tax fairness issues ranked as high or higher than some of the most discussed issues in the Senate race." The poll has Grimes beating McConnell, 48% to 46%, with 6% undecided.

The survey shows that by an almost six-to-one margin, 80% to 14%, voters are more likely to vote for “a candidate who wants to close loopholes to make sure millionaires do not pay a lower tax rate than the middle class.” Wide majorities of Democrats (87%), Republicans (70%) and independents (80%) support this position.

The poll also reveals that by more than four-to-one, 76% to 17%, Kentuckians would be more likely to vote for “a candidate who wants to make sure that the rich and corporations pay their fair share of taxes,” including 88% of Democrats, 57% of Republicans and 83% of independents. But they would be less likely by a two-to-one margin, 63% to 31%, to vote for “a candidate who wants to cut the taxes of the wealthy and corporations.”

Voters also said by more than a two-to-one margin, 66% to 27%, that they would be more likely to vote for “a candidate who wants to end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas.”

The poll also tested public attitudes on a story that broke last week, when McConnell and Grimes introduced competing proposals about how to fund a new Brent Spence Bridge connecting Covington, KY and Cincinnati, OH. The poll found that respondents preferred by more than a six-to-one margin (63% to 10%) Grimes’ proposal to fund new bridge and road construction “by closing tax loopholes benefitting corporations and the wealthy” over McConnell’s proposal to “reduce[ing] wages paid to construction workers.”

“Kentuckians clearly prefer a Senate candidate who will close corporate tax loopholes and end tax breaks for the wealthy,” said Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling. “These issues are as important to them, if not more important, than issues currently being debated in the campaign. The poll suggests that tax fairness could be a sleeper issue in this race.”

“When Kentucky voters say they want a fairer tax system by two or four or six to one, it’s time to pay attention,” said Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness Action Fund. “They know instinctively that when corporations and wealthy individuals game the system to avoid paying their fair share, ordinary Kentucky families pay the price.”

McConnell, of course, will deploy all his forces to make the election about anything but these issues and he and his allies will do what McConnell is best know for-- smearing his opponents and avoiding substantive issues. Or he'll just say nothing at all and hope he wins on name recognition and habit. And, by the way, if you want to help progressives win Senate seats in November… here's the place that can be done.

What Won't Poor Old Miss McConnell Do To Keep His Job?

How humiliating it must be for Miss McConnell to be prostrating himself before Rand Paul like his job depended on it. It wasn't that long ago that McConnell recruited Trey Grayson to run as the Kentucky Establishment candidate against Paul, who McConnell helped paint as a whacky Tea Party extremist. Now he's writing love paeans in Time to the greatness and majesty of Kentucky's popular junior senator, or at least signing his name to one. "[T]he real secret to Rand’s rapid rise from a Bowling Green operating room to the center of American politics is his authenticity."

Better that than more out-of-touch comments about how creating jobs in hard-pressed Lee County, in the most economically depressed party of coal mining eastern Kentucky, isn't his job. Lee County has an unemployment rate of 14.3% and a median household income of $22,789. The state's biggest newspaper, the Louisville Courier-Journal hasn't stopped writing about it all week. Last night:

There was a time when U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell didn't eschew his role in creating jobs for Kentucky. In fact there was one instance when he gladly took credit for it.

We'll get to that in a minute.

What brings this up is McConnell's statement to Edmund Shelby, the editor of the Beattyville Enterprise, last week when Shelby asked him what he would do to bring jobs to Lee County, where the jobless rate is 12.8 percent.

"Economic development is a Frankfort issue," Shelby reported McConnell saying. "That is not my job. It is the primary responsibility of the state Commerce Cabinet."

That's not exactly what folks in a county with the 19th-worst jobless rate in the state wanted to hear, and it probably wasn't what McConnell wanted to say in a race where his chief Democratic foe has traveled the state ballyhooing her jobs plan and criticizing the senior senator for not having one of his own.

Shelby reported that McConnell said his job is, however, to fight against President Barack Obama, whom he has repeatedly accused of "job-killing" policies.

…It's doubtful that McConnell would have denied involvement back when he was a freshman senator, trying to make a name for himself and impress how important he was on the people back home.

Climb aboard my Wayback Machine to December 1985, when McConnell was finishing up his first year in the U.S. Senate and Kentucky was fighting with Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, North Carolina, Illinois and Georgia for Toyota's $500 million plant-- its first manufacturing facility in the United States.

Gov. Martha Layne Collins and her administration, which had worked feverishly to bring the plant to Kentucky, had learned that the state had won the huge economic development prize that continues to provide jobs and better futures to folks in Central Kentucky to this day.

But she had promised that the state would not release any information or even confirm the decision had been made because Toyota officials wanted to make the announcement on their own.

"These Japanese are very strict about protocol and formality," then-House Speaker Don Blandford said at the time.

But that didn't stop McConnell from spilling the beans.

He slipped out of a dinner at the Watergate Hotel where Toyota officials had, as a courtesy, informed him, then-Sen. Wendell Ford and others about the decision, and began calling the news media.

Television news stories that night had McConnell confirming that Toyota was coming to Kentucky, as did newspaper stories the next morning. This, of course, infuriated the Collins administration, which believed McConnell was trying to take credit for its hard work.

One administration official called it "the most dastardly and common thing I've ever seen an elected official do."

McConnell denied that he was horning in on Collins' glory and defended his decision to break the news, saying that "a lot of people were involved" in luring the Toyota plant to the state and that he had visited Japan earlier that year and frequently talked with Toyota officials.

There he was, he said, working to bring jobs to Kentucky.

So last week we saw him backpedaling on his statement to Shelby after handing the Alison Lundergan Grimes campaign a made-to-order quote for future television ads.

And Alison Lundergan Grimes is doing more than tweeting. She's been reminding Kentuckians about McConnell's new attitude about their jobs every day since the unfortunate, distracted remark. "The only job that [McConnell] has cared about over the past 30 years is his own… I stand in complete contrast and disagreement with him. Unlike Mitch McConnell, I listen to Kentuckians. It is the job of a U.S. senator to put hardworking Kentucky families back to work and to grow our middle class. He shocked not just myself but all of Kentucky when he declared that economic development is not his job."

A little over a week ago, HuffPo reported that, although Rand Paul had officially endorsed McConnell, he doesn't feel speaking about it in public-- sort of defeating the whole purpose of an endorsement. That was because someone asked him about at a forum in Glasgow last week and he said he didn't want to respond in public. But last February when Glenn Beck asked essentially the same question-- a variation on "how could you endorse that corrupt DC shill?"-- Rand responded: "Because he asked me. He asked me when there was nobody else in the race, and I said yes.”

Tinseltown Endorsements-- Do They Hurt A Candidate In… Tinseltown? In Kentucky?

You've probably noticed that I've been sympathetic-- even inspired-- by Marianne Williamson's congressional race in the very upscale L.A. Westside district, CA-33, that includes, iconic "Hollywood" communities like Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Malibu, Venice, Bel Air, Brentwood, Manhattan Beach, Marina dell Rey, Westwood, Rancho Palos Verdes, even a little bit of West Hollywood itself. A lifelong progressive Democrat, she's running as an Independent-- the same way that Bernie Sanders has always chosen to run as an Independent, not as a Democrat. Although the Democrats eventually stopped, Sanders, when he was a congressman, always had to fight off both a Republican and a Democrat to be reelected. Marianne told me she's a great admirer of Sanders and also of Maine's Senator Angus King (less trustworthy on progressive matters; he joined the GOP this week in voting NO on Paycheck Fairness). Still, it is a combination of her strong progressive positions, her ability to communicate those ideas in a cogent way-- something almost no U.S. politicians are capable of-- and her independent spirit that have fascinated me with Marianne's campaign. But is her campaign "too Hollywood"-- even for Hollywood?

She kicked off the campaign with music from multimillion-selling singer-songwriter Alanis Morissette, a true believer. So far so good. Alanis is arguably one of the great musical talents whose songs have had a profound impact on the lives of countless millions of people. Some could see her as kind of a musical version of Marianne herself.



Then Marianne had a fundraiser with Jason Mraz, another talented musician who has adoring followers who have been moved by the power of his lyrics and his music. Perfect for Marianne. And what could ever be better than a fundraising event in Malibu featuring performances by Chaka Khan? Except that it was written by Ashford and Simpson and broke Chaka's solo career wide open in 1978, "I'm Every Woman" (up top) could have been written by Chaka as a campaign song for Marianne! Steven Tyler also performed at that event and he certainly has star-power, if nothing else. And that's where it gets funny-- when you go from people who write profound songs that impact peoples' lives to… star power. And it got worse FAST. A few days later there was a press release about an endorsement from Nicole Richie. Not even Lionel-- who has some accomplishments-- but the worthless celebrity-for-the-sake-of-celebrity daughter, Nicole, partner of Paris Hilton. Oh, please God, I thought, let her not announce an endorsement from Paris Hilton.

She didn't, but a few days later something just as bad: Kardashians. "Maybe it's time to just endorse Ted Lieu and get over this Marianne Williamson obsession," one of my advisers advised. Ted Lieu has a solidly progressive record and is a skilled and accomplished legislator… but without that intangible magic that so few American political leaders have, that rare ability to communicate big and important ideas in ways that touch people profoundly. Marianne can do that. And, unlike, say Wendy Greuel, the very worst of the Democrats in the crowded field, she isn't soliditing endorsements from garden variety corrupt politicians. As far as I know, the only elected official backing Marianne so far is Keith Ellison, and he declared in his formal endorsement that Marianne "is a progressive leader who offers to inject a spirit of love, generosity and inclusion into politics as usual. We sure need it. Not only does she challenge conventional politics, but she also challenges spiritual activists because she invites them to bring mindfulness and love into the profane world of politics where knotty problems like campaign finance, stagnant wages, and climate change need solving. Of course, the spiritual activists, like Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, and Bishop Desmond Tutu, have always incorporated the sacred into their activism, and achieved results. So in a way, her candidacy is reminding us of how true and meaningful change really happens."

YES! That's an endorsement worth having. But what about… Katy Perry's green slimy hair?

While Williamson’s platform is focused on serious issues like “climate change, humanitarianism, demilitarization, and corporate regulation,” the majority of her media coverage has centered on only one aspect of her campaign: her star-studded supporters. On Tuesday evening, Williamson received support from reality star sisters Kim and Kourtney Kardashian, B-list fashion maven Nicole Richie, and pop princess Katy Perry at her press event held at the Kayne Griffin Corcoran Gallery in L.A. Publicity for Williamson’s campaign came second to Perry’s new “slimey” green hairdo, Kim’s plunging neckline, and Kourtney’s near Marilyn moment, leading us to wonder: why is she relying on a slew of socialite-cum-celebrities to reach her constituents?

"Throughout my career I have been an advocate for women, in all aspects of their lives,” Williamson told The Daily Beast when asked how endorsements from Richie and Kardashian will help her congressional campaign. “This campaign is reaching out to woman across the district hoping to engage them in the political process. The endorsements of these young influential women are a great vehicle to amplify the message of getting money out of politics, encouraging the return of this country to what the Founders intended: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. From issues of poverty to war to economic justice, women can make the difference in moving the country in a more positive direction."

…But is commissioning the likes of Richie, Perry, and the Kardashians a strategic move on Williamson’s part? While she emphasized that their support will help amplify her political message, it’s hard to understand how that will happen when the celebs have yet to express in concrete terms why they support her candidacy. It’s understandable for a budding politician to seek support from those well-connected, especially those who can reach today’s youth—but it’s hard to imagine a sex-tape star and a celebrity offspring are the perfect champions when they fail to mention any of Williamson’s specific qualifications or causes.

Doesn't everyone want celebrities endorsing their campaigns? Well, sure… celebrities who are celebrities because of something that touches people deeply-- like Chaka and Jason and Alanis. But Kardashians. Oy veh! And this is in Hollywood itself. What happens when you take this dynamic into Middle America-- the way Republicans are trying to do in order to denigrate Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes. Unlike Marianne, Grimes is a pretty standard, garden variety Democratic politician. Better than a Republican, much better than her opponent, Mitch McConnell, but not someone who could ever connect with people on a level Marianne Willaimson does. But "Hollywood" likes her too-- and is driving the right-wing crazy by helping her raise money against McConnell. A far right propaganda sheet screams: "The Tinseltown elite set their sights on Mitch McConnell." They're using an argument that would never work in CA-33. "Hollywood," opines the crackpot editors of the Moonie-owned Washington Times, "is all about pretense and posturing-- beautiful plastic people pretending to be someone else, declaiming against a backdrop of facades that look like buildings. So why wouldn’t Hollywood open its checkbooks to contribute to Alison Lundergan Grimes?"

Mrs. Grimes, Kentucky’s secretary of state, has smiled and chirped her way across the state trying to avoid debate like a terrified Dracula dodging sunlight. Nevertheless, Mrs. Grimes, 35, is neck and neck with Mr. McConnell in the early public-opinion polls.

She is short on experience, having served only two years as “secretary of state,” which sounds considerably grander than it actually is. Her duties include registering trademarks, supervising the printing of ballots, keeping the archive of land grants, keeping up with the honorary “Kentucky colonels” appointed by the governor. She’s the Official Keeper of the Great Seal of Kentucky.

These are important jobs all, of course, but none to prepare her for considering the issues she would face in the U.S. Senate. She’s probably wise to stick to mouthing harmless platitudes. She’s an actress who wants to play senator, and that’s why Hollywood can’t get enough of her.

Twinkletown’s big studios, including DreamWorks, Time Warner, William Morris, Lions Gate and Walt Disney, have all chipped in five-figure donations. Apatow Productions, the company behind Judd Apatow’s R-rated comedies Bridesmaids, Superbad, Knocked Up and The 40-Year-Old Virgin, contributed $10,400.

Celebrities have reached into their own pockets to advance the cause. The Hill, the Capitol Hill political daily, reports that nearly 70 Hollywood A-listers who have given a total of $250,000 to Mrs. Grimes include Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Affleck, Woody Allen, Ted Danson, Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfeld, Steven Spielberg, Jon Hamm and Nicolas Cage.

Her treasury continues to swell, with recent cash from Hollywood swells like Jay Roth, the executive director of the Directors Guild of America; Sidney Ganis, the former president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and director of Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo. David Frankel, who directed “The Devil Wears Prada,” contributed the maximum $5,200, and so did Chris Weitz, the producer of New Moon and American Pie. Songwriter Tom Lehrer did his little bit. …Mrs. Grimes is no doubt a nice lady, but Hollywood values, such as they are, do not connect with Kentucky values. Any idea that she could come to Washington to accurately represent Kentucky would only be an act.

Do Moonie values connect with Kentucky values? Blundering, drugged-up imbecile Rick Perry (R-TX) endorsed Mitch McConnell. Is that better than being endorsed by Katy Perry? Or worse? Slimy conservative warmonger Adam Schiff, from the district next door, endorsed Wendy Greuel. That's worse than getting endorsed by a Kardashian. Alanis Morissette and Chaka Khan have touched far more real peoples' lives, and in a far more positive and meaningful way, than Wendy Greuel or Mitch McConnell ever will. Anyone know who Paris Hilton plans on endorsing?

Friday CA-33 Candidates' Forum. Notice the difference? Notice how Williamson is the only one to stand up to the question from the misinformed Hate Talk Radio Republican about California jobs moving to Texas? Wendy Greuel wouldn't understand responding to a question like that if her life depended on it.

Mitch McConnell Is Paralyzed By Fear

McConnell doesn't get a lot of good news lately. But he did yesterday. The progressive Kentucky Democrat running for his seat dropped out of the Democratic Party primary against centrist Alison Lundergan Grimes and declared his intention to run as an independent.

Marksberry says Grimes is a good Democrat, but she has given up the most important fights against McConnell to pander to special interests.

"I want to give empowerment back to those that are impoverished, back to those who understand what the environment is experiencing right now and back to those who created the middle-class," says Marksberry. "And the only way to do that is to speak about the issues. And I hope that Alison Lundergan Grimes one day will open up and talk about the issues."

Marksberry had been suing the state party, alleging it has favored Grimes's campaign despite bylaws requiring it to stay neutral in primaries.

If only the DSCC and the Kentucky Democratic Party hadn't interfered in the primary, Grimes would have probably won and Marksberry would have probably campaigned for her in the general. Now he may take enough votes away from her to give the highly unpopular McConnell the margin he needs to beat her. If McConnell even wins his own primary. This week, the National Review's website posted an incendiary story about McConnell's woes with his right flank, Gunning for McConnell. The far right Madison Project is backing Matt Bevin, McConnell's very outspoken opponent.

“The problem in Washington, D.C., right now is the current GOP leadership and their unwillingness to fight the big-government policies that are coming down the pike,” says Drew Ryun, the group’s political director and a former deputy director at the Republican National Committee. “That is encapsulated in Mitch McConnell.”

While other top conservative groups, such as the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks, have remained on the sidelines so far in the Kentucky primary, the Madison Project has enthusiastically jumped in, endorsing Bevin and making a $27,000 radio buy in August for an ad attacking McConnell.

It’s a repeat of the group’s strategy in Texas in 2012, when they were the first national conservative organization to endorse Ted Cruz. “The importance of their endorsement in the early days was significant,” says John Drogin, who served as Cruz’s campaign manager and is now the senator’s state director. “When Senator Cruz was still a long-shot, far behind in the polls, Madison Project stood with him because they knew he would stand for conservative principles.”

“That gave Ted some early credibility,” says Ken Emmanuelson, a tea-party activist from Dallas. “That kind of thing can put a guy on the radar, so I’ve always given them props for that.”

But while Cruz wasn’t the establishment candidate in the GOP primary, his establishment-backed rival-- Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst-- wasn’t an incumbent, much less the top Senate Republican. McConnell is known for his ruthless campaigning, and he has a long track record of victories in Kentucky. His campaign has already vehemently pushed back on attacks claiming that he’s not conservative enough by noting that he has a 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union. And Rand Paul, a tea-party favorite and Kentucky’s other senator, has already endorsed McConnell.

Drew Ryun is confident, however, that Bevin is the little engine that can, despite a McConnell-campaign poll released last month that showed Bevin trailing McConnell 21 percent to 68 percent. “He’s slightly behind [where Marco Rubio was] at this stage of the campaign, and he’s slightly ahead of Ted [Cruz],” says Ryun. “Where he is right now I actually feel pretty comfortable with it, given the fact that his name recognition is not what it could be in Kentucky.”



For the Madison Project, Bevin’s candidacy is a perfect fit for their twofold mission of transforming Republican leadership and making sure the most conservative candidate possible represents comfortably Republican districts. Republicans, says Daniel Horowitz, the group’s policy director, are “underutilizing” solidly red districts. “You look at the Democrat side, you won’t find any inner city where you have a blue-dog Democrat,” he comments. The group has launched the Madison Performance Index, which compares Republican House members’ voting records, as analyzed by Heritage Action and Club for Growth, with how Republican their district is.

As a result, don’t expect to see the Madison Project playing in purple states or swing districts, although the group won’t definitively rule that out.

The group’s passion for defeating McConnell is grounded in a worry that even conservative stalwarts can’t flourish under the current Republican leadership. Horowitz says activists have asked him what happened to certain conservative politicians, such as Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), after they went to Washington.

“The problem is leadership,” Horowitz argues. “You throw them into a situation where leadership fundamentally doesn’t want to change the status quo... we’re never going to get anywhere.”

“The same old people are going to be put into tough situations,” he continues. “We feel if we change leadership, we’ll change the direction of the party, both in the House and the Senate.”

Jim Ryun, chairman of the Madison Project and a former Kansas congressman, recalls vividly the pressure he faced when he opposed GOP House leadership. He voted against Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, and today he remembers “some calls from the president where somehow we got disconnected when he didn’t agree with what I was going to do.”

The Madison Project isn’t as much of a fundraising powerhouse as some other conservative groups; it raised just under $2 million in the 2012 cycle. But the group is looking to expand their influence significantly in this cycle. “Will we be an 800-pound gorilla this election cycle? No,” Drew Ryun remarks. “But maybe a 400-pound gorilla.”

For the Madison Project, however, there’s less of an interest in pricey TV buys and more of a fascination with how a well-executed ground game can change the outcome of an election. “You have to do such a massive amount of television to even move the political dial incrementally,” says Drew Ryun, whereas “if you put the time and effort into the ground game, you can actually move a political dial, 3, 4, 5 percent in a precinct versus these television buys that are moving it half a percentage point.” Emmanuelson, the tea-party activist from Dallas, says that Ryun is known for helping inexperienced campaign teams with ground-game politics.

Drew Ryun is cautiously optimistic that the GOP could take back the Senate in 2014, but “a Republican majority that is led by Mitch McConnell, frankly, is not that appealing to me.”

Nonetheless, he thinks that 2014 could be a crucial year for conservatives. “2014 has the potential to be like 2010, except on steroids,” Ryun enthuses. And perhaps even more important, “what we do and the races that we win in 2014 will dictate how 2016 unfolds.”

With Grimes leading McConnell in the polls-- and his negative ratings with Kentucky Republicans soaring-- McConnell is, basically, hiding in his closet and refusing to come out. (No, not the gay closet, the leadership closet.) He must be hoping no one in Kentucky reads the NY Times:

At the climax of each of the fiscal crises that have paralyzed the nation’s capital since the Republican landslide of 2010, Senator Mitch McConnell, the wily Kentuckian who leads the Senate Republicans, has stepped in to untangle the seemingly hopeless knots threatening the economy.

But as Congress trudges toward its next budget showdown, the Mr. Fix-It of Washington is looking more like its Invisible Man as he balances his leadership imperatives with his re-election ones.

...Democrats and, increasingly, Republicans are complaining that the minority leader’s absence from many of this year’s most intense and consequential negotiations-- from immigration overhaul to the budget to a fight over internal rule changes that almost paralyzed the Senate-- has created a power vacuum and left Democrats without a bargaining partner.

They worry that Mr. McConnell is too hamstrung by political concerns in the Capitol and back home in Kentucky. In Washington, a rebellious crop of new Republican senators, led by Ted Cruz of Texas, has adamantly rejected his compromising brand of politics. Mr. Cruz has almost single-handedly led the charge to tie any further government financing to gutting President Obama’s health care law, a movement that has angered many veteran Republicans but has also brought the federal government to the brink of a shutdown. The junior senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, has largely set the agenda for a Tea Party-infused Republican Party in his home state.

And in that home state, Mr. McConnell is dealing with an unwanted primary challenge from a well-financed Tea Party candidate who keeps telling Kentucky voters the senator is an establishment pawn.

A Nexus Between The DCCC And Miss McConnell-- Here's What's Wrong With Inside The Beltway Politics

The DCCC has been howling for 3 days about how Staten Island Gambino crime family congressman, Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm was first for war and then anti-war. "He changed his mind, he changed his mind" has been the constant, annoying refrain, although they haven't said anything about Ami Bera (D-CA) doing exactly the same thing. Even more interesting, when I called the DCCC candidate for Grimm's seat, Dominic Recchia, they said he has no position on Syria "yet." I found that consistent with nearly all the DCCC-manufactured candidates. None of them have positions; all of them are trying to figure out what to say. One of them told me she's antiwar in her heart but that she doesn't want to offend Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz or, most important, vicious warmonger Steve Israel who controls the flow of DCCC campaign cash. Did Israel threaten her, I asked. "No, but he sent me a memo that confused me about what to say." I coaxed it out of her.

Basically the memo comes from a mirror image place of fear that has kept Mitch McConnell (R-KY) from taking a stand on bombing Syria, something his Tea Party opponent, Matt Bevin, is taking him to task for (though, not his far more cautious Democratic opponent Alison Lundergan Grimes; she's as incomprehensible and afraid to stand for anything as McConnell). Bevin says he's "offended by all these guys that have been sitting around that place gathering dust and moss for decades who are utterly unwilling to lead on and be thoughtful on things that are of this magnitude and this importance... These old fuddy-duddy moss-covered relics are just hiding behind their inactivity in the hopes of getting six more years on our dime. And I think the people of Kentucky, certainly, are fed up with it." Sounding not unlike Alan Grayson (D-FL)-- at least on this issue-- Bevin makes a lot of sense on Syria: "The reason I am opposed to it [U.S. military involvement in Syria] is we have absolutely no business whatsoever being in Syria. There is no military reason for us to be involved. There is no security risk to the United States. There is nobody on either side who is or has the potential to be a true ally of ours because they don’t even remotely believe in what we believe as it relates to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, human rights, basic human dignity. We have no business in being there."

Bevin criticized the administration for even considering getting involved in the Syrian civil war. He claimed it is McConnell’s role to step up and do something about the issue.

“The idea that we have an administration and we have silent ‘leaders’ like Mitch McConnell who are just spineless and refuse to come out and state what they believe, who when they do come out in the case of the administration they say, ‘Well we don’t intend to have any kind of a regime change,’ then what the flying flip are we even going in there for?” Bevin said.

“Really and truly, what is the point if we don’t have an end goal, if we don’t have a purpose, if we don’t have a mission, why would we be sending our weapons, which could potentially lead to our people being involved in this, destroying infrastructure and destroying people in another nation when we don’t have any knowledge of why we’re doing it?" he asked. "Because of some arbitrary line that the president drew in the sand and is now trying to pretend that the world drew in the sand? Really? What a cop out.”

...“One of the greatest reasons we hear in Kentucky for why we need six more years of Mitch McConnell is that he’s so influential,” Bevin said. “He’s so powerful. He’s a leader. And it’s so good for those of us in Kentucky."

"But the reality is when asked if they can name any one thing that that leadership and influence has done for Kentucky, any one thing that power has done for Kentucky, nobody can think of anything because the answer is nothing," Bevin claimed. "The only person who has been served by that influence and power is Mitch McConnell. He is a spineless person and he is unwilling to lead."

"It isn’t specific to any party. There is amazing dearth of leadership on both sides of the aisle. These are people whose primary mission is to keep getting re-elected," Bevin suggested. "When it’s hard and when it’s tough, and when someone truly needs to stand up and lead, they’re silent. They’re missing in action.”

"Spineless person, unwilling to lead" is also an apt description for 6 Democrats running for Ed Markey's old congressional seat (MA-05) in the suburbs around Boston, from Revere and Winthrop in the east, up to Malden, Medford, Woburn and Lexington in the north and then out to Watertown, Waltham, Sudbury and Framingham in the west. The one exception, as we've pointed out: state Rep. Carl Sciortino, a courageous progressive leader who has come out against the bombing. That election is October 15 and voters will be able to send a message to DC about how serious they are in their opposition to more wars of choice.

Now, back to the secret DCCC memo to its candidates, all of whom have been revoltingly mum on the number one issue that voters in every single district are talking about. You looking for leadership on the Syria crisis? Don't expect any from any of the DCCC cardboard candidates. So while you have independent progressives like Nick Ruiz (D-FL), Carl Sciortino (D-MA) and Tom Guild (D-OK) speaking out clearly and in a principled way against war, the DCCC is encouraging mealy-mouthed candidates to hold their fire and keep their heads down. "In short," their wishy-washy memo to candidates begins, "President Obama wants Congressional approval to strike with precision-guided missiles. This action would be a response to a targets in Syria August 2013 chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian military during the course of Syria’s civil war. The Obama Administration asserts that it must uphold international norms against the use of chemical weapons to reduce future use."

Then comes the facts and figure for candidates who don't know the difference between Syria, Tanzania and Honduras: "Syria is about the size of North Dakota with roughly 22 million inhabitants. The majority of them are Sunni Muslim. Syria is a predominantly Arab country." No, really... that's an exact quote from the memo. Then comes all the propaganda about how Assad used sarin gas on his own people and killed all those children, no less a bold-faced lie than the manufactured "evidence" the Bush regime offered to justify their predetermined attack against Iraq. The "evidence" is anything but clear about who used the chemical weapons and it seems to point to agents provocateurs dead set on persuading Obama to attack Syria. But reflexive warmongers like Steve Israel insist on twisting the facts for hapless candidates, sending them out like lambs to be slaughtered. (And, yes, Steve Israel helped push through Bush's authorization for the use of force against Iraq, even though a big majority of House Democrats opposed him on it. He shouldn't be allowed to use the DCCC for his personal agenda of war.) After pages of worthless propaganda, the DCCC memo end with the arguments, pro and con, for its candidates to consider:

For giving authority for an attack:

• "The U.S. has to attack to uphold the longstanding international norm against the use of chemical weapons so that they aren’t used in future wars."
• U.S. credibility is now on the line: The U.S. President declared the use of chemical weapons to be a red line, and has also asked Congress publicly for support. To deny the Commander in Chief the authority undermines our nation. (Also stated as: U.S. failure to follow-through questions American willingness to engage and gives an appearance of weakness.)
• "The U.S. should stand against the use of chemical weapons generally on humanitarian grounds. Related argument: the U.S. has a history of moral authority we risk losing if we do not act in Syria."
• "The U.S. will intimidate Iran by attacking, which helps Israel (and the U.S.) primarily by reducing the confidence and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) manufacturing intentions of Iran, Israel’s most powerful declared enemy."
• "If we don’t attack, Assad may use these weapons again. Consequences include that more Syrians die from chemical weapons as opposed to traditional weapons, and that the use of chemical weapons could trigger a refugee crisis that is greater than would otherwise occur if the war continued only with traditional weapons. The refugee crisis threatens to destabilize our allies in the region, including Jordan and Turkey, a partner in the NATO alliance that we are also part of."

Against giving authority for an attack:

• "Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States and an attack is not in our interest from a national security or a financial perspective; our excessive debt has already cut funding for the military and domestic programs significantly, and the U.S. experience in limiting costs for Middle East interventions shows we tend to underestimate."
• "There are other ways to put pressure on Assad other than a direct missile strike. This is a premature decision until additional diplomatic options have been pursued." Also stated as: We should go through the U.N. since we are not directly impacted.
• "An attack could create more instability in the region and makes regional American military reinvestment (troops on the ground) more likely. U.S. Secretary of Defense Kerry has not ruled out ‘boots on the ground’ in a long-term scenario resulting from this action."
• "The U.S. lacks a clearly defined and obtainable objective, and the plan lacks any element of surprise."
• "The U.S. did not intervene when chemical weapons were used by Iraq against Iran, or when Iraq used them domestically against the Kurds. A precedent is not created if we do not attack."
• "This threatens American personnel in the region: Iran ordered militants in Iraq to attack US interests (our embassy primarily) in Baghdad should the US carry out military strikes in Syria."
• Potential negative consequences: Our strikes could result in: heavy civilian casualties, Assad killing more civilians with chemical weapons, Syrian army sympathizers attack Americans somewhere else in the world, Assad falls and the chemical weapons end up in the wrong hands, escalation across the board. In addition, the chances that the attacks are so slight that Assad survives them easily and appears strengthened before the world.

And then a warning for any candidates who understand the insidious role AIPAC-- the Israeli lobbying arm in DC-- plays in U.S. politics: "Israel’s Prime Minister has not commented publicly on American involvement other than to say that Israel is prepared in the event that Syria decides to attack Israel as retaliation for an American strike on Syria. The American Pro-Israel community has shown support for an American campaign against Syria, with AIPAC specifically saying 'AIPAC urges Congress to grant the president the authority he has requested to protect America’s national security interests and dissuade the Syrian regime’s further use of unconventional weapons. The civilized world cannot tolerate the use of these barbaric weapons, particularly against an innocent civilian population including hundreds of children.'" How often does the DCCC send out memos from Beltway lobbyists to candidates? They ended their missive with a dismissive sneer to the UN: "Incidentally, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon opposes further military action without Security Council approval, which is not unexpected."



Please watch the video above of Grayson questioning Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry. This back and forth between Hagel and Grayson was pretty shocking, especially to anyone who recalls the fraudulent "evidence" manufactured by the Bush Regime to persuade Congress into authorizing an attack on Iraq.

GRAYSON: Secretary Hagel, there’s been a report in the media that the administration has mischaracterized post-attack Syrian military communications, and that these communications actually express surprise about the attack. This is a very serious charge. Can you please release the original transcripts so that the American people can make their own judgment about that important issue?

HAGEL: What transcripts are you referring to?

GRAYSON: The transcripts that were reported that took place after the attack in which the government has suggested that they confirm the existence of an attack, but actually it’s been reported that Syrian commanders expressed surprise about the attack having taken place, not confirmed it.

HAGEL: Well, that’s probably classified. Congressman, I’d have to go back and review exactly what you’re referring to.

GRAYSON: Well, you will agree that it’s important that the administration not mislead the public in any way about these reports, won’t you?

Grayson kept pushing and Hagel kept dancing and finally said "I have no idea what exactly you’re talking about..." and was probably delighted when teabaggy warmonger Tom Cotten (R) of Arkansas replaced Grayson as the questioner. And what Grayson was referring to was Obama's statement last week that “Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place.” Many intelligence experts have dismissed this as the exact same kind of chicanery that the Bush regime used.