Mayo Pete Gets A New Hampshire Endorsement From The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party

Today Ann Kuster appeared at a Mayo Pete rally in Concord, New Hampshire, having just endorsed him the day before. Kuster herself has been an especially bitter disappointment for progressives since she first took her seat in Congress in 2013, quickly joining the Wall Street-owned and operated New Dems and abandoning all the progressive rhetoric she had used to defeat Republican Charlie Bass. She had been endorsed by Blue America and by other progressive organizations (DFA and the PCCC). We had, unfortunately, all managed to ignore the significance of the fact that she had been a fast-talking BigPhRMA lobbyist...  and and we soon came to regret it.

It didn't take Kuster long to earn an "F" from ProgressivePunch, an "F" she has maintained to this day, especially disturbing since hers has always been the bluer of the two New Hampshire congressional districts (and the redder one supported a member significantly to the left of Kuster). Blue America was the first of the groups that supported Kuster's campaign to call her out for her swift political reinvention as a corporate shill. She took her seat in January 2013 and by February was already voting with the Republicans to deny federal employees the tiny raises they were due, worshipping on the later of austerity (while trying to avoid paying her own property taxes). We saw quickly that we should never have endorsed her-- and we certainly never did again.

By March I was already writing negatively about her at DWT:

Where this has cut deep and hurt badly is the case of Ann Kuster, who Blue America did endorse and did raise money for in 2010 and 2012-- even though we didn't always get the feeling that she was what we were really looking for in a candidate. We should have followed our guts. She did join the Progressive Caucus but she was one of the only members to vote against the Back To Work Budget and she's been working with Murphy and voting badly over and over on key issues, like voting to end regulations for derivatives in the Agriculture Committee the other day, a position that only a Republican or a sold-out Wall Street shill could defend... [S]he told a New Hampshire audience recently that "On social issues, I am what they call progressive. But on the rest of the issues, I’m business-oriented." So a Republican on economic justice? She mouthed Steve Israel's nonsense about none of the budgets being "bipartisan" enough and voted against the Progressive budget and even the pretty conservative Senate budget. "Unfortunately, none of the budget proposals on the table this week reflect the type of bipartisan compromise that New Hampshire families expect and deserve."

...More entitlements cuts? Is that what Schrader and Kuster are angling for? You'd think she has a background as a lobbyist in a GOP-oriented shop instead of as a community activist like she sold us on when she was trolling for support. Some people blame it on an exceptionally bad staff but... she's the one voting with Boehner, not her staffers.

By May of her first term she was already helping the Republicans slash food stamps. I kept complaining about her on the blog and when I finally wrote to her to ask her about the change from her campaign promises, she was defensive, kurt and nasty and told me she does exactly what Steny Hoyer tells her to do. That's when I gave up on ther entirely.

So, yeah... no one was surprised back in DC or in New Hampshire that she endorsed Mayo Pete. Same/same. Mayo, by the way, is polling 4th in New Hampshire according to the RealClearPolitics average and in the most current poll (this week), his polling has sunk down to just 7%, much closer to Tulsi's numbers than to third-place Elizabeth Warren's. Don't expect to see Kuster's limp endorsement of Mayo turn that around for him any time soon.

Problem Solvers Caucus Has Never Solved A Problem; They're Paid By Conservative Billionaires To Make Problems For Progressives

Jacobson & Penn: Murdoch pays they to undermine the Democratic Party

You've heard the term "Fox Democrat," right? Mark Penn is the prototype. Politically he's another Bill and Hillary Clinton-Tony Blair fox in the henhouse shitbag always working to pull the Democratic Party rightward-- for which he gets paid-- and handsomely so-- by wealthy conservatives. If anything, his wife, Nancy Jacobson-- a professional fundraiser-- is even worse. They are the couple from hell behind the corporately-funded No Labels cabals. Their web of dark money PACs and SuperPACs finance the Republican wing of the Democratic Party with money from-- for example-- Republican billionaires like the Murdoch family. And they make their living by taking a cut from every penny that comes in. And Penn's poison has spread all over the world-- supporting center-right candidates from Menachem Begin in Israel, Carlos Andrés Pérez (El Gocho) in Venezuela and Belisario Betancur in Colombia to Tony Blair, Ed Koch and, of course, the Clintons.

In the past cycle, Penn and the Mrs. were behind the sewer money-- from charter school fanatics, hedge fund managers and GOP financiers-- that flooded into Democrat primaries against Marie Newman in Chicago, Alan Grayson in Orlando, Deb Haaland in Albuquerque, Matt Heinz in Tucson and Susan Wild in the Philly suburbs. They are behind shady conservative PACs like United for Progress, United Together, Forward Not Back, Progress Tomorrow, Patriotic Americans PAC, Citizens for a Strong America, etc, entirely funded by contributions from 5 and 6-figure right wing donors, such as Rupert Murdoch, his son James Murdoch, Chicago White Sox and Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf, hedge fund manager Louis Bacon, former Major League Baseball Commissioner Allan Selig and Wheels Inc. executive Jim Frank and like-minded sleaze bags trying to turn the Democratic Party into another corporately-owned arm of Wall Street, just like the GOP.

This week, Sam Stein, writing for the Daily Beast, reported that it is the No Labels operation behind the Moulton coup plot against Pelosi. That should come as no surprise to anyone who follows DWT, even if the mainstream media hasn't caught on yet. Unfortunately, Stein's readers will all be confused because he mistakenly refers to the conservative conspiracy as "moderates," which is absolutely NOT what they are. Stein should know better.

Internal communications reviewed by the Daily Beast show that early this year the group No Labels, a centrist [he means right-of-center] advocacy organization, contemplated a plan to kneecap Pelosi’s political standing. In one exchange, a top official with the group even laid out the pros and cons of turning the California Democrat into a “bogeyman.”

That was well before Democrats took back the House of Representatives. In the weeks since they reclaimed congressional power, Pelosi has sought to earn back the Speaker’s gavel. And though the vast majority of her caucus supports her bid, moderate [he means right-of center] Democrats allied with No Labels remain some of the few party members refusing to give her their votes absent concessions from Pelosi and her team.

No Labels has publicly couched its efforts in conciliatory language, posting items on its website that subtly nudge other Democrats towards a Pelosi challenge, or that gently suggest it might be time for a leadership change. The group also wants Pelosi to commit to weakening the power of party leaders and committee chairs, among other measures that it says will empower rank and file members and reduce gridlock.

Behind the scenes, No Labels and its leader, political strategist Nancy Jacobson, have been more skeptical of Pelosi and more willing to try and marginalize her among her members.

Rupert

Emails obtained by the Daily Beast show that No Labels leadership contemplated a campaign to attack Pelosi aggressively after the primary campaign of centrist Rep. Dan Lipinski, who faced a primary challenge this year from Marie Newman, a progressive political neophyte. Lipinski’s pro-life stance had alienated a number of Democrats, but he was a proud member of the No Labels-backed House Problem-Solvers Caucus, and the group worked through a network of allied super PACs to support his reelection bid.

“Nancy, I have been thinking about our using Pelosi as the chief bogeyman in our messaging post-Lipinski,” began one email, subject line: “Pelosi as bogeyman.”

Pelosi had endorsed Lipinski. But No Labels leadership was convinced that her support was a fig leaf. Jacobson, according to a source familiar with the group’s internal deliberations, was convinced that Pelosi had secretly tried to scuttle the congressman’s reelection and proposed publicly attacking the Democratic leader in the run-up to the midterms.

“We were trying to figure out, assuming we got a positive result [in the Lipinski race], which we did, what would be the comms strategy afterwards,” said the source. “Nancy Jacobson’s immediate answer was, ‘I want to make Pelosi the bogeyman.’ She wanted to make it all about Nancy Pelosi and how she was going after incumbent Dems. None of that was true.”

According to the emails, No Labels chief strategist Ryan Clancy appears to have tried to talk Jacobson down. A direct confrontation with Pelosi would blow back on the group’s congressional allies, he explained. It would also be unprecedented; No Labels had never engaged in similar campaigns against congressional leaders of either party. Clancy instead proposed to make Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) the object of the group’s criticism. Unlike Pelosi, Sanders had actually endorsed Newman; had no procedural power to wield against members of the Problem-Solvers Caucus; and wasn’t even a Democrat.

“This is us, in effect, declaring war on Pelosi,” Clancy warned. “No Labels has never identified a party leader as ‘the enemy’ before. We didn’t do it with Obama or Trump. We haven’t done it with Schumer, Ryan, or McConnell. If we do this, we should consider some very real downsides.”

At the end of his memo, Clancy conceded that, “at some point,” No Labels “is probably going to go to war with Pelosi. And it probably should.” But “I don’t know that now is the time to do it, especially when we have a perfectly good villain to use in Bernie.”

No Labels has worked diligently alongside the Republican Party to diminish and demonize both Pelosi and Bernie. That's what they do; that's who they are-- the heart and soul of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. That's why it sickened me to see the DCCC and other Democratic groups spending tens of millions of dollars to recruiting the elect conservative shitbags like Ben McAdams (UT), Abigail Spanberger (VA), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Max Rose (NY), Mikie Sherrill (NJ), Xochitl Small (NM), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Jason Crow (CO), etc.

This year, No Labels spent hundreds of thousands of dollars from GOP contributors who wanted to make sure there was a pliable conservative represneting Orlando, not Alan Grayson. The vicious, non-stop attacks against Grayson that Jacobson orchestrated were meant to help Darren Soto, a conservative backbencher who regularly sells his votes. But, according to leaked internal communications that Edward-Isaac Dovere published at The Atlantic yesterday, Jacobson had soured on him and wanted to destroy him-- and other conservative Democrats who didn't live up to her nefarious expectations.

“So Soto is now asst whip …” Jacobson wrote in an internal email on January 17. Margaret White, a senior adviser, responded: “And he is boycotting the inauguration …”

“Not a promising early development,” Clancy chimed in.

Less than an hour later, Jacobson wrote back, posing a question: “Do we ever take on someone we helped …?”

The conversation appears to have faded after that, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Jacobson on Monday initially responded to questions from The Atlantic by saying the group had never considered challenging Soto. “We supported Darren Soto. Heavily. Both his elections. 2016 and 2018. Over 1.5 million total,” she wrote in an email.

When presented with what she had previously written to her staff about him, she responded, “As a group we support people who are willing to work across the aisle to solve problems and don’t support people who put partisanship above progress. As a consequence-- we consider lots of options and ideas and we always hold true to our central values of promoting bi-partisan solutions to our nation’s problems.”

...No Labels looked into taking out another Democrat almost a year later. In December 2017, Jacobson sent an email to advisers and people in New Hampshire with the subject line “advice asap” in search of how to respond to Annie Kuster, a Democratic congresswoman, with whom she had just had a call asking her to rejoin the Problem Solvers Caucus.

“It did NOT go well. She ended up hanging up on me … She told me our group was offensive … She told me we had accomplished nothing and that she was the true bipartisan,” Jacobson wrote, calling herself “shaken up by her aggressive and hostile actions and speech.” She then asked for help on the ground to mount a campaign against Kuster. In follow-up emails to people in New Hampshire, Jacobson asked about potential primary challengers, including Dick Swett, a former representative and ambassador, and Steve Marchand, who was running in the gubernatorial primary by talking up his 2016 support for Bernie Sanders.

Upon being told they were weak, Jacobson asked about Republicans and asked for contact information for one of the candidates running. “What are the political facts about her district?” Jacobson asked in one email in December 2017. “Why are there no republican challengers?” she asked in another. She also reached out directly to Swett to ask him about running.

On Monday, Jacobson said, “We support members of Congress who truly want to reach across the aisle to solve problems. We have a strong citizen group in New Hampshire that is very disappointed in Congresswoman Kuster and her disdain for our mission.”

At the same time Stein and Dovere were publishing their pieces, Stein's old comrade in arms, Ryan Grim, put up a related blockbuster at The Intercept: Who's The Mystery Man Behind The Latest Pelosi Putsch? It's Mark Penn. Grim's right on target: "a small group of billionaire-backed Democrats, part of the so-called Problem Solvers Caucus in Congress, has launched a last-ditch effort that threatens to derail Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s election as House speaker. They’ve framed their challenge to Pelosi, a California Democrat, in terms of good government and high-minded bipartisanship. Yet the force behind their campaign is one of the most toxic and notorious partisan warriors the Democratic Party has produced in the past three decades: political and corporate consultant Mark Penn." No bullshit about "moderates," especially not when he introduced Penn-protégé and Wall Street whore-- founder of the Problem Makers Caucus-- Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ).

The links between Gottheimer and Penn go back decades. Gottheimer was Penn’s assistant in the Bill Clinton White House in the 1990s. Then in 2006, when Penn was CEO of the consulting firm Burson-Marsteller, he hired Gottheimer as an executive vice president, with Gottheimer reporting directly to him. When Penn became chief strategist of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, he brought on Gottheimer as an adviser. In 2012, Penn set up shop at Microsoft, where he built a guerrilla PR operation to do battle in Washington with rival Google. There, too, he brought on Gottheimer.

Gottheimer had the full-throated support of both Bill and Hillary Clinton when he ran for Congress in 2016, with Hillary Clinton calling him “something of a family member.”

No Labels launched what it called “The Speaker Project” in this past June, proposing a sweeping set of rules changes that lawmakers should demand before agreeing to elect the next speaker, which by then was presumed to be a Democrat. The next month, the Problem Solvers Caucus embraced the plan. In September, Penn went on Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News to talk up the project. “There’s a problem-solvers group that is looking to have some influence if the result is close, in terms of changing the rules and naming the speaker,” Penn said.

A lawsuit this summer by former No Labels contractors who alleged that they were bilked by the group claimed that Penn was was “calling the shots” at the organization. Penn, according to the Washington Post, has denied involvement with the operation of No Labels, and the group rejected the assertion that he was in charge. Neither No Labels nor Penn responded to The Intercept’s questions about Penn’s relationship with the group.

But aside from the claims of the contractors, there are also direct links between groups Penn owns and No Labels’s political activity. Penn is a minority owner of the consulting firm Targeted Victory, which the group contracted with for some of its 2018 campaigns. No Labels uses an affiliate, Victory Passport, for its online fundraising. Penn’s firm Harris Interactive does the group’s polling; SKDKnickerbocker, of which Penn is an owner, produces and places the group’s television ads, as it did in its campaign to support the re-election of Rep. Daniel Lipinski in Illinois, according to the lawsuit. Hilary Rosen, an SKDK partner, said that the firm does not produce ads for No Labels.

The New Center, a think tank launched by No Labels to house its 501c3 nonprofit operation, listed Mark Penn as a contact for inquiries about its invitation-only “ideas summit.” Penn is managing partner and president of the Stagwell Group, the holding company that owns SKDKnickerbocker. Penn regularly talks up the great work of No Labels during his appearances on Fox News.

...Penn is notorious in Washington as the metaphorical devil on the shoulder, whispering toxic advice into the ears of Democratic candidates. Penn and Jacobson were both early players in the Democratic Leadership Council, a faction that emerged within the party in the 1980s to push it to align with corporate money and to move in a more conservative direction. He’s perhaps most well known for urging his client, Hillary Clinton, to attack Barack Obama as un-American during the 2008 presidential primary.

In a now-famous 2007 memo to Clinton, Penn noted that there had been much coverage in the media of Obama’s “boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii… geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light. Save it for 2050.”

In other words, Penn argued, an appeal to diversity wouldn’t work politically for another half-century. “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values,” he wrote.

How Penn planned to isolate Obama’s alleged otherness is a window into how he views the kind of glossy, good government rhetoric now deployed by No Labels-- its meaning is found less in what it says than in what it doesn’t. He advised Clinton that “we give some life to this contrast without turning negative” by elevating the values she grew up with as uniquely American. “Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century.”

That, Penn argued, would make an implicit contrast with Obama, who allegedly lacked those values-- “fairness, compassion, responsibility, giving back”-- due to his lack of American roots. “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t. Make this the new American Century, the American Strategic Energy fund. Let’s use our logo to make some flags we can give out. Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds,” he advised. “We are never going to say anything about his background-- we have to show the value of ours when it comes to making decisions, understanding the needs of most Americans-- the invisible Americans.”

Clinton, clumsy in her rhetoric, would occasionally make the subtext into text. In a 2008 speech in West Virginia after she beat Obama in Indiana, she said, “Senator Obama’s support among working-- hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” (Obama went on to win Indiana in the general election.)

A more effective dog-whistler, in the 2016 campaign, would boil the Penn approach down to just four words: “Make America Great Again.” Donald Trump was named by No Labels in 2016 as an official “Problem Solver.”

A Trump surrogate accepted the award, even though two months earlier, Trump had spoken at a No Labels conference and delivered a speech larded with Trumpisms. (Since his 2017 swearing in, Gottheimer, the Problem Solvers Caucus chair, has voted with Trump more than half the time, according to FiveThirtyEight.)

Here's a real problem that needs solving-- and urgently. Don't be surprised that not one so-called Problem Solver has signed on-- and no one supported by No Labels of course. It wouldn't surprise me if we get a Republican signed on before a "problem solver."

Are New Hampshire Democrats Finally Wising Up To How Awful New Dem Ann Kuster Is?

Putin missed one. Trump very narrowly lost New Hampshire to Clinton 348,526 (47.62%) to 345,790 (47.25%). The first in the nation primary should have been a warning for Clinton; Bernie cleaned her clock-- 152,193 (60.14%) to 95,355 (37.68%). New Hampshire Democrats were infuriated when Wasserman Schultz's delegate-rigging system awarded that massive Bernie victory just 16 delegates to Hillary's 15. Many vowed they wouldn't vote for Wasserman Schultz's candidate in the general-- and they didn't. But the primary day result I want to draw your attention to-- the Bernie Woulda Won numbers-- is a comparison of Bernie's 152,193 total to Trump's sad, anemic 100,735 total. In fact, Bernie had more primary votes in New Hampshire than 1st place Trump PLUS send place Kasich (44,932) combined.

The Senate race was also very, very close. Democrat Maggie Hassan ousted GOP incumbent Kelly Ayotte 354,649 (48.0%)-- more votes than Hillary got-- to 353,632 (47.8%)-- way more votes than Trump got. It gets a little tricky in the House. The second congressional district is the bluer district (Hillary beat Trump there 48.6% to 46.2%) but NH-01 is always sketchier. Trump won it, in fact-- 48.2% to 46.6%. NH-01 had a Republican incumbent, teabagger Frank Guinta. Progressive Democrat Carol Shea Porter-- though massively outspent-- ousted Guinta, even though there was a rich right-wing corporate Democrat, Shawn O'Connor (masquerading as a Berniecrat) in the race explicitly trying to draw Democratic votes from her. The results on election day:

• Shea-Porter- 162,080 (44.3%)
• Guinta- 157,176 (43.0%)
• O'Connor- 34,735 (9.5%)

Although each candidate spent approximately the same amount of money-- around $1.5 million-- the NRCC spent $1,294,212 attacking Shea-Porter while the DCCC "responded" with a pathetic $96,200 time buy.

Next door in much easier NH-02, conservative Democrat Ann Kuster, a New Dem beat Republican Jim Lawrence 174,371 (49.8%) to 158,825 (45.3%). Kuster raised $3,159,505 to Lawrence's $95,443. But even though Kuster's district is far bluer and more easily navigated for a Democrat, she is much more likely to vote for Ryan's agenda than Carol-- by about 10 points and, according to the FiveThirtyEight Trump adherence page Kuster votes more frequently with Trump than Shea-Porter does, even though Shea-Porter's district has far more Trump voters than Kuster's.

On Tuesday New Hampshire Public Radio's Josh Rogers had a somewhat startling piece on how Kuster uses naked politics in her votes for Trump's ugly, bigoted and xenophobic immigration agenda, Kuster: Votes For Trump-Backed Immigration Bills Part Common Ground, Part 2018 Strategy. She's always been clear that she was looking for "common ground" where she could work with the Trump regime, but not in the way progressives want to work with him by bringing him over to progressive positions. She's just looking for places she can sign to his toxic agenda-- which she's done in about 1 out of 5 votes. "One of those, it turns out, is Trump’s signature issue of immigration," reported Rogers. "So far this year, Kuster is among a minority of Democrats in the House to support some Trump-backed GOP bills that aim to crack down on illegal immigration."

Kuster’s votes are angering some Democrats, but Kuster sees them as good politics.

When Kuster opened the floor to questions at her town hall meeting in Nashua Monday, her support for what’s known as Kate’s Law got plenty of attention.

Margaret Wheeler of Windham begged Kuster to rethink her position on the GOP bill, which targets criminal undocumented immigrants but would also stiffen penalties for immigrants without criminal records who repeatedly attempt to cross the U.S. border illegally.

“This city, I know, your city, is full of people, they won’t leave their homes, because they are afraid of being deported and never being able to come back,” Wheeler said.

"So I am opposed to what the Trump administration ran on, and what they are doing to discourage people from staying here. And I want to just balance welcoming people and keeping the community safe," Kuster responded.

Kuster also seems to want to strike a political balance.

The same day she supported Kate’s Law, she also opposed a separate Trump-backed bill aimed at crimping the flow of federal aid to so-called sanctuary cities. But as one of just twenty-four Democrats to back Kate’s Law, Kuster’s vote was conspicuous-- and frustrating-- for liberals.

Lynn Tramonte is with the D.C.-based pro-immigrant advocacy group America’s Voice.

"We should not be giving any inch to Donald Trump on immigration, and the fact that Democrats are even considering these to be tough votes, I think is outrageous."

...When asked about what’s driving her recent immigration votes-- Kuster also split with most of her caucus to back a Republican bill to relax hiring standards for U.S. Customs and Border Agents-- she’s quick to cast them as tactical, a way to outmaneuver Republicans looking toward 2018.

“They are using votes to set people up who are in swing states. And I’m not going to set myself up for an ad, but I think we should have comprehensive immigration reform.”

Kuster claims that’s more doable than most think. As for the bills she’s voting for now, Kuster says people should see them for what she expects them to be, meaningless.

“They are not going anywhere. They are not going to be taken up in the Senate. None of these things are going to happen.”

This may or may not be persuasive to many of Kuster’s core supporters.

Longtime Democratic activist Sylvia Gale said she didn’t like what she heard from Kuster on Kate’s Law in Nashua, but she didn’t say she was shocked.

“Is it about reelection? Perhaps. Is it about financial support to get reelected? Perhaps. I like to think the people I believe in, are not that shallow. But I think that’s a political reality in this state and many other places.”

That voters, particularly Democrats, will accept that reality, is what Kuster seems to be banking on.

Again, although Kuster voted for it in a much bluer district, Carol Shea Porter, in a district Trump won, took a more courageous and principled stand in opposition:

“Today, I voted against H.R.3004, or ‘Kate’s Law,’ which is opposed by dozens of religious groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA, the Church World Service, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Refugee and Immigrant Center Alliance, the New Hampshire Conference United Church of Christ Immigration Working Group, the American Friends Service Committee, T’ruah: the Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

“Let me be clear: the killing of Kate Steinle was a horrible and inexcusable crime, and my heart goes out to her family and loved ones. This should never have happened. We must investigate the breakdown in policy that led to Kate’s tragic death. This bill would, however, have serious negative consequences by increasing the likelihood that innocent asylum seekers, trafficking victims, and other non-criminal immigrants will be imprisoned. These victims would be in trouble if they presented themselves at ports of entry to seek help.

“I also voted against H.R.3003, which the US Conference of Mayors strongly opposed and the Fraternal Order of Police said would unjustly ‘penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with respect to our immigration laws.’ We must stand up for proper funding for law enforcement. It is unjust to jeopardize our local police agencies, which are already underfunded and understaffed. The policies this bill seeks to end are designed to improve trust in law enforcement and help our police officers do their jobs effectively. We should not take away local communities’ and law enforcement agencies’ ability to decide how to do their jobs.”

Kuster is just a disaster. When I asked her why she turned into such a piece of crap once she tricked progressives to help her get elected, she told me does does exactly what Steny Hoyer tells her today. She has no shame-- and no right being in Congress. New Hampshire Democrats should get rid of her already.

Ann McLane Kuster-- New Hampshire's Most Disappointing Politician

One of the most popular media personalities in New Hampshire alterted me to a hot local story about Ann Kuster recently, commenting that Kuster is "merely a disingenuous politician who thinks we won't look behind the curtain." One doesn't have look to far behind too many curtains to see what's amiss here. First, though, keep a few facts in mind. Buster ran as an independent-minded, grassroots progressive in the far bluer of New Hampshire's 2 congressional districts. After being elected she dutifully joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus but quickly quit and joined the Wall Street owned and operated New Dems. She's been a straight-down-the-line centrist shill ever since, a puppet for Hoyer and Israel and, basically, a careerist hack in the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Kuster was one of the 30 New Dems to cross the aisle last month to vote with the Republicans on the CRomnibus bill. When forced to defend her odious bill back in New Hampshire, she just lied to her constituents, claiming she would have opposed the bad parts of the bill if she could have. Be when she actually had a chance to oppose the worst part of the bill-- the CitiGroup-written provision that forces American taxpayers to bail out failed banksters addicted to reckless and irresposnsible gambling-- she seems to have conveniently forgotten that she had already voted for it, first in committee and then on the House floor.

Tacked onto the massive spending bill were two policy issues that she said shouldn’t have been included in a budget bill and instead should have been dealt with “in the normal course of the policy debate.” But she voted for the bill, which passed 219-206, to avoid the alternative: another government shutdown.

One of those issues was an amendment to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that the White House said weakened “a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.” The other was an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act to allow individual donors to contribute to national political party committee accounts for conventions, buildings and recounts in amounts that are dramatically higher than what the law currently permits.

“As standalone bills, I would be opposed” to those measures, she said, but she felt it was “a better deal than if we’d closed down the government and come back in January when the Republicans controlled the Senate.”

The bill tacked onto “CRominibus” that gutted a key Dodd-Frank provision, allowing conditions to return that triggered the recession, is HR 992.

Rep. Kuster’s statement that she would be opposed to a standalone bill is curious.

Here is Rep. Kuster voting for a standalone HR 992 in committee.

And here is Rep. Kuster voting for HR 992 as a standalone bill in the full house:

Currently, Kuster is putting herself forward as the "logical" candidate for Kelly Ayotte's Senate seat if centrist Governor Maggie Hassan resists DSCC recruitment efforts. Or maybe it's Ayotte's camp that is behind the steady leak of rumors. There isn't a better guarantee of a second term for her than a Kuster nomination.

Upgrade The U.S. Senate-- Carol Shea-Porter

Very clear choice for 2016- Ayotte vs Shea-Porter

New Hampshire has two congressional districts-- a red-leaning one (NH-01 with a PVI of R+1) and a blue-leaning one (NH-02, with a PVI of D+3). Obama won both districts in 2008 and 2012:

• 2008

• NH-01- Obama- 186,561 (53%)- McCain- 163,941 (46%)
• NH-02- Obama- 198,261 (56%)- McCain- 152,591 (43%)

• 2012

• NH-01- Obama- 179,148 (50%)- Romney- 173,419 (48%)
• NH-02- Obama- 190,413 (54%)- Romney- 156,499 (44%)

It's been somewhat ironic that the stalwart progressive and advocate for New Hampshire's working families and middle class, Carol Shea-Porter represents the red-leaning 1st, while centrist New Dem Ann Kuster, a Wall Street pawn, represents the much bluer 2nd district. And last month, with the GOP pouring massive amounts of money into the state, Senator Jeanne Shaheen lost NH-01 and beat Scott Brown in NH-02, giving her a 250,722 (51.6%)- 234,846 (48.4%) victory statewide. The tragedy in the state was that while the conservative in the blue district (Kuster) was reelected, the progressive in the red district (Shea-Porter) was defeated, very narrowly, by former Congressman Frank Guinta 51.8% to 48.2%. Kuster, like the rest of the shills from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party was one of the minority of Democrats to break ranks and vote for Boehner's CRomnibus, which included a dangerous Wall Street deregulation Republicans and New Dems have been pushing for on behalf of their corporate donors. Shea-Porter, despite representing far more difficult political terrain, voted against the CRomnibus, calling it "a win for special interests, and a bad deal for middle class taxpayers." This is what Shea-Porter told her constituents the day after the vote:

Of course Congress had to keep the government open, but it should have been done by passing a Continuing Resolution that funded the government, but didn’t contain these harmful provisions. I strongly opposed the CROmnibus bill, which would hurt working Americans by allowing big-money bailouts for banks and rolling back already-inadequate campaign finance laws.

In 2008, I voted against the bank bailouts and for policies that saved us from a depression.  I am deeply concerned that this bill calls for a taxpayer-funded bailout for irresponsible institutions if they get themselves in trouble again. The bailout provision is just one of a number of special-interest victories in this bill. Another would raise campaign contribution limits, giving a small number of wealthy individuals even more leverage to drown out our middle class voices. Putting American taxpayers on the hook and gutting campaign finance laws is unacceptable, so I voted no.

For the Democrats to take back the Senate in 2016, the seat held by Kelly Ayotte is universally considered essential. The DSCC has been trying to recruit centrist Governor Maggie Hassan, who isn't jumping at the chance so far but is widely expected to agree to do it. If she doesn't, though, Beltway Democrats are eyeing Kuster. Grassroots Democrats in New Hampshire may have an entirely different idea-- someone who represents their values and their interests: Carol Shea-Porter, who, unlike Kuster, has been able to win elections in red-leaning areas. 2016 is likely to be a very good year for Democrats in New Hampshire, especially if Hillary Clinton is at the top of the ticket. The most recent poll for Bloomberg shows Hillary beating every Republican contender in New Hampshire. She beats Jeb Bush 47-39%.

WMUR political analyst Jim Pindell explains why the Beltway Democrats who want to recruit Kuster have it all wrong and why they should be putting their efforts behind Shea-Porter:

Since 2006, New Hampshire has been the most swing of swing states in the entire country. Nearly every two years since then there has been a violent move from Democrat to Republican. This should have taught us a lesson by now about how New Hampshire politics works lately: What matters most is if a candidate can win a primary, the general election atmosphere cannot be controlled.

There is no better example of this concept that Shea-Porter’s three repeat contests with Republican Frank Guinta. The reason voters had the same choices three different times is because neither of these candidates could be defeated in a primary and then they won or lost against each other depending on the political mood of the year.

This is what makes Shea-Porter really interesting as a U.S. Senate candidate in 2016. Should she ever consider it, she definitely has more of a path to victory than Kuster and maybe even Hassan.

Shea-Porter might be the most prominent true progressive ever elected to major office in New Hampshire in a century. She owns the label. She was running for office talking about the “99 percent” five years before it became the rallying cry for Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Her liberal positions matter because in a typical low-turnout Democratic primary for the Senate in 2016 a well-run liberal campaign is the one that will win.

Kuster showed how this played out in 2010 when she ran was the well-funded progressive challenging perceived Democratic front-runner Katrina Swett. In the years since progressives have lost favor with Kuster. One group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, strongly backed Kuster in 2010 and 2012, only to totally drop her once she starting voting in Congress.

As one top Democratic put it to me: Shea-Porter would beat Kuster 10 to 1 in a Democratic primary for the Senate. Sure, Kuster can raise more money, but Shea-Porter has the Democratic base locked down in the state’s 1st Congressional District and would be favored in the more liberal 2nd Congressional District.

In 2012, when Hassan ran for governor the first time, she faced a challenge from the left. Hassan’s opponent, former state Sen. Jackie Cilley, lacked fundraising and no one really knew who she was, reasons that she wasn’t a perfect candidate. Hassan deserves credit for that win. What few know, however, is that Hassan was flown to Washington and encouraged to take on Shea-Porter in a Democratic Primary. Hassan turned down that idea. In the end, two other Democrats did challenge Shea-Porter, but dropped out before they could even put their name on the ballot.

And unlike Hassan and Kuster, Shea-Porter is won't be in office next year and has nothing to lose by running.

Until she takes her name out of contention, watch Shea-Porter.

If Shea-Porter decides not to run for the Senate seat, she is likely to oust teabagger Frank Guinta, just like she did in 2012 when she beat him 171,356 (50%) to 158,482 (46%), with several thousand more votes than Kuster got in NH-02, despite Kuster's much easier terrain and despite Obama's much bigger win in NH-02.

DCCC In New Hampshire-- More Help For The Conservative Kuster And Less For The Progressive Shea-Porter

I got another email from "Nancy Pelosi" (read: the DCCC) this morning on behalf of New Hampshire conservative New Dem Ann Kuster. She's in the D+3 district that Obama won with 54% in 2012, not in the district next door that has a PVI of R+1 and which Obama only won with 50%. That's the district Carol Shea-Porter has. Kuster, who ran as a grassroots populist, sold out to Big Business the second she got to Congress, quitting the Congressional Progressive Caucus and joining the Wall Street owned and operated New Dems. Shea-Porter, on the other hand, is a portrait of integrity and a rare example of genuine virtue in Congress. So, of course the DCCC is putting their resources behind Kuster instead of Shea-Porter. "One of the most competitive races in the country is happening in New Hampshire's 2nd congressional district, right now," wrote "Pelosi." That's the Kuster district.

The latest polling shows both Democrats leading their crazy Republican opponents-- Shea-Porter narrowly, Kuster handily, reflections of the partisan makeup of the two districts. The WMUR poll released Wednesday shows that when leaners are included, Kuster is ahead 53 to 30%.

The unpopularity of both candidates make the race for the 2nd District seat a volatile one. Currently, 46% of likely voters in the 2nd District say they would vote for Kuster if the election were held today, 28% would vote for Garcia, 1% would vote for someone else and 24% are undecided. However, when undecided voters are asked which candidate they lean toward supporting, 53% say they would vote for Kuster, 30% say they would vote for Garcia, 1% would vote for someone else, and 16% remain undecided.

They released a poll for NH-01 that same day and it is much tighter, Carol Shea-Porter ahead of Tea Party extremist and former Congressman Frank Guinta, 44 to 40% (including leaners).

Guinta and Shea-Porter will face each other for the third straight time. Guinta defeated then incumbent Shea-Porter in 2010 while Shea-Porter won the seat back from Guinta in 2012. If the congressional election were held today, 39% of likely 1st District likely voters would vote for Shea-Porter, 36% would vote for Guinta, 1% would vote for someone else and 24% are undecided. When undecided voters are asked which candidate they lean toward supporting, 44% would vote for Shea-Porter, 40% would vote for Guinta, 1% would vote for someone else, and 15% remain undecided. While both candidates receive most support from members of their party (Shea-Porter leads 88%-4% among Democrats and Guinta leads 72%-10% among Republicans), they are deadlocked among Independents with 37% favoring Shea-Porter and 36% favoring Guinta.

Kuster, with typically sleazy New Dem backing, has raised $3,314,902 compared to $954,720 for Garcia. Going into the final days, Kuster had $846,487 and Garcia had $200,001 (as of October 15). The DCCC spent $704,662 on Kuster this week, bringing the total to $3,438,937 and their allied House Majority PAC spent another $303,868 this week, bringing their total to $605,668.

Meanwhile, the grassroots oriented Shea-Porter raised $1,491,761 in total and has $120,872 for the final sprint, while Guinta raised $1,007,751 and has $381,535 cash-on-hand. This week the DCCC spent $509,961 on Shea-Porter, bringing their total to $2,263,009 and the House Majority PAC spent $102,376 this week, bringing their total to $219,039. By every measurement, Steve Israel has favored the more conservative, less needy Kuster against the progressive Shea-Porter who is in far more need of help.

Yesterday the Concord Monitor endorsed Shea-Porter and Kuster, writing that they "have proven themselves to be voices of reason and diplomacy in a House too often dominated by extreme positions and an unwillingness to compromise. Their challengers, Frank Guinta and Marilinda Garcia, respectively, would only add to the tone of negativity and obstruction that already consumes Washington."

Guinta has taken a page from the Scott Brown playbook and hammered Shea-Porter as being a rubber stamp who’s voted with party leadership “95 percent of the time.” A recent TV spot labels him as a New Hampshire independent voice, even though PolitiFact determined Guinta’s congressional voting record is even more along party lines than that of Shea-Porter.

Shea-Porter has indeed shown an independent streak, and it hasn’t always been when the cameras were rolling. She was among the first Democrats to call for resignations following the bungled health care rollout. Shea-Porter showed her willingness to stand apart from her party during that February White House meeting, which was reported in the Wall Street Journal. She’s also been a vocal member of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, one of the few places where bipartisan legislation can actually get accomplished in the current environment.

Shea-Porter, along with Kuster, worked with the White House, federal officials and the state government to ensure New Hampshire residents had options beyond Anthem in the 2015 health care exchange. In just a couple of weeks, New Hampshire residents can begin to search through 50-plus plans from five carriers. In addition to increased options, it’s looking like some New Hampshire residents may actually be able to save on their health coverage next year, a point both Guinta and Garcia refuse to acknowledge as they continue to push for a repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Ann Kuster May Have An Ugly Voting Record But New Hampshire Republican’s Vicious Comments On Her Appearance Is Part Of Their Cruel War Against Women

Blue America helped raise money and awareness for Annie Kuster when she ran last cycle. We’re not supporting her again, not because she doesn’t have a horrible opponent— she does— but because she also has a horrible voting record. Soon after getting elected, Kuster quit the Congressional Progressive Caucus and joined the Wall Street-owned New Dems. He voting record is UGLY— really ugly, and we’re ashamed that we got taken in by her. Because of Kuster, we’ve tightened up our vetting of candidates to exclude phony opportunists. That said, she was unfairly attacked this week for a different kind of ugly— nothing to do with her crappy voting record, but on her appearance! And who is casting the first stone? 

As Digby pointed out yesterday, the toad-like Republican state Rep who started the vile name-calling, Steve Vaillancourt of Manchester, is no George Clooney. Vaillancourt, a tubby 62-year old pot head started his political career as a Democrat, became a Libertarian and wound up as a Republican, where his sexist intolerance is more welcome. He was ejected from the floor of the New Hampshire House— the first in over 20 years— for giving a Nazi salute and screaming “Sieg Heil” during a session. He is no longer in the closet and-- much like Carl Demaio-- acknowledges being a gay Republican. Although he claims he travels frequently to Montreal to observe Canadian politics, there have been rumors that he’s a regular at Montreal’s most notorious male strip clubs/brothels, Campus, Le Stud and the Stock Bar bar. (To be fair, Vaillancourt has been basically pro-gay as a legislator.)

Yesterday CBS News reported that the portly Vaillancourt, who has several chins, wrote a public post that Kuster would lose reelection because of her physical appearance.

Let's be honest.  Does anyone not believe that Congressman Annie Kuster is as ugly as sin?  And I hope I haven't offended sin.

If looks really matter and if this race is at all close, give a decided edge to Marilinda Garcia.

How ugly is Annie Kuster?  Again avert your eyes if you don't want to hear it, but I actually thought of Annie Kuster last weekend when I was in Montreal.  Not far from the Second Cup Coffee Shop I at which I was sipping and writing is a bar called Mados.  It's on the section of St. Catherine Street which is blocked off for pedestrians only in the summer; it's near the Jacques Cartier Bridge.  Thus, tens of thousands of Montrealers and visitors walk by Mados on their way to the fireworks displays on summer nights.

On almost any given night, standing for all to see in front of Mados is a rather attractive drag queen.  People stop to pose for pictures with this Mado drag queen; other drag queens gather round because, you see, Mados is a drag queen bar...not that there's anything wrong with that.  Long live Victor Victoria; long live La Cage Aux Folles.

By now you probably know why I think of Annie Kuster whenever I walk by Mados; sad to say, but the drag queens are more atrractive than Annie Kuster....not that there's anything wrong with that.

…Annie Kuster looks more like a drag queen than most men in drag.

This very ugly attitude is what fuels GOP intolerance and their relentless war against women. Vaillancourt is up for reelection in November and this should be enough to diminish his prospects. After that maybe he can tell us about how Virginia Foxx’s appearance has impacted her congressional career.

Virginia Foxx (R-NC)

Contrasts… In New Hampshire's Congressional Elections

This anti-Frank Guinta ad (above) that the DCCC is running in the Manchester, Portsmouth and Rochester media markets of eastern New Hampshire is meant to show voters that Guinta is "outside New Hampshire’s mainstream." Fortunately Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter runs her own campaign and ignores the DCCC sand their messaging. This is a third-rate self-referencing ad that might work among Beltway partisans but says little to regular New Hampshire voters. As are the vast majority of DCCC expenditures, it's pretty much a waste of effort and a waste of money-- although, no doubt, it made some DCCC-connected consultants richer.

Carol Shea-Porter's own campaign is very different and very positive, emphasizing who she is and what's she's actually done. "I've never taken a dime," she explains in the campaign video below, "from DC lobbyists or corporate PACs, so you know who I stand for." That, of course, is in great contrast to Guinta but also from the DCCC and their independent attack machine.

The WMUR/UNH polls have been silly and pretty worthless this cycle. One week Shea-Porter is up a mind-boggling 48-32% over Guinta and a few weeks later, for no apparent reason outside of bad polling, Guinta's up 47-43% over Shea-Porter. The last legitimate poll was by New England College and it was too tight to call: Shea-Porter 43% and Guinta 42%. So far Shea-Porter has raised $1,073,926 and has $653,898 cash on hand. Guinta, who had a really difficult and bloody primary that he barely won spent almost all the $492,275 he's been able too run and only has $187,801 cash on hand. The Koch brothers, Rove and other right-wing operators are both expected to pour immense sums into his race. If you'd like to contribute to Carol's campaign online, you can do it on our Worthy Incumbents page.

NH-01 is a swing district, the less secure for Democrats of the two New Hampshire House seats. The PVI is R+1, while NH-02 has a PVI of D+3. Obama won both districts both times he ran, although in 2012 it was a narrow 179,148 (50%) to 173,419 (48%) win over Romney in NH-01 and a much easier than the 190,413 (54%) to 156,499 (44%) win in NH-02. Yet, Shea-Porter has been true to her word to protect seniors and working families while Ann Kuster, the congresswoman from the much safer second district has sold out completely, joining the Wall Street owned New Dems and voting with the Republicans on ugly legislation that flies in the face of everything she promised voters when they first elected her in 2012, a time when she was still making believe she was an independent-minded progressive instead of the corporate tool of the DCCC leadership she's morphed into. Last week 25 conservative Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- primarily Blue Dogs and New Dems like Kuster-- voted with the Republicans to demolish the Affordable Care Act again. Steve Israel "suggested" that "vulnerable" candidates cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans. Kuster pushed other members aside and stepped on their heads as she stampeded over the aisle. With a much less safe district, Carol Shea-Porter once again stayed true to her constituents and voted to keep the social safety net strong for working families. The contrast between her and Kuster is almost as stark as the contrast between her and Guinta!

DCCC Rolls Out Their Failed Game Plan-- A Sure And Proven Loser

The theory is that fewer young voters, fewer minority voters, fewer single women, fewer poor people turn out for midterms. These groups tend to vote Democratic-- and the groups that do turn out-- elderly whites, more well-off people, ideologically driven extremists-- tend to vote for Republicans. There are two things Democratic candidates can do: try to win over the likely voters or try to turn out their own base in greater numbers. A Democratic Party gloom and doom scenario, Conservative voters key to Dems 2014 strategy, by Alex Isenstadt in Politico this morning indicates that many Democrats are not going to fight to turn out the base but are going the easy route-- even though the easy route is a route to proven and catastrophic failure.

The Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders/Alan Grayson model is being abandoned for the Steve Israel model, that never works for Democrats and is sure to lead to dismal failure in November again. "It’s one thing," writes Isenstadt, "for Democrats running in red parts of the country to sound like Republicans on the campaign trail. It’s another when Democrats running in purple or even blue territory try to do so. Yet that’s what’s happening in race after race this season. Faced with a treacherous political environment, many Democrats are trotting out campaign ads that call for balanced budgets, tax cuts and other more traditionally GOP positions. Some of them are running in congressional districts that just two years ago broke sharply for President Barack Obama."

Steve Israel's DCCC premise is-- and has always been-- that vulnerable Democrats will survive if they can appeal to conservative voters. For Israel there were no lessons learned in 2010 when Democrats used this strategy and lost 63 House seats (of which 52 were incumbents) and control of the House. Almost every one of them followed the DCCC's advise to appeal to conservative voters and take the base for granted. The base didn't turn out to vote for Republican-lite candidates and-- voila! Speaker Boehner! Democrats who had spent the whole session voting conservative and then campaigned conservative and then lost their seats included:

• Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)
• Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)
• John Salazar (Blue Dog-CO)
• Betsy Markey (Blue Dog-CO)
• Allen Boyd (Blue Dog-FL)
• Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
• Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA)
• Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID)
• Melissa Bean (New Dem-IL)
• Debbie Halvorson (New Dem-IL)
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)
• Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN)
• Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)
• Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS)
• Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)
• Ike Skelton (MO)
• Dina Titus (NV)
• John Adler (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Harry Teague (Blue Dog-NM)
• Michael McMahon (Blue Dog-NY)
• Scott Murphy (Blue Dog-NY)
• Mike Arcuri (New Dem-NY)
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
• Bob Etheridge (Blue Dog-NC)
• Earl Pomeroy (Blue Dog-ND)
• Steve Driehaus (OH)
• Charlie Wilson (Blue Dog-OH)
• John Boccieri (Blue Dog-OH)
• Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH)
• Kathy Dahlkemper (Blue Dog-PA)
• Patrick Murphy (Blue Dog-PA)
• Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA)
• Paul Kanjorski (PA)
• John Spratt (SC)
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog-SD)
• Lincoln Davis (Blue Dog-TN)
• Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA)
• Tom Perriello (VA)
• Rick Boucher (VA)

And that list doesn't count all the conservative Dems who raised the white flag before the onslaught and retired-- in every case consigning their seat to a Republican: Marion Berry (Blue Dog-AR), Vic Snyder (AR), Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN), Dennis Moore (Blue Dog-KS), Charlie Melancon (Blue Dog-LA), Bart Stupak (MI), Barton Gordon (Blue Dog-TN), John Tanner (Blue Dog-TN), and Brian Baird (WA). On top of that, the DCCC was-- as they are this cycle-- pushing conservative challengers. They all lost too, like Mike Oliverio (Blue Dog-WV), Ami Bera (New Dem-CA), Lori Edwards (New Dem-FL), Dan Seals (New Dem-IL), Gary McDowell (Blue Dog-MI), Manan Trivedi (New Dem-PA), and Suzan DelBene (New Dem-WA). The DCCC is following that exact same game plan, step by step-- and some cases with the same pathetic characters-- this year and some are delusional enough to think they have some kind of chance for a different outcome. They do not.

“It’s a different kind of electorate,” said Ben Tulchin, a San Francisco-based Democratic pollster. “If you’re running in a competitive district as a Democrat in a nonpresidential year, you want to strike a more moderate tone.”

Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, who’s running in a district that Obama won in 2012 and 2008, has started airing a commercial that strikes a tea party theme. It highlights his record as speaker of the state House of Representatives when, he says, he helped balance the state’s budget.



“It’s really pretty simple. You don’t buy things you can’t pay for,” Romanoff states.

As Romanoff narrates, a graph of the nation’s soaring debt pops up on the screen. The image looks strikingly similar to one that appears in a Web video Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan released in 2011 to sell his controversial budget plan, though a Romanoff spokeswoman insisted that the campaign hadn’t borrowed from the former GOP vice presidential contender.

New Hampshire Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, whose district broke for Obama by a yawning 11-percentage-point margin in 2012, is running an ad that touts her support for small-business tax cuts while showing her touring a local microbrewery. Separately, former Iowa state Sen. Staci Appel, in a district Obama won by 4 percentage points two years ago, underscores her record of fighting overspending in state government, a populist theme often heard from tea party-aligned conservatives.



Democratic Rep. Ron Barber, in a swing southern Arizona district that is slightly more conservative than the others, uses his first TV spot [up top] to highlight his support for increasing border security funds. The ad-- complete with the image of a border patrol car-- doesn’t mention elements of immigration reform that are typically more popular among Democratic voters.

Like the commercials aired by Romanoff, Kuster and Appel, Barber’s doesn’t mention his Democratic Party affiliation.

Democrats who have the especially high hurdle of competing in deep-red districts are striking multiple conservative themes. Democrat Patrick Henry Hays, the North Little Rock mayor who’s running in an Arkansas district that Mitt Romney won in 2012, uses his first TV ad to discuss the need for a balanced budget, limited government regulations and less wasteful spending. Like Romanoff, Hays includes a graphic to depict the national debt.

“I approve this message because it’s simple,” Hays says. “You cut waste, you pay your bills, and you do everything in your power to create jobs. That’s what we need in Congress.”

…Some Democrats also argue that, with so many Republican candidates-- pushed by tea party forces-- staking out positions further and further to the right, there’s room for Democratic hopefuls to appeal to centrist Republican voters who feel alienated.

“There’s an an opening among moderates that mainstream Democrats are well positioned to fill,” said Robby Mook, a former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee executive director.

Not all Democrats are happy with the approach. Andrew Myers, a Washington, D.C.-based Democratic pollster, said that by focusing on issues such as balancing the budget, the party was losing an opportunity to lay out clear distinctions with congressional Republicans, who are wallowing in national surveys.

“We need to differentiate ourselves, and taking the Republican line doesn’t do it,” he said.

Republicans say the Democratic strategy carries risks, especially if the candidates can’t back up the image they’re trying to present.

In response to Romanoff’s ad, the National Republican Congressional Committee sent out a news release on Wednesday pointing to his past support for the $787 billion economic stimulus package and stating that “It’s dishonest for Andrew Romanoff to criticize the mountain of government debt he helped create.”

“It’s pretty clear why Democrats would charade as Republicans in districts coast to coast-- on every big issue, voters prefer Republicans to Democrats,” said Liesl Hickey, the NRCC’s executive director. “But by portraying themselves as something they are not, these Democrats are playing a dangerous game that is destined to backfire with voters.”

Unsustainable model-- great for the GOP though