When Push Comes To Shove, What Do Blue Dogs Do? They Pull Off Their Masks And Show The World What They Always Are: Republicans

 

Two of the members of Congress I respect most, Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) are in safe blue districts and have been working their asses off to elect other Democrats to Congress. Sometimes, it drives me crazy, though, that they are working to elect all Democrats-- from complete garbage like Oklahoma Blue Dog Kendra Horn to the top progressive challengers across the country. I had a good discussion with Ted about it but he was unshakable in his determination to elect more Democrats. Period.

To my mind, his argument is undercut, though, when conservative Democrats are seen to only help other conservative Democrats and not progressives. Progressives like Ted and Jamie are raising millions of dollars for Blue Dogs and New Dems-- as well as for progressives-- but Blue Dogs and New Dems? Let's go take a look at one of the most-- if not the most-- crucial congressional race anywhere in America: Omaha, Nebraska.

NE-02-- Omaha and the rest of Douglas County plus most of red-leaning, rural Sarpy County-- is a swing district that elects one member of Congress, just like every other district. However, NE-02, also awards an electoral vote to a presidential candidate (as does another swing district, ME-02). That's why the district is so incredibly important. Kara Eastman, a community activist and organizer, won a tough primary against an establishment candidate married to a former congressman, Blue Dog, Brad Ashford, who was beaten in 2018 by Eastman in a bitter primary. In part because of the tireless and effective organizing on behalf of Democrats up and down the ticket, both she and Biden, who is not making any efforts in Nebraska, are leading in the district. Kara is delivering him an electoral college vote.

On Wednesday evening, she beat the Trump-enabling incumbent, Don Bacon, in a debate. Moments before the debate-- in a coordinated effort by the Bacon campaign-- party-jumper Ashford-- who had already endorsed Kara-- switched his endorsement to the Republican.

That's what Blue Dogs do. I wouldn't expect Cheri Bustos, DCCC Chair and a Blue Dog herself, to care, but I would hope Ted and Jamie would take that into consideration when they help elect Blue Dog candidates. There are several Republicans running as Democrats this cycle-- just as Ashford had-- and all are possible party-jumpers like Jeff Van Drew, a New Jersey ultra-conservative who flipped into Trumpism and officially joined the GOP after voting with them for a year.

When Ashford was in Congress, he was generally considered one of the 2 or 3 most right-wing Democrats in the House and was always looking for opportunities to stab the Democrats in the back, just the way he did to Kara on Wednesday night.

Ashford first won the seat in 2014, narrowly beating GOP incumbent Terry Lee, even though he only raised $1,231,958 to Lee's $3,106,288. How did he manage that? The DCCC and Pelosi's House Majority PAC spent a little over $1.5 million slamming Lee and bolstering Ashford. One term of the conservative Ashford was more than enough for Omaha Democrats, who refused to back him again. That's when he lost to Bacon, even though he spent a million dollars more than Bacon and even though the DCCC spent $2,688,673 on his behalf, while Pelosi's SuperPAC threw in another $741,041. So... almost $3.5 million wasted trying to save the seat of a pretend-Democrat who voted with the GOP and who was hated by his own constituents! That's the DCCC!

The following year, Ashford wanted to try again, but despite backing from the DCCC, Democratic voters weren't having anything to do with him and Kara defeated him in the primary-- at which point the DCCC basically pulled out of the race and signaled to the Republicans that the district was all their's. The GOP spent a massive $1.3 million smearing Kara and another $700,000 advertising how amazingly wonderful Bacon was. The DCCC spent a ritual $90,000 on Kara before telling donors and the media that she couldn't win. And by the way, you can contribute to Kara's campaign by clicking on the thermometer on the right. Bacon defeated Kara by less than 1 percentage point despite his mammoth financial edge.

This cycle, Ashford sent his wife in to run in his place. Kara beat her in a humiliating two to one landslide. She has kept up with Bacon on spending so far-- having spent $1,132,014 to his $1,239,832. But he has twice what she does in the bank for the final push and the GOP has spent $1,958,987 on ads calling her a communist and another $1,216,895 boosting Bacon. The DCCC and Pelosi's SuperPAC have spent $1.2 million helping Kara, much less than they've spent on right-wing Blue Dogs and corporately owned New Dems. One of the most far right Democrats in the House-- hated by his normal Democratic colleagues, many of whom hope he loses-- is Anthony Brindisi, who votes with the GOP as much as Ashford used to. The DCCC has spent $2,025,213 on his race. Pelosi's SuperPAC threw in another $632,150 and the Blue Dog PAC kicked in $473,272. Or compare the $1.2 million the DCCC and Pelosi have spent on Kara to the $2,736,430 the DCCC alone had spent on conservative New Dem candidate Carolyn Bourdeaux so far.

Triumph In November Means Winning Primaries Now

It's relatively easy to point out that you don't agree with the person in power and declare your candidacy and hope more voters turn out on election day who agree with you than with the incumbent. But that is rarely the way people get into Congress. It's especially difficult winning a primary against your own party's establishment, something a reformer almost never accomplishes in one cycle. Take Ro Khanna, Donna Edwards, Alan Grayson. None of their first runs resulted in victories.

But those three had something else in common. They're all very smart and they all worked like their lives depended on winning. And when they didn't, they kept on running... and won the next time. In March we saw the same scenario play out in Illinois where progressive champion Marie Newman vanquished-- on the second effort-- DCCC-backed Blue Dog Dan Lipinski.

Lipinski spent $7,701,137 to Marie's $1,968,537.Outside groups like the right-of-Center Trump-friendly No Labels, the Blue Dog PAC (Center Forward), Republican-oriented unions like the Pipe Fitters and Plumbers and the preeminent GOP anti-choice group spent another quarter of a million dollars bolstering Lipinski and smearing Marie but Round 2 saw her take out the established-backed 7 term congressman, 49,098 (47.3%) to 46,315 (44.6%). It was a tribute to Marie's persistent hard work to build her name recognition and her ability to organize a grassroots movement around a compelling platform of progressive issues.

Last Tuesday, we saw something very similar in Omaha, Nebraska, where the progressive candidate, Kara Eastman and her grassroots army beat the DCCC-preferred "ex"-Republican, Ann Ashcroft, the wife of Blue Dog former Congressman Brad Ashcroft. This one wasn't even close. In a 3-way race Kara triumphed, 40,456 (61.8%) to 20,656 (31.6%).

After her win on Tuesday, Kara issued this statement:

"Blue America invested in my race when no one thought I had a chance. It was transformative. The grassroots support turned my race around in 2018 and I am proud to partner with them towards a win in 2020. Together, we can fight for and win on issues like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal."

That's you she's talking about. 1,182 of us contributed $21,393.74 through Blue America, an average of just under $20. And now comes the hard part, defeating serial Trump enabler Donald J. Bacon in the ultimate swing district. Last time, Bacon edged Kara by just 2 points-- 126,715 to 121,770. In 2018, Bacon and Kara each spent $2.5 million, but while the NRCC and Paul Ryan's SuperPAC spent a million and a half dollars helping Bacon, the DCCC and Pelosi only begrudgingly kicked in $90,000 for Kara. This year Kara is working hard to unify the Democratic party around her campaign. And her district-- unlike almost any other in the country, awards an electoral vote to the presidential winner, making it crucial in the battle to unseat Trump.

"When I first decided to run," Kara told us yesterday, "I committed my campaign to the cause of de-linking employment and health coverage, and became a supporter of Medicare for All. I endorse Rep. Jayapal's HR 1384 because it's the best way to ensure that every person is covered. The fact is that our current trajectory of poor outcomes and high costs is not sustainable, so we need to move in a new direction."

Please join Blue America in making sure Kara has the resources to make Round 2 the victory for her that it was for Ro, Donna and Alan. Consider clicking on the 2020 congressional thermometer on the right to contribute what you feel comfortable giving. When you're making up your mind, don't think of what we';re saying, think of what Kara Eastman said to us: "I believe that climate chaos is the most significant moral issue of our time. We can no longer kick the can of environmental unsustainability down the road. I believe the Green New Deal is an important step towards addressing this issue." So do we and. Let's bring this one home.

And in case you're feeling flush, there are 7 other candidates on that page who are fighting their second congressional battles:

• J.D. Scholten vs Steve King in Iowa
• Mike Siegel vs Michael McCaul and Julie Oliver vs Roger Williams in Texas
• Audrey Denney vs Doug LaMalfa in California
• Kathy Ellis vs Jason Smith in Missouri
• Tom Guild vs Kendra Horn in Oklahoma
• Lisa Ring vs Buddy Carter in Georgia

Iowa progressive J.D. Scholten noted this morning that "This unprecedented health and economic crisis shows us just how broken our country really is. Millions of Americans are unemployed and struggling to access or afford health care, food to put on the table, housing, work protections, and more. And yet, the response from Congress and the Administration has been too little, too late, and too focused on their wealthy donors, proving how disconnected they are from reality. That’s why we must fight for a government that looks like us and understands our experiences. We need to elect a government with economic, religious, identity, and gender diversity-- instead of one that caters to the corporate, wealthy class."

DCCC Lost All The Races Yesterday-- But Progressives Did Well

DCCC chair Cheri Bustos should resign

Last night 3 important congressional races ended. Nancy Pelosi, Cheri Bustos and their DCCC need to think closely about what happened. One contest was a primary in Omaha and two were special elections to fill seats in Wisconsin and California where members had retired, respectively one Republican and one Democrat. In each special election, the victor will fill the seat until January, at which point the winner of the regular November election will take the seat.

Let's start, though, with the primary in Nebraska. Kara Eastman, a community activist and outspoken progressive, beat Ann Ashford the wife of the former (defeated) Blue Dog congressman, Brad Ashford, in a two-to-one landslide. The DCCC was less overt in their support for Ann Ashford than they had been in their over-the-top backing for Brad in the 2018 primary. In 2018, Kara beat Brad Ashford 21,357 (51.6%) to 19,998 (48.4%). The DCCC was so incensed that Kara beat their pet Blue Dog that they removed NE-02 from their priority list and refused to help Kara win. She only lost by a 2 point margin against GOP incumbent Don Bacon-- 126,715 (51.0%) to 121,770 (49.0%). Let's not allow that to happen again this coming November. Please write to Cheri Bustos and Nancy Pelosi and demand they support Kara Eastman this cycle-- and contribute to her here or by click on the 2020 congressional thermometer on the right.

Yesterday's primary showed Kara with a great deal or-- and much more-- support, despite the Ashfords pouring over $350,000 of their own money into her campaign.

The Omaha World-Herald reported that Kara "earned her chance for a rematch against the two-term Republican incumbent Tuesday night by topping two other rivals in her party’s primary. She immediately took aim at Bacon, saying his record of reliable votes for President Donald Trump and his party don’t fit in a swing district like the Omaha-area 2nd. 'People are looking for leadership and for representation that actually represents the district, and not just somebody who’s going to align himself with his party,' Eastman said."

Two years after a fired-up base of progressives helped upstart Eastman upset former congressman Brad Ashford in the Democratic primary, she easily outpolled his wife, Ann Ashford, and Omaha restaurateur Gladys Harrison in Tuesday’s vote.

That gave her a second chance against Bacon, who beat her by just fewer than 5,000 votes-- about 2% of all cast-- in the 2018 general election. She said she thinks it will be a different race this time.

“It’s already very different in the direction this country has moved,” she said.

...A centrist former Republican, Ashford echoed Bacon from two years earlier in arguing that Eastman’s policies are too extreme for most voters in a district that includes Douglas County and western Sarpy County.

The key example both Ashford and Bacon cite is Eastman’s support for “Medicare for All,” the single-player, universal health care system that would do away with private health insurance.

But the 48-year-old Eastman hasn’t backed down from her support for the health care plan championed by liberal firebrand Bernie Sanders, noting the coronavirus pandemic has exposed the pitfalls of a system that mostly relies on people getting their health insurance through their employer.

Eastman offered herself as “an authentic Democrat.” And much like two years ago, she benefited from an army of grassroots progressive volunteers, who shifted this spring from going door to door to making thousands of calls from phone banks.

...Eastman and Bacon now enter a fall campaign that will likely be heavily influenced by the top-of-ticket battle between Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden. While the two congressional candidates competed two years ago, the presidential race is sure to change the dynamics.

Bacon on Tuesday night said he wished the president were at times more diplomatic. But on issues from abortion to taxes to trade, he said, the president’s positions align well with the district.

“I want that conservative philosophy in the White House,” he said.

Bacon also believes Trump’s supporters will be highly motivated in November. The Republican wave that Trump created in 2016 helped Bacon to his 1-point victory over then-incumbent Brad Ashford.

...But Democrats are heavily motivated to oust Trump, which could drive Democratic turnout in the swing district. And this time Eastman will have the support of the national Democratic establishment, which failed to jump in with both feet to help her when she lost narrowly two years ago.

In charging she is too extreme, Eastman said, Bacon is just “following the Republican playbook” in a race he knows he’s in danger of losing.

“He’ll say that I’m too extreme when he has voted 95% of the time with Donald Trump, and even signed a pledge to not disagree with the president, which is crazy,” Eastman said. “He is the definition of extreme.”

No one expected the Wisconsin special election to switch the 7th district from red to blue. The PVI is R+8 and when Sean Duffy was reelected in 2018 against Democrat Margaret Engebretson, it was a 60.1% to 38.5% wipeout, Duffy winning 23 of the 26 counties, including the 3 big ones, Marathon, St. Croix and Oneida. Although Obama won the district in 2008, he lost to Romney in 2012 and Trump beat Hillary decisively-- 57.7% to 37.3%.

Last night Tom Tiffany was an easy winner over Democrat Tricia Zunker, 109,592 (57.22%) to 81,928 (42.78%). Zunker, president of the Wausau School Board and an associate justice for the Ho-Chunk Nation Supreme Court, did better than either Margaret Engebretson did in 2018 or then Hillary had done in 2016. But not better enough. They will face off again in November. Zunker addressed her supporters last night on Facebook Live, noting that "we laid the groundwork for a Democratic win in November. This isn’t the result we were hoping for, but we did something incredible here. We did something that no one thought a Democrat in this district could do, in spite of a global pandemic. We did something incredible despite the fact that legislators refused to switch to mail-in voting to protect the health and safety of Wisconsinites." Tiffany outraised her by over a million dollars. Their debates were about issues like abortion and gun control.

The other special election-- in CA-25 (Santa Clarita Valley, Antelope Valley and Simi Valley-- was more of a contest. Although the district has a Democratic registration advantage, Republican Mike Garcia, a Trump loyalist, beat Christy Smith, a centrist Democrat. As of this month, the voter registration numbers were very much favorable to the Democrats:

• Democrats- 161,693 (38.41%)
• Republicans- 133,771 (31.78%)
• No party preference- 98,717 (23.45%)

Although Christy Smith was offering nothing but another centrist nothing-- with lots of meaningless partisan endorsements and a meaningless platform-- I predicted she would win anyway, albeit narrowly (and she well may in November). At the time, I noted that her only chance to win would be to reach out to the 6.5% of primary voters who had cast primary ballots for progressive Cenk Uygur and consolidate the Democratic vote. She chose to reach out to Republicans instead and ignore progressives. That proved our "Anonymous Strategist" correct this past Sunday when he predicted she would lose, unable to inspire Democrats to vote.

This morning I reached out to Cenk and asked him why he thought she lost. He was kind:

Republicans vote more. It was a low turnout election and they almost always win those. Probably any Democratic candidate would have lost but the Democratic Party's insistence on picking the least dynamic or populist candidate doesn't help. Mike Garcia was more populist than Steve Knight and the whole Republican Party supported him and helped him win the primary. On the Democratic side, the party despises populism so they all went in very aggressively for the establishment candidate. In primaries, especially very short ones like this, party endorsements make a huge difference and the establishment rules the day. In general elections, undecided voters have the opposite motivation-- they don't like the establishment.

  The Republican Party gives their candidates the trappings of outsiders and the Democratic Party gives their candidates the appearance of being insiders. Independent voters don't like insiders. They're independents-- by definition they're outsiders. It also doesn't help that the Democratic Party leaders are lions against progressives in primaries and lambs against Republicans in the general. How much more vitriolic were they against me than Mike Garcia? If they fought him half as hard as they fought me, they might have had a chance.

This is what happens when the Democratic Party establishment backs candidates with nothing to offer but someone they imagine is the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. This time didn't. This one wasn't even close:

Another Side Effect Of Trumpism: Americans Are Losing Their Religion-- Rapidly

The latest Gallup poll concludes that Christianity is rapidly declining in the U.S.. "The religious landscape of the United States continues to change at a rapid clip. In Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019, 65% of American adults describe themselves as Christians when asked about their religion, down 12 percentage points over the past decade. Meanwhile, the religiously unaffiliated share of the population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” now stands at 26%, up from 17% in 2009. Both Protestantism and Catholicism are experiencing losses of population share... The share of U.S. adults who are white born-again or evangelical Protestants now stands at 16%, down from 19% a decade ago."

Are Trump and his satanic bagmen, disguised as religious leaders, driving people away from Christianity? If you know anyone who's losing their religion-- or their faith-- suggest they start reading, a progressive pastor's blog: John Pavlovitz's Stuff That Needs To Be Said-- for a refreshing and reinvigorating perspective on faith.





Yesterday's post, I Resist Because I'm A Christian starts with the words evangelical leaders have moved far away from in their twisted decision to worship Trump. "As a Christian," wrote Pavlovitz, "I take the words of Jesus seriously. They matter to me. I don’t think they’re theoretical ideas meant to be uttered for an hour on Sunday or kept locked in stained glass museums or contained solely in memorized prayers or resigned to live only in Twitter bios-- I think they’re supposed to propel me out of privilege and prejudice, and into the places where grieving, hopeless, hungry, tired people are so that I can give comfort and be a help. I think they’re supposed to cause trouble for the powerful and be good news for the poor. I think they’re supposed to bring peace and justice and equity-- even if they put me in harm’s way. I don’t think I can call myself a Christian without living the words."

[I]t is because of the words of Jesus and my commitment to trying to emulate his character in the world, that I resist right now.

It is not a political affiliation that moves me, but a moral conviction, a spiritual agitation.

My faith compels me to push back.

I resist this Administration’s bigotry, because I see Jesus celebrating Samaritans and dining with prostitutes and touching the lepers and welcoming outsiders.

I resist its callousness, because I see Jesus embracing the grieving and healing the sick and defending the oppressed.


I resist the bloated arrogance and spitting malice and unrepentant cruelty of this Presidency, because I hear Jesus say that the peacemakers and the meek and the pure in heart, walk the path that good people are called to humbly walk.

I resist all of this because the Jesus I find in the gospels first resisted it. He opposed power, hatred, greed, and contempt for difference. That was the whole story: loving loudly and being willing to suffer and die on behalf of someone else.

Jesus lived a life fueled by compassion for hurting people, one fiercely devoted to bringing equity and letting more people come to the table. He dismantled the walls between people, leveled the ground that separated them, showed their inherent worth.

He wouldn’t be abiding white nationalism or gun-waving hubris or the bullying of gay couples or the defending of Confederate monuments. He wouldn’t be tolerating  religious people making their beds with dictators or a Church that cowered to hateful power.

These would be the very tables he would be turning over, so I too am upending them.

Resistance isn’t a hashtag or a catch phrase or a bumper sticker slogan and it has nothing to do with a party or a President.

It’s the most sincere prayer I can utter, the most tangible expression of belief I can offer, the clearest declaration of my faith that I can make in these moments.

Resistance to hatred is continuing the work of Jesus and so I do this work-- so help me God.

This morning the New Yorker published an essay by Eliza Griswald, Teaching Democrats To Speak Evangelical, about the role Vote Common Good is playing in make a space for evangelicals turned off by Trump's nature and by his excesses. A few weeks ago, at the invitation of Ted Lieu, Vote Common Good founder Doug Pagitt and VCG political director, Robb Ryerse, both pastors, explained the group's work to progressives in Congress. "Trying to memorize John 3:16 in the car on your way to the event and then quote that is probably not the best way to connect with faith-based voters,” said Ryerse. "He had seen a candidate try this trick on the way to a rally in Kansas and then struggle to remember the phrase onstage."

The exodus of religious voters from the Democratic Party over the past several decades is typically explained by the culture wars, most notably over abortion. As the historian of religion Randall Balmer notes in his book Thy Kingdom Come, in the sixties and seventies, the Democratic Party had a large Catholic contingent and mostly opposed abortion. By contrast, many prominent Republicans-- including Nelson Rockefeller; Ronald Reagan, during his time as the governor of California; and Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in Roe v. Wade-- affirmed and expanded abortion rights. But, beginning in the early seventies, evangelical preachers such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson worked with Republican strategists to press the Party to more vigorously oppose abortion. At the same time, the second-wave feminist movement pushed the Democratic Party to defend women’s reproductive rights. As a result, pro-life Democrats, most notably religious voters, began defecting from the Party.

Pagitt believes that this history is overly simplistic. He points out that a large percentage of Democratic voters--sixty-seven per cent, according to a Pew poll from 2018--still claim a religious affiliation. He believes that many moderate evangelicals would be happy to vote for Democrats, but that the Party often overlooks them during campaigns. In 2008, Barack Obama courted evangelicals, along with Catholics, mainstream Protestants, and Jewish voters, by asking religious leaders to appear as campaign surrogates and to take part in a regular conference call. Pagitt worked on behalf of the campaign, approaching conservative leaders and calling evangelicals who had voted for George W. Bush in 2004. “It wasn’t just me; they kept calling hundreds of leaders and asking if we could spare one more weekend,” Pagitt said. Obama succeeded in taking a large number of white evangelical and Catholic Bush voters.

But, in 2016, Hillary Clinton failed to woo these voters: between 2008 and 2016, the percentage of people who voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate declined among voters in every religious affiliation, and the dropoff was especially sharp among evangelicals. Pagitt pointed out that, though Clinton is a devout Methodist and received daily devotional readings during the campaign, she almost never spoke about her faith in public. “I don’t even know what her favorite Bible passage was,” he said. “I thought, Well, her polling numbers must tell her she doesn’t need religious voters.”

Pagitt describes himself as an evangelical, though he thinks of this as more of a sociological term than a strict theological one. “It’s like saying I’m Midwestern,” he told me. “It locates me.” He grew up near Minneapolis, in a non-religious family, and converted as a teen-ager. He spent eleven years as a pastor at Wooddale, an evangelical megachurch in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. In 1999, he planted a progressive, nondenominational church in Minneapolis called Solomon’s Porch. But, in 2018, feeling disappointed by Clinton’s loss, he founded Vote Common Good to target the voters that Clinton had overlooked. In the leadup to the midterm elections, he and fourteen other members held religious revivals in support of candidates across the country. The events featured beer on tap and thumping music from dirty-gospel acts, including Reverend Vince Anderson and Meah Pace. The family-friendly party atmosphere was modelled on revivals that the conservative evangelist Franklin Graham was holding for Donald Trump and other Republicans. “The larger goals were loving your neighbor and creating a check on power,” Diana Butler Bass, a prominent progressive theologian who joined Pagitt’s tour, told me.

Pagitt felt hopeful after the votes were cast. In 2016, eighty-one per cent of white evangelicals voted for Trump; last year, in the midterm elections, seventy-five per cent of white evangelicals voted Republican. Pagitt and the other members of Vote Common Good saw this small decline as a sign of progress: in ones and twos, evangelicals were becoming disenchanted with Trump--especially with his overt racism and misogyny, which some saw as against their values. “I don’t think it’s a silent majority,” Ryerse, Vote Common Good’s political director, told me, “but I think there’s a significant silent percentage.”

Katie Paris, a media trainer with Vote Common Good, discussed campaign tactics with the representatives. She noted that, during the midterms, Republicans had contacted religious leaders district by district to shore up their support, and often remained in close touch with them between election seasons. “You need to make it more difficult for the right to organize against you,” she said. She suggested that the representatives also reach out to religious leaders to introduce themselves. They didn’t have to fake piety, she said, but they should acknowledge that these communities were important to their constituencies. She also felt that Democrats had become afraid to mention religion at campaign events, which ceded faith to the right. She urged the representatives to discuss spirituality “wherever your values come from”--whether or not they were believers. The important thing was to make it clear that they took religion seriously and didn’t look down on the devout.

...After the meeting in Washington, Pagitt decided that the group would do more good advising candidates in the field and decided to take it back on the road. Since then, Vote Common Good has run several training seminars in New York City and around the country for Democratic congressional candidates. “In all five boroughs, there are evangelicals and other religiously motivated candidates,” he told me recently, while in New York. “We give candidates a breakdown by religious affiliation in their districts, and it’s shocking how many religious voters there are.” Last week, they launched a love-in-politics pledge, which is based on I Corinthians 13:4-7 (“Love is patient, love is kind . . .”) and calls on politicians to hold others to a standard of decency and compassion. “We’re skeptical of Mike Pence’s willingness to be swayed,” he said, of the Vice-President. “But we’re helping religiously motivated voters to have the rationale and support to change their votes.” The group is also planning a forum in Iowa, in January, where Democratic Presidential candidates could reflect on their vision of faith. Pagitt says that the major campaigns have indicated interest, though none has committed. “I think they should take religiously motivated voters seriously,” he told me. “If they don’t, it’s at their own peril.”

Can You Imagine Being Endorsed By Dracula? Mussolini? Jack The Ripper? How About Steve King?

Every Democrat running for Congress against an incumbent Republican is hoping to find a video like this one of white supremacist Steve King endorsing his pal Donald J. Bacon. I hope Kara, the progressive Democrat running for the Omaha-based congressional district currently occupied by Bacon can make good use of it. This particular tape was mae in 2016 and shows King, the ardent white supremacist and rape-and-incest booster proudly endorsing Bacon. The two have been fast allies ever since, almost always voting in tandem. They both vehemently oppose a woman's right to Choice. They both vehemently oppose the Green New Deal, Medicare (let alone Medicare-For-All). They both oppose David Cicilline's bill to ban the sales of military assault weapons and cop-killer bullets to civilians. They're both against raising the minimum wage; in fact neither thinks there should even be a minimum wage! "When I look into his eyes," said King, "I see someone who I want to represent Nebraskans and Iowans."

Sickening-- and so was Bacon's response: "Congressman King's endorsement is a tremendous honor. I have great admiration for the Congressman for his strong moral courage and his deep devotion to serving our nation." OMG! "Strong moral courage and his deep devotion," a description of a virulent racist and neo-Nazi who the Republican Party kicked off his committees and left adrift in no position to impact any legislation. This is the kind of crud Bacon feels "tremendous honor" to be endorsed by? What the hell is wrong with Don Bacon? Even Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz Cheney, a far right congresswoman from Wyoming and a member of the GOP House leadership team and demanded that King resign.

Meanwhile, despite King's multiple offensive statements, including his overt support of white nationalism and his recent comments on rape and incest, Bacon has resisted repeated calls to censure his friend or in any way distance himself from the Iowa 4th representative.

I asked Kara Eastman what she thinks about the man purporting to represent her district and her neighbors. "I am standing with Nebraskans who are disgusted by Congressman Steve King 's hateful words," she told me. "Congressman Don Bacon continues to enable this behavior by siting back, accepting his endorsement and once again, refusing to stand up for our Nebraska values." If you'd like to make sure Kara replaces Bacon and J.D. Scholten replaces Steve King, please click on the Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right and contribute what you can to their campaigns. And by the way, minutes ago J.D.-- the populist, progressive Iowan preparing to banish King from Congress once and for all, told me that "What we’re seeing right now is that Steve King is becoming more and more toxic. It’s important to see if the rest of the GOP are going to continue to be silent or are they going to call King out."

Don Bacon Protects The Military? Only When Trump And Republican Party Bosses Say It's OK

Earlier we looked at how the "bipartisan" For Country Caucus and their associated With Honor PAC has targeted Katie Hill for obliteration, Chairman Don Bacon acceding to a request from the NRCC, which is strictly against the caucus rules. The Democratic co-chair, Jimmy Panetta, wasn't quite sharp enough to catch it and spends his time lying to the media about the non-relationship between the PAC and caucus (each of which links immediately to the other). Point though, isn't about Panetta; we'll get to him soon enough, but about Don Bacon a thorough Trump enabler who tries presenting himself as an above the fray general, while disgracing his former service. (His Trump adhesion score is 95.6%... He drank the koolaide-- and asked for more.)

When Bacon was a general, he was in charge of Offut Airforce Base, close enough to Omaha so that many of his constituents work there. The base was severely damaged in the severe Nebraska flooding in May. Recently, the Omaha World-Herald, which endorsed his reelection bid last year, called Bacon out on his hypocrisy over the bill to save the damaged base. It was natural for Bacon to vote for it committee. But then he got pushback from Republican leadership which wanted it to fail. So, sure enough, in the final vote, Bacon-- like all the other lock-step Republicans-- voted no.

The World-Herald reported that "Bacon was one of only two Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee to support the measure when the panel approved it, declaring it imperfect but good enough to advance." Eventually Bacon whined that the bill had gone too far to the left-- by, for example, including "a prohibition on attacking Iran without congressional approval," basically reiterating exactly what the Constitution requires.

Democrats said they tried to work with Republicans on the bill and characterized Republicans as abandoning what is typically a highly bipartisan process simply because they didn’t get their way on every issue.

As you probably know, Blue America has endorsed progressive Democrat Kara Eastman to replace Bacon next year. "This," she said, "is another example of Don Bacon putting party over the people he represents. He purports to be the great defender of the military and the brave individuals who serve our country, but when it comes down to taking the tough votes, he capitulated to Trump, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, and the rest of his right wing cronies."