By The Time We-- As A Society-- Figure Out Trump Is Hitler, It Will Be too Late To Do Anything About It. Has That Train Already Left The Station?

So when at times the mob is swayed
To carry praise or blame too far,
We may choose something like a star
To stay our minds on and be staid.

-From "Choose Something Like A Star," Robert Frost (1916)

A little over a year ago, civil liberties attorney Burt Neuborne released a book, When at Times the Mob Is Swayed: A Citizen’s Guide to Defending Our Republic, which described how our constitutional system of checks and balances are being pushed to the brink by Trump and his shameless enablers inside all three branches of government. At the time, author Steven Rosenfeld explained how Neuborne-- who began his career by challenging the constitutionality of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, became the ACLU’s national legal director in the Reagan years and was the founding legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School in the 1990s-- came to write a book comparing Trump and Hitler.

“Why does an ignorant, narcissistic buffoon like Trump trigger such anxiety? Why do so many Americans feel it existentially (not just politically) important to resist our forty-fifth president?” he writes. “Partly it’s just aesthetics. Trump is such a coarse and appalling man that it’s hard to stomach his presence in Abraham Lincoln’s house. But that’s not enough to explain the intensity of my dread. LBJ was coarse. Gerald Ford and George W. Bush were dumb as rocks. Richard Nixon was an anti-Semite. Bill Clinton’s mistreatment of women dishonored his office. Ronald Reagan was a dangerous ideologue. I opposed each of them when they appeared to exceed their constitutional powers. But I never felt a sense of existential dread. I never sensed that the very existence of a tolerant democracy was in play.”

A younger Trump, according to his first wife’s divorce filings, kept and studied a book translating and annotating Adolf Hitler’s pre-World War II speeches in a locked bedside cabinet, Neuborne noted. The English edition of My New Order, published in 1941, also had analyses of the speeches’ impact on his era’s press and politics. “Ugly and appalling as they are, those speeches are masterpieces of demagogic manipulation,” Neuborne says.

“Watching Trump work his crowds, though, I see a dangerously manipulative narcissist unleashing the demagogic spells that he learned from studying Hitler’s speeches-- spells that he cannot control and that are capable of eroding the fabric of American democracy,” Neuborne says. “You see, we’ve seen what these rhetorical techniques can do. Much of Trump’s rhetoric-- as a candidate and in office-- mirrors the strategies, even the language, used by Adolf Hitler in the early 1930s to erode German democracy.”

Many Americans may seize or condemn Neuborne’s analysis, which has more than 20 major points of comparison. The author repeatedly says his goal is not “equating” the men-- as “it trivializes Hitler’s obscene crimes to compare them to Trump’s often pathetic foibles.”

Indeed, the book has a larger frame: whether federal checks and balances-- Congress, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College-- can contain the havoc that Trump thrives on and the Republican Party at large has embraced. But the Trump-Hitler compilation is a stunning warning, because, as many Holocaust survivors have said, few Germans or Europeans expected what unfolded in the years after Hitler amassed power.

Here’s how Neuborne introduces this section. Many recent presidents have been awful, “But then there was Donald Trump, the only president in recent American history to openly despise the twin ideals-- individual dignity and fundamental equality-- upon which the contemporary United States is built. When you confront the reality of a president like Trump, the state of both sets of brakes-- internal [constitutional] and external [public resistance]-- become hugely important because Donald Trump’s political train runs on the most potent and dangerous fuel of all: a steady diet of fear, greed, loathing, lies, and envy. It’s a toxic mixture that has destroyed democracies before, and can do so again.

“Give Trump credit,” he continues. “He did his homework well and became the twenty-first-century master of divisive rhetoric. We’re used to thinking of Hitler’s Third Reich as the incomparably evil tyranny that it undoubtedly was. But Hitler didn’t take power by force. He used a set of rhetorical tropes codified in Trump’s bedside reading that persuaded enough Germans to welcome Hitler as a populist leader. The Nazis did not overthrow the Weimar Republic. It fell into their hands as the fruit of Hitler’s satanic ability to mesmerize enough Germans to trade their birthright for a pottage of scapegoating, short-term economic gain, xenophobia, and racism. It could happen here.”

20 Common Themes, Rhetorical Tactics and Dangerous Policies

Here are 20 serious points of comparison between the early Hitler and Trump.

1. Neither was elected by a majority. Trump lost the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, receiving votes by 25.3 percent of all eligible American voters. “That’s just a little less than the percentage of the German electorate that turned to the Nazi Party in 1932–33,” Neuborne writes. “Unlike the low turnouts in the United States, turnout in Weimar Germany averaged just over 80 percent of eligible voters.” He continues, “Once installed as a minority chancellor in January 1933, Hitler set about demonizing his political opponents, and no one—not the vaunted, intellectually brilliant German judiciary; not the respected, well-trained German police; not the revered, aristocratic German military; not the widely admired, efficient German government bureaucracy; not the wealthy, immensely powerful leaders of German industry; and not the powerful center-right political leaders of the Reichstag-- mounted a serious effort to stop him.”

2. Both found direct communication channels to their base. By 1936’s Olympics, Nazi narratives dominated German cultural and political life. “How on earth did Hitler pull it off? What satanic magic did Trump find in Hitler’s speeches?” Neuborne asks. He addresses Hitler’s extreme rhetoric soon enough, but notes that Hitler found a direct communication pathway-- the Nazi Party gave out radios with only one channel, tuned to Hitler’s voice, bypassing Germany’s news media. Trump has an online equivalent.

“Donald Trump’s tweets, often delivered between midnight and dawn, are the twenty-first century’s technological embodiment of Hitler’s free plastic radios,” Neuborne says. “Trump’s Twitter account, like Hitler’s radios, enables a charismatic leader to establish and maintain a personal, unfiltered line of communication with an adoring political base of about 30–40 percent of the population, many (but not all) of whom are only too willing, even anxious, to swallow Trump’s witches’ brew of falsehoods, half-truths, personal invective, threats, xenophobia, national security scares, religious bigotry, white racism, exploitation of economic insecurity, and a never ending-search for scapegoats.”

3. Both blame others and divide on racial lines. As Neuborne notes, “Hitler used his single-frequency radios to wax hysterical to his adoring base about his pathological racial and religious fantasies glorifying Aryans and demonizing Jews, blaming Jews (among other racial and religious scapegoats) for German society’s ills.” That is comparable to “Trump’s tweets and public statements, whether dealing with black-led demonstrations against police violence, white-led racist mob violence, threats posed by undocumented aliens, immigration policy generally, protests by black and white professional athletes, college admission policies, hate speech, even response to hurricane damage in Puerto Rico,” he says. Again and again, Trump uses “racially tinged messages calculated to divide whites from people of color.”

4. Both relentlessly demonize opponents. “Hitler’s radio harangues demonized his domestic political opponents, calling them parasites, criminals, cockroaches, and various categories of leftist scum,” Neuborne notes. “Trump’s tweets and speeches similarly demonize his political opponents. Trump talks about the country being ‘infested’ with dangerous aliens of color. He fantasizes about jailing Hillary Clinton, calls Mexicans rapists, refers to ‘shithole countries,’ degrades anyone who disagrees with him, and dreams of uprooting thousands of allegedly disloyal bureaucrats in the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the FBI, and the CIA, who he calls ‘the deep state’ and who, he claims, are sabotaging American greatness.”

5. They unceasingly attack objective truth. “Both Trump and Hitler maintained a relentless assault on the very idea of objective truth,” he continues. “Each began the assault by seeking to delegitimize the mainstream press. Hitler quickly coined the epithet Lügenpresse (literally ‘lying press’) to denigrate the mainstream press. Trump uses a paraphrase of Hitler’s lying press epithet-- ‘fake news’-- cribbed, no doubt, from one of Hitler’s speeches. For Trump, the mainstream press is a ‘lying press’ that publishes ‘fake news.’” Hitler attacked his opponents as spreading false information to undermine his positions, Neuborne says, just as Trump has attacked “elites” for disseminating false news, “especially his possible links to the Kremlin.”

6. They relentlessly attack mainstream media. Trump’s assaults on the media echo Hitler’s, Neuborne says, noting that he “repeatedly attacks the ‘failing New York Times,’ leads crowds in chanting ‘CNN sucks,’ [and] is personally hostile to most reporters.” He cites the White House’s refusal to fly the flag at half-mast after the murder of five journalists in Annapolis in June 2018, Trump’s efforts to punish CNN by blocking a merger of its corporate parent, and trying to revoke federal Postal Service contracts held by Amazon, which was founded by Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post.

7. Their attacks on truth include science. Neuborne notes, “Both Trump and Hitler intensified their assault on objective truth by deriding scientific experts, especially academics who question Hitler’s views on race or Trump’s views on climate change, immigration, or economics. For both Trump and Hitler, the goal is (and was) to eviscerate the very idea of objective truth, turning everything into grist for a populist jury subject to manipulation by a master puppeteer. In both Trump’s and Hitler’s worlds, public opinion ultimately defines what is true and what is false.”

8. Their lies blur reality-- and supporters spread them. “Trump’s pathological penchant for repeatedly lying about his behavior can only succeed in a world where his supporters feel free to embrace Trump’s ‘alternative facts’ and treat his hyperbolic exaggerations as the gospel truth,” Neuborne says. “Once Hitler had delegitimized the mainstream media by a series of systematic attacks on its integrity, he constructed a fawning alternative mass media designed to reinforce his direct radio messages and enhance his personal power. Trump is following the same path, simultaneously launching bitter attacks on the mainstream press while embracing the so-called alt-right media, co-opting both Sinclair Broadcasting and the Rupert Murdoch–owned Fox Broadcasting Company as, essentially, a Trump Broadcasting Network.”

9. Both orchestrated mass rallies to show status. “Once Hitler had cemented his personal communications link with his base via free radios and a fawning media and had badly eroded the idea of objective truth, he reinforced his emotional bond with his base by holding a series of carefully orchestrated mass meetings dedicated to cementing his status as a charismatic leader, or Führer,” Neuborne writes. “The powerful personal bonds nurtured by Trump’s tweets and Fox’s fawning are also systematically reinforced by periodic, carefully orchestrated mass rallies (even going so far as to co-opt a Boy Scout Jamboree in 2017), reinforcing Trump’s insatiable narcissism and his status as a charismatic leader.”

10. They embrace extreme nationalism. “Hitler’s strident appeals to the base invoked an extreme version of German nationalism, extolling a brilliant German past and promising to restore Germany to its rightful place as a preeminent nation,” Neuborne says. “Trump echoes Hitler’s jingoistic appeal to ultranationalist fervor, extolling American exceptionalism right down to the slogan ‘Make America Great Again,’ a paraphrase of Hitler’s promise to restore German greatness.”

11. Both made closing borders a centerpiece. “Hitler all but closed Germany’s borders, freezing non-Aryan migration into the country and rendering it impossible for Germans to escape without official permission. Like Hitler, Trump has also made closed borders a centerpiece of his administration,” Neuborne continues. “Hitler barred Jews. Trump bars Muslims and seekers of sanctuary from Central America. When the lower courts blocked Trump’s Muslim travel ban, he unilaterally issued executive orders replacing it with a thinly disguised substitute that ultimately narrowly won Supreme Court approval under a theory of extreme deference to the president.”

12. They embraced mass detention and deportations. “Hitler promised to make Germany free from Jews and Slavs. Trump promises to slow, stop, and even reverse the flow of non-white immigrants, substituting Muslims, Africans, Mexicans, and Central Americans of color for Jews and Slavs as scapegoats for the nation’s ills. Trump’s efforts to cast dragnets to arrest undocumented aliens where they work, live, and worship, followed by mass deportation… echo Hitler’s promise to defend Germany’s racial identity,” he writes, also noting that Trump has “stooped to tearing children from their parents [as Nazis in World War II would do] to punish desperate efforts by migrants to find a better life.”

13. Both used borders to protect selected industries. “Like Hitler, Trump seeks to use national borders to protect his favored national interests, threatening to ignite protectionist trade wars with Europe, China, and Japan similar to the trade wars that, in earlier incarnations, helped to ignite World War I and World War II,” Neuborne writes. “Like Hitler, Trump aggressively uses our nation’s political and economic power to favor selected American corporate interests at the expense of foreign competitors and the environment, even at the price of international conflict, massive inefficiency, and irreversible pollution [climate change].”

14. They cemented their rule by enriching elites. “Hitler’s version of fascism shifted immense power—both political and financial-- to the leaders of German industry. In fact, Hitler governed Germany largely through corporate executives,” he continues. “Trump has also presided over a massive empowerment-- and enrichment-- of corporate America. Under Trump, large corporations exercise immense political power while receiving huge economic windfalls and freedom from regulations designed to protect consumers and the labor force.

“Hitler despised the German labor movement, eventually destroying it and imprisoning its leaders. Trump also detests strong unions, seeking to undermine any effort to interfere with the prerogatives of management.”

15. Both rejected international norms. “Hitler’s foreign policy rejected international cooperation in favor of military and economic coercion, culminating in the annexation of the Sudetenland, the phony Hitler-Stalin nonaggression pact, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, and the horrors of global war,” Neuborne notes. “Like Hitler, Trump is deeply hostile to multinational cooperation, withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the nuclear agreement with Iran, threatening to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement, abandoning our Kurdish allies in Syria, and even going so far as to question the value of NATO, our post-World War II military alliance with European democracies against Soviet expansionism.”

16. They attack domestic democratic processes. “Hitler attacked the legitimacy of democracy itself, purging the voting rolls, challenging the integrity of the electoral process, and questioning the ability of democratic government to solve Germany’s problems,” Neuborne notes. “Trump has also attacked the democratic process, declining to agree to be bound by the outcome of the 2016 elections when he thought he might lose, supporting the massive purge of the voting rolls allegedly designed to avoid (nonexistent) fraud, championing measures that make it harder to vote, tolerating-- if not fomenting-- massive Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, encouraging mob violence at rallies, darkly hinting at violence if Democrats hold power, and constantly casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections unless he wins.”

17. Both attack the judiciary and rule of law. “Hitler politicized and eventually destroyed the vaunted German justice system. Trump also seeks to turn the American justice system into his personal playground,” Neuborne writes. “Like Hitler, Trump threatens the judicially enforced rule of law, bitterly attacking American judges who rule against him, slyly praising Andrew Jackson for defying the Supreme Court, and abusing the pardon power by pardoning an Arizona sheriff found guilty of criminal contempt of court for disobeying federal court orders to cease violating the Constitution.”

18. Both glorify the military and demand loyalty oaths. “Like Hitler, Trump glorifies the military, staffing his administration with layers of retired generals (who eventually were fired or resigned), relaxing control over the use of lethal force by the military and the police, and demanding a massive increase in military spending,” Neuborne writes. Just as Hitler “imposed an oath of personal loyalty on all German judges” and demanded courts defer to him, “Trump’s already gotten enough deference from five Republican [Supreme Court] justices to uphold a largely Muslim travel ban that is the epitome of racial and religious bigotry.”

Trump has also demanded loyalty oaths. “He fired James Comey, a Republican appointed in 2013 as FBI director by President Obama, for refusing to swear an oath of personal loyalty to the president; excoriated and then sacked Jeff Sessions, his handpicked attorney general, for failing to suppress the criminal investigation into… Trump’s possible collusion with Russia in influencing the 2016 elections; repeatedly threatened to dismiss Robert Mueller, the special counsel carrying out the investigation; and called again and again for the jailing of Hillary Clinton, his 2016 opponent, leading crowds in chants of ‘lock her up.’” A new chant, “send her back,” has since emerged at Trump rallies directed at non-white Democratic congresswomen.

19. They proclaim unchecked power. “Like Hitler, Trump has intensified a disturbing trend that predated his administration of governing unilaterally, largely through executive orders or proclamations,” Neuborne says, citing the Muslim travel ban, trade tariffs, unraveling of health and environmental safety nets, ban on transgender military service, and efforts to end President Obama’s protection for Dreamers. “Like Hitler, Trump claims the power to overrule Congress and govern all by himself. In 1933, Hitler used the pretext of the Reichstag fire to declare a national emergency and seize the power to govern unilaterally. The German judiciary did nothing to stop him. German democracy never recovered.”

“When Congress refused to give Trump funds for his border wall even after he threw a tantrum and shut down the government, Trump, like Hitler, declared a phony national emergency and claimed the power to ignore Congress,” Neuborne continues. “Don’t count on the Supreme Court to stop him. Five justices gave the game away on the President’s unilateral travel ban. They just might do the same thing on the border wall.” It did in late July, ruling that Trump could divert congressionally appropriated funds from the Pentagon budget-- undermining constitutional separation of powers.

20. Both relegate women to subordinate roles. “Finally,” writes Neuborne, “Hitler propounded a misogynistic, stereotypical view of women, valuing them exclusively as wives and mothers while excluding them from full participation in German political and economic life. Trump may be the most openly misogynist figure ever to hold high public office in the United States, crassly treating women as sexual objects, using nondisclosure agreements and violating campaign finance laws to shield his sexual misbehavior from public knowledge, attacking women who come forward to accuse men of abusive behavior, undermining reproductive freedom, and opposing efforts by women to achieve economic equality.”

Me The People by Nancy Ohanian

Whither Constitutional Checks and Balances?

Most of Neuborne’s book is not centered on Trump’s fealty to Hitler’s methods and early policies. He notes, as many commentators have, that Trump is following the well-known contours of authoritarian populists and dictators: “there’s always a charismatic leader, a disaffected mass, an adroit use of communications media, economic insecurity, racial or religious fault lines, xenophobia, a turn to violence, and a search for scapegoats.”

The bigger problem, and the subject of most of the book, is that the federal architecture intended to be a check and balance against tyrants, is not poised to act. Congressional representation is fundamentally anti-democratic. In the Senate, politicians representing 18 percent of the national population-- epicenters of Trump’s base-- can cast 51 percent of the chamber’s votes. A Republican majority from rural states, representing barely 40 percent of the population, controls the chamber. It repeatedly thwarts legislation reflecting multicultural America’s values-- and creates a brick wall for impeachment.

The House of Representatives is not much better. Until 2018, this decade’s GOP-majority House, a product of 2011’s extreme Republican gerrymanders, was also unrepresentative of the nation’s demographics. That bias still exists in the Electoral College, as the size of a state’s congressional delegation equals its allocation of votes. That formula is fair as far as House members go, but allocating votes based on two senators per state hurts urban America. Consider that California’s population is 65 times larger than Wyoming’s.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s majority remains in the hands of justices appointed by Republican presidents—and favors that party’s agenda. Most Americans are unaware that the court’s partisan majority has only changed twice since the Civil War-- in 1937, when a Democratic-appointed majority took over, and in 1972, when a Republican-appointed majority took over. Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s blocking of President Obama’s final nominee thwarted a twice-a-century change. Today’s hijacked Supreme Court majority has only just begun deferring to Trump’s agenda.

Neuborne wants to be optimistic that a wave of state-based resistance, call it progressive federalism, could blunt Trump’s power grabs and help the country return to a system embracing, rather than demonizing, individual dignity and fundamental equality. But he predicts that many Americans who supported Trump in 2016 (largely, he suggests, because their plights have been overlooked for many years by federal power centers and by America’s capitalist hubs) won’t desert Trump-- not while he’s in power.

“When tyrants like Hitler are ultimately overthrown, their mass support vanishes retroactively-- everyone turns out to have been in the resistance-- but the mass support was undeniably there,” he writes. “There will, of course, be American quislings who will enthusiastically support an American tyrant. There always are-- everywhere.”

Ultimately, Neuborne doesn’t expect there will be a “constitutional mechanic in the sky ready to swoop down and save American democracy from Donald Trump at the head of a populist mob.” Whatever Trump thinks he is or isn’t doing, his rhetorical and strategic role model-- the early Hitler-- is what makes Trump and today’s GOP so dangerous.

“Even if all that Trump is doing is marching to that populist drum, he is unleashing forces that imperil the fragile fabric of a multicultural democracy,” Neuborne writes. “But I think there’s more. The parallels-- especially the links between Lügenpresse and ‘fake news,’ and promises to restore German greatness and ‘Make America Great Again’-- are just too close to be coincidental. I’m pretty sure that Trump’s bedside study of Hitler’s speeches-- especially the use of personal invective, white racism, and xenophobia-- has shaped the way Trump seeks to gain political power in our time. I don’t for a moment believe that Trump admires what Hitler eventually did with his power [genocide], but he damn well admires-- and is successfully copying-- the way that Hitler got it.”

Steven Hassan has made a name for himself as someone who rescues-- gently and without coersion-- victims of cults. An author and mental health counselor, Hassan is now widely recognized as one the the country's leading experts on mind control and cults. His newest book is The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control. Maybe he can help? But can anyone rescue 40 some-odd percent of a country... that doesn't want to be rescued?

Beto O'Rourke wrote that a friend of his reminded him the other day "of how despair spread across Germany in the 1930s--  of all the people who were not Nazis, but neither were they simply passive observers of the Nazis of all that transpired… the countless thousands who were completely devastated by what they saw happening to their country, felt utterly powerless to stop it, and, over time, quietly retreated from the world into darkness and despair. And today? How many millions are so heartbroken by what has come to pass in America that they have already retreated from the world? I refuse to be one of them. I still have faith in this country, faith that we can follow the optimism of our founders, faith that we can follow the example of El Paso… but it will take all we have from all of us who are willing to fight to save this country to make it so. And in this struggle, as Lincoln said at another defining moment in our history, 'we shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.'"

Notorious closet case and inveterate liar Lindsey Graham sashayed over to Fox News yesterday to lisp into a microphone how when she goes "to meet God at the pearly gates I don’t think he’s going to ask me, 'Why didn’t you convict Trump?' I may be wrong, but I don’t think that’s gonna be at the top of the list." Yes, he may be wrong because maybe he raped hundreds of children in his day. Otherwise, his role in "acquitting" Trump very much will be one of the reasons that conspires to cast him into the fiery pit of eternal damnation.

The Difference Between Bernie And Elizabeth And The Rest Of The Field-- Bernie And Elizabeth Aren't Full Of Crap

Beto has lost a lot of momentum since he decided to run for president instead of taking on John Cornyn for the Texas Senate seat. Even some guy named Andrew Yang is polling better than he is. When Beto joined the presidential race, his fresh face gave him a startling 8.5 in the polls. Since then, though, Domocrats have reconsidered and his average polling number is now 2.8, seventh. The most recent credible poll, by YouGov for The Economist last week, has him at a dismal 1.0.

Brilliant! And Beto has been trying to walk it back ever since

Sometimes Beto wants to get some traction with progressives so screams "fuck" or he stakes out a position to the left of everyone else and then argues for it passionately-- like he did with assault weapons at Thursday's debate, going way beyond what any other Democrat is calling for. "We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore," he asserted, arguing for mandatory confiscation, an ultra unpopular position at this point. "If the high-impact, high-velocity round, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body, because it was designed to do that, so you would bleed to death on a battlefield. Not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers... When we see that being used against children. And in Odessa, I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15. And that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour, because so many other people were shot by an AR-15 in Odessa and Midland, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time. Hell yes. We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against fellow Americans anymore."

Right now David Cicilline's assault weapons sales ban-- not confiscation-- bill, HR 1296 is being kept from being voted on by... not by Trump, not by MoscowMitch... by Pelosi. There are 211 co-sponsors, 210 Democrats and one Republican. Only 25 House Democrats, led by walking garbage dump and DCCC chair Cheri Bustos, have refused to co-sponsor the bill. Beto's self-serving grandstanding isn't helping; it's hurting the cause. Since the spate of NRA-GOP massacres this summer, some of the conservative Blue Dogs and New Dems-- Beto's compatriots when he was a New Dem member of Congress-- have reluctantly signed on as cosponsors to a bill they shunned when Cicilline introduced it last February 15. Of the 20 converts who co-sponsored since the deadly mass shootings began, one is a Republican (Peter King) and 14 are from Beto's New Dems Caucus.

New Dems-- like Beto-- the House's yellow-bellied cowards. Beto wasn't a progressive when he was in Congress, not on much of anything. Occasionally he sounded a little like one. After all, he represented a solid blue district that was clearly to the left of himself. Trump only scored a puny 27.2% there and the PVI is D+17. Beto did nothing in Congress-- nothing good, nothing bad... nothing. It was a waste of a good seat. And I don't mean to single out or pick on Beto (who I like). But most of these presidential would-be candidates don't do crap, or, worse, did actual bad while they had the chance.




Biden, of course, was worst of all-- a complete villain for his entire career, the definition of a DINO from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, a war-monger, a vicious racist and the very worst kind of corporate whore you'll ever find. Kamala's résumé is so thin as to be nearly non-existent and what there is of it is mostly puke-worthy, illustrating how assiduously she worked to assure wealthy liberal and moderate campaign fonors that just because her skin was a little darker than theirs it didn't mean she leaned left on anything. She was my attorney general and my senator and I never cast a vote for her in a primary or a general election. She may not be as bad as Biden but that's because he's had more time to do more evil.





Compare the rest of the schlubs who were on the stage Thursday night to Bernie or Elizabeth Warren. What Bernie and Elizabeth talk about in their platforms and on the debate stage is what they've spent their entire political careers working on. That's what makes them different from Beto and Biden and Kamala who are just trying to curry favor with voters as though there were no yesterdays. While Biden and Kamala were locking African-Americans away in prisons and Beto was eating lunch with the New Dems-- it's what he told me he did with them-- Bernie spent his life pushing exactly what he talks about with the voters today: Medicare-for-All (aka, original Medicare before conservatives whittled it down, between 1905 and 1965, to what it is today), human rights, peace, environmental justice, workers rights, women's rights... 

Take his newest announced policy position: a national housing policy. Bernie started working on that-- successfully-- in the 1980s when he was mayor of Burlington, Vermont (and when Beto was a member of the Cult of the Dead Cow-- a computer hacking collective that stole long-distance phone service-- and listening to Hawkwind and writing poetry based on their songs). Not even a dedicated Bernie-hater like NY Times slime ball and twisted Wall Street shill Sydney Ember could make Bernie's plan to end homelessness and nationally limit rent increases sound bad. And even the hateful, vile Ember admitted that Bernie "has long advocated for affordable housing, even during his days as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in the 1980s." Here he was in 2000 on the floor of the House talking about the issue he's bringing to the fore of the presidential campaign today. That's who Bernie is. He shines with integrity and authenticity, especially when you put him next to the sad-sack opportunists like Biden, Mayo Pete, Kamala, Beto...

The Texas Democratic Party Has Virtually No Bench-- They Really Need Beto To Come Home And Run For Senate

Beto by Nancy Ohanian

Unsurprisingly, NBC reported that Trump is sinking in the suburbs. And those suburbs include the vote-rich areas around Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso and Corpus Christi. And that helps explain by Texas Republicans are bracing for a drubbing next year. How many Republican incumbents will Trump drag down with him? Melanie Zanona and Laura Barrón-López reported for Politico that "the rash of recent House GOP retirements is just the latest sign of a state party in distress: In last year’s midterms, Democrats flipped a pair of longtime GOP districts, a Democrat came within striking distance of a Senate seat, and more than 50 elected Republican judges lost their jobs. Democrats also gained ground in state legislative races."

Changing demographics and a suburban revolt against President Donald Trump have turned Texas from a conservative bedrock to a major political battleground, especially for House seats. Formerly safe congressional Republicans are facing competitive races for the first time in their careers-- a potential harbinger of Republicans’ future in the state if they don’t adapt quickly.

“If the Republican Party in Texas doesn’t start looking like Texas, there won’t be a Republican Party in Texas,” retiring Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX), who represents a key swing district, told Politico. Texas’ Latinos are on pace to become the largest population group in the state by 2022.

Last cycle was “without a doubt a wake-up call to most elected officials,” said Hurd. “Texas is indeed purple.”

...[A]t least eight House seats are in play there, and Sen. John Cornyn is bracing for a competitive reelection race. It’s not out of the question that Democrats could make a play for the state’s 38 Electoral College votes, which would all but clinch the presidency if they were to succeed.

...Keir Murray, a longtime Democratic strategist in Texas, credits Trump for putting the state in play. Democrats expected the state would eventually start to move in their direction as more minorities moved there, but they thought that was still five years away, give or take.

Trump, he said, has “accelerated the process.”

In 2018, 59 percent of female voters went for Democratic candidates, compared with 40 percent for Republicans. That change, coupled with “a browning of the suburbs,” said Murray, is a boon for Democrats.

Democrat Sri Preston Kulkarni, who is running to replace retiring Rep. Pete Olson in Texas’ 22nd Congressional District, is focusing on expanding the electorate by engaging with minority communities he said are often overlooked.

...And some of the GOP lawmakers facing competitive reelection battles are ramping up early. Rep. Michael McCaul, who never had a tough race in his Austin-area district prior to last year, has hired a campaign manager and raised $900,000 in the first half of the year, the most he's ever raised in a six-month stretch.

Several vulnerable members, facing their first difficult race in years, have called it quits. Besides Hurd, Olson and Rep. Kenny Marchant-- who each won reelection by less than 5 percentage points last year-- announced their retirements in recent weeks. Olson’s exit opens up a competitive battleground in the Houston suburbs, while Marchant’s district is one of the most diverse in the country. Election forecasters have already moved both races to the toss-up category.

Republican Reps. John Carter and Chip Roy are also on Democrats' target list. The GOP will also try to claw back the seats held by former Reps. Pete Sessions and John Culberson, two longtime Republicans who were wiped out in 2018.

...In the Senate, Cornyn could be in for a bruising race. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s narrow loss to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018 gave Democrats hope and Republicans anxiety. In one sign of potential concern about Democrats’ inroads in the state, Trump’s campaign is currently spending more money on digital ads in Texas than in any other state.

Trump may well dig down Chip Roy, Michael McCaul and John Carter in the Austin Area and will make it easier for Democrats to win the seats abandoned by Hurd, Olson and Marchant but the biggie for 2020 in the Cornyn Senate seat. Right now there are 9 declared Democratic Party candidates-- former Congressman Chris Bell, Pastor Michael Cooper, Houston City Council member Amanda Edwards, failed judicial candidate Jack Daniel Foster, Jr., failed congressional candidate MJ Hegar, Berniecrat Sema Hernandez, failed gubernatorial candidate Adrian Ocegueda, civil right activist Christina Ramierez and state Senator Royce West-- and none of them is going to beat Cornyn. Nor is Beto going to win the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Beto's high point-- according to the RealClearPolitics polling averages, came in early April when his support was at 9.5%. It's been all downhill since then, and now stands at 2.0%, tied with Cory Booker and less than a third of Mayo Pete's!

Over the weekend, the editorial board of the Houston Chronicle published their plea to Beto: Come Home. Texas Needs You. "Our thinking this week, amid all the carnage and grief and finger-pointing," they wrote, "has been in part on Beto O’Rourke, the presidential candidate from El Paso, where 22 people were killed last Saturday. Our sympathy is devoted to the dead and their families, of course-- but Beto has been on our minds, too. We keep coming back to a moment last Sunday when, for a few seconds, all the pretenses that are part of running for president in our age of constant exposure were peeled back, if only briefly. There are times, it seems, in most presidential campaigns when the facades get stripped away like so many layers of paint. What’s left is a human moment, usually fleeting, and not always flattering. But real-- and often more telling than a season of advertisements... Beto, if you’re listening: Come home. Drop out of the race for president and come back to Texas to run for senator. The chances of winning the race you’re in now are vanishingly small. And Texas needs you."

Two years ago, you ran an inspiring race against Sen. Ted Cruz. Sure, you lost. No shame in that. Texas hasn’t elected a Democrat to a statewide office since 1994. You chipped away at a wall that wasn’t quite ready to come down. You showed it’s possible.

For too long, Texas officials have had only to consider how far to the right they must go to stay in office. No one is asking whether there might be a good idea or two on the Democratic side of things. We need you, Beto, because Texas badly needs that other view of the world, those differing opinions. You’ve brought us closer to having real, competing parties than any other candidate has, and than any candidate on our radar could.

Would you beat John Cornyn, who is seeking his fourth term? It wouldn’t be easy. You’d have to fight for it, and do better than you did against Cruz. But a lot has changed since 2018-- you had a lot to do with that-- and Trump is no longer rock-solid in Texas. Neither are the Republicans who support him.

Imagine the effect you could have on our state. Ideas get sharper when they’re challenged, when points of view clash. We think Texas will get smarter, and its politics more sophisticated, if campaigns here were a true test of ideas, not one-sided races set to autopilot.

So please, Beto, after you’ve taken some time to mourn the dead in El Paso, consider whether now is a good time to leave one race and join another. Texas needs you back home.

Don't disappoint Texas, Beto. Don't disappoint America. You have plenty of time to show America what you're made of-- and you can run then... not as some New Dem backbencher who didn't get much done, but as the new reborn progressive Beto running for Senate and president has pushed you towards. Dude, here's the answer we're waiting for... performed live by my old friend Alvin Lee and his band at Woodstock 3 years before you were born:

Beto's Not The Only Politician Who Draws Inspiration From Music

I had such a nice response to the post Thursday night about how The Clash-- and specifically The Clampdown from London Calling influenced Beto's life that I decided to ask other political leaders if music was important to them or if they had any favorite artists or songs or albums. Beto still uses "The Clampdown" when he walks out on the stage at his events and... well, just watch this. Did Ted Cruz and his supporters have a clue?



Quite a few members of Congress and candidates for Congress mentioned The Clash to me. California freshman Katie Porter has a different favorite artist but she told me that her 13 year old son "is obsessed with The Clash and Joe Strummer and his activism. Literally I hear about this 2-3 hours a week. I own an older minivan so no ability to play digital music, but I have 4 CD player. 2 of the 4 CDs are The Clash. The other CD belongs to my middle son who is 10 and is Deadpool 2 south fan, and the final CD is kid’s songs like 'You are my Sunshine' and This Land is my Land, which is my 7-year old daughter’s pick." 

All this is to say I rarely get to listen to anything! And many moms are in the same position-- listening for when the laundry is done, a kid cries, the microwave beeps. But when I do, I listen to American singer/songwriters. I think it really matters when someone speaks their own words. Which is to say I don’t believe in speechwriters and messaging experts. So I would list Ryan Bingham, Pat Green, Dixie Chicks...

My favorite artist is probably Brandi Carlile. I managed to quote a lyric in a Financial Services hearing this week.

 

And one line from her song "The Eye" has a lot of applicability to trying to be a progressive freshmen Democrat in a world of Trump’s tactics-- and survive that every day with some soul and integrity left.

You can dance in a hurricane but only if you are standing in the eye.

Kara Eastman and I first bonded pretty much the same way I first bonded with Beto-- through music. Now she's running for a congressional seat in Omaha but music was a big part of her life. "I grew up listening to punk rock," she told me. "My husband is the lead singer of Horace Pinker-- a pop punk band that has produced dozens of CDs and toured around the world. My favorite band is Hüsker Dü. I had the opportunity to meet Bob Mould at a wedding years ago and told him my favorite song was Chartered Trips. He said it was his favorite too! Green Day is another favorite. We’ve known them for years; they even stayed at our house before they were famous. Many punk bands stand for thinking for yourself, for changing systems, and not accepting the status quo.

So many theories, so many prophecies. What we do need is a change of ideas- Bad Religion.

I can't wait to see Kara questioning witnesses in committee! Jim Himes represents southwest Connecticut, basically Fairfield County, and he noted that he's "older than Beto" and that "my equivalent would be Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon." (Jim is 52... still young enough to get become a Clash fan; Beto's 46 and Kara's 48.) The Clash weren't the only punk rock band mentioned either. Iowa progressive Democrat JD Scholten, who ran against neo-Nazi Steve King last time and-- with ZERO help from the DCCC nearly beat him. He mentioned " three songs that I play way too much:

• Bastards of Young - The Replacements
• Wake Up - Arcade Fire
• The Promised Land - Bruce Springsteen 

I recall Ted Lieu and his wife being big time Fleetwood Mac fans and Ted even raised money for California candidates last year with the help of Lindsey Buckingham when when it comes down to a most favorite musician... he had to go with Pat Benatar. His favorite song is "Invincible." He told me it "did not change my life... but it's a great song."



Ro Khanna says his favorite musicians are Simon and Garfunkel but when it comes to just one song... he had to go with "Ebony and Ivory" by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Apparently Ro's not the only one who liked this one. Here's a performance they did at the White House in 2010.

Sticking with Californians, Mark DeSaulnier told me he's "a big fan of Motown." And he offered Just My Imagination by the Temptations as one of his favorites.

And then there's Mark Takano, who couldn't pick just one-- or two, or three... He's competing with Beto for guest dj. And very ecumenical taste-- it must be fun working in his office!

• Lately, Jenni and the Mexicats: "Verde Más Alla"
• Julieta Venegas: Limon y Sal
• Duet by Shakira and Maná: Mi Verdad
• Yo Yo Ma performances
• Joni Mitchell singing Both Sides Now as a septuagenerian
• Blossom Dearie: Touch the Hand of Love
• Nina Simone: Mississippi Goddam; "how it feels to be free"
• Etta James: At Last
• Aretha Franklin: I say a little prayer; Natural Woman
• Jake Shimabukuro: Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah 
• Lou Reed: Take a Walk on the Wild Side
• George Ezra: Blame It On Me
• Streisand and Garland Duet: "Happy Days are Here Again"

Shahid Buttar, the progressive activist running for the San Francisco seat occupied by that sad remnants of Nancy Pelosi. He's an interesting real life guy. This is what he told me this morning:

I was an MC and poet long before I became a lawyer, and give credit to the early, conscious era of hip-hop as among my strongest both lyrical and political influences. Public Enemy's "Fight the Power" and "Burn Hollywood Burn" seared an awareness of power and disparity into my teenage mind, and “Power to the People" often finds its way into my DJ sets. Arrested Development, who brought us “Mr. Wendal" and “Washed Away,“ are other visionary artists who inspired me, while Grandmaster Flash & the Furious Five's The Message showed me the magic of embedding powerfully subversive lyrics within aesthetically compelling music. I grew equally enamored of thematically similar work from both earlier and later eras, like The Revolution will not be Televised by the late & great Gill Scott Heron (to whom I have been often compared as a lyricist and performer) and "Move any Mountain" by the Sha-men. Today, contemporary hip-hop artists like Asheru, Head-Roc, and Equipto continue that tradition, alongside house music producers like Ross Couch. As an MC who rhymes live over DJ sets spanning house, funk, and afrobeat, I try to draw on both of those traditions at once.

One more Californian? Dary Rezvani is the progressive Democrat running against Trump enabler Devin Nunes in the Central Valley this year. He's 29-- so, yeah, music's big in his life. Ready?

I actually have a political pump up playlist. These are the four songs that I feel most embody my message, specifically they help me remember that the decision to run is not for me but rather for the people with no voice. Further to that point, I feel they capture a message of pent up aggression and helplessness that exists within our society specifically within Millennials and Gen Z.

1- Americans - Janelle Monae

Seventy-nine cent to your dollar
All that bullshit from white-collars
You see my color before my vision
Sometimes I wonder if you would fly
Would it help you make a better decision?

2- Fight the Power - Public Enemy

Yet our best trained, best educated, best equipped, best-prepared troops, refuse to fight
As a matter of fact, it's safe to say that they would rather switch than fight.

3- Survival - Spirit Animal

Getting up I won't back down
Sticking it out for another round
Everyday I'm fighting for my survival

4 Smells like Teen Spirit - Nirvana

With the lights out, it's less dangerous
Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us

Two of these songs are almost two decades old yet the message still resonates as if they were written today.

Music and the arts, in general, are what show the true colors of a society. My generation has been told to follow a path that no longer exists. There is a deep sense of helplessness which has led to resentment towards an older generation that simply parrots the rhetoric "just work harder". These feelings are driven by the fact that we can never live up to the metrics set by the generations before us, not because we lack the skills but society lacks the structure.

We have such a generational disconnect that lawmakers don’t realize people are working 2-3 jobs just to break even. This disconnect is most prevalent when it comes to the housing problem in California. It's easy to say all homeless are drug addicts but it isn't until you work at a place like Sacred Heart, that you realize how large the functional homeless population is. These are students and minimum wage employees that are forced to sleep in tents or their cars just so they can continue to work for their current employers. "Work harder" is some of the most dangerous rhetoric in this country. It immediately ends any conversation that may lead to the realization this problem is deeply systemic.

Kathy Ellis is running for Congress in southeast Missouri, in a blood-red district. Here's what she said when I asked what music she likes and feels inspired by: "James Taylor, Carole King- I Feel the Earth Move..., Aretha Franklin, Santana, from way back, Simon and Garfunkel, Holly Near from the protest days, The Eagles and the definitive work for politics Hotel Californi-- 'you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave...' Classical, Jazz, Cabaret, Musicals, Hip Hop, I love them all."

Jon Hoadley is the progressive state Rep taking on entrenched Republican incumbent Fred Upton this cycle in southwest Michigan's 6th district. He told us he "loves Broadway musicals, especially Dear Evan Hansen. 'For Forever' is one of my favorite songs. This song’s story of self discovery and self acceptance really resonates with me." Never heard it? Check it out:




Tom Suozzi represents the North Shore of Long Island, so of course he's a big Beatles fan. He told me his favorite album is The White Album

The whole country hopes Marie Newman is going to defeat Blue Dogs Dan Lipinski and Cheri Bustos this cycle... and become the congresswoman from IL-03. She told me that "a few songs come to mind that motivate and inspire me:

- Brave by Sara Bareilles
- Guardian by Alanis Morissette
- Born This Way by lady Gaga

And,

Any song by Earth, Wind And Fire makes me dance

And,

Our campaign song: Hold on, I’m coming by Sam and Dave."

I wondered if anyone would mention a metal song. I didn't really expect it from Eva Putzova, a progressive Democrat primarying Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran in Arizona. But the song inspired people politically all over the world and I'm excited to include it:



"Scorpion's 'Wind of Change' still gives me goosebumps as the euphoric 1989 formed my values and beliefs that when people organize, when they march, when they stand with each other in solidarity they can transform their communities for better. But my taste for music is eclectic and not necessary driven by my politics-- I listen to everything from U2, Sting, and Bruce Hornsby to Los Lonely Boys, Adele, and a symphonic metal band Symfobia where my 20-year-old nephew plays drums."

Briana Urbina wants to take on that icon of everything that's wrong in Washington, conservative, corrupt octogenarian Steny Hoyer. She told me she has " very eclectic musical taste but I guess my favorite genre of music is hip hop. I was raised listening almost exclusively to Spanish language music and Motown/80s R&B. Marc Anthony is my favorite singer of all time and I love salsa music. The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill is tied with Stevie Wonder's Songs in the Key of Life for my favorite album, all time. My most listened to albums over the past few years is probably a 3 way tie between Invasion of Privacy by Cardi B, Damn by Kendrick Lamar and Dangerous Woman by Ariana Grande. I love music overall. I loved Beyonce' Coachella performance and listened to it for a week on repeat."

I wonder if Steny watched this too:




Shaniyat Chowdhury is primarying corrupt New Dem Gregory Meeks in Queens. For people who just think of Shan as a rugby star, this guy is like major into music! How would you like getting a job in his office!

I love hip-hop and rap music. I listen to it everyday to give me social and political inspiration, especially on days when I need to be uplifted myself. The music is so engrained in the culture that it’s become a lifestyle for everyday struggling Black and Brown people in America. As KRS-One put it, hip-hop is about peace, love, unity, and fun. The everyday life of Black America is in hip-hop. The genre has evolved so much since the 70’s and is now universal. At the core of it, real artists display raw emotions and perspectives in an art form. It’s just real.

When I was growing up, my cousins were battle rappers in school. I’d always hang out with them to hear some of their work they’ve written in their book of rhymes. I eventually followed their footsteps and started battle rapping in middle school. I was doing it for a few years until I started playing sports in high school.

When I was about eight years old, my cousin put me onto rappers like Tupac, Biggie, Big L, and Jay-Z. It wasn’t until when my cousin blasted Nas’ Illmatic in its entirety in his bedroom, that I fell in love with the music. I thought it was the greatest thing I’ve ever listened to. It was the first time I heard storytelling in such smooth, intellectual, but in a street provoking manner. The album perfectly depicted what life was like in the streets of Queens for young kids growing up in it. In my opinion, it’s still the best rap album ever.

However, my favorite rapper is J. Cole. I know many hip-hop heads glorify the golden era of hip-hop and understandably so. Personally, J. Cole is in my top five. His longevity and quality of records he’s released puts him ahead of his peers. As much as I loved 90’s and early 2000’s rap, I feel like I grew up with J. Cole’s music. The Warm Up and Friday Night Lights (best mixtapes ever) came out at a time when I was in my teens, becoming a young man, and having a better understanding of the world around me. At this point of my life, I’ve lost friends to violence, drugs, my family grew up working class and poor. For many, the only way out of the hood was by pursuing music or sports. J. Cole’s storytelling at the time was so focused on a young boy trying to make it out of the ghetto and be somebody for himself and his family while managing all the life obstacles. He painted these vivid pictures that I saw myself in. Word for word, there was always something relatable. If he was talking about pursuing his dreams and ambitions, it kept me determined. If he was talking about relationships, it made me aware of women rights. If it was about family, I made sure to keep working hard. It was instrumental in my upbringing because I didn’t have a lot of guidance growing up. I took away a lot of life lessons from his music. I found solace in the headphones. His music was refreshing for the rap game in the late 2000’s. If I could pick one J. Cole song that I could always listen to, it’s “Show Me Something.” It never made it on any of his projects but the record is powerful, spiritual, and picked me up during difficult times in my life.

 

Now, the rap album that really awakened my political consciousness, is Kendrick Lamar’s To Pimp a Butterfly. It’s what radicalized me. By far one of the best hip-hop albums of this generation and maybe ever. The release of the album was critical and relevant to the issues that affected Black communities. Though we had a Black president in office, it seemed like President Obama was struggling dealing with racial injustices. No other president in history had the responsibility he had to address it. This was at a time when we lost Michael Brown, Sandra Bland, and Tamir Rice to police brutality. Black America needed a voice. There were many activists and organizers on the ground doing the hard work but it seemed like the nation wasn’t listening. Rap has historically been able to bring Black issues to the forefront of America. That’s what TPAB did. The album echoed the struggles of Black America and supported the empowerment and activism behind it. It mattered to me as someone who is a person of color. I always have to wonder about any day being my last. The album has taught me resiliency and self-love, while maneuvering through any trials life throws at me. How I grew up made me to person I am today. It’s the story so many of us carry on our shoulders. 

UPDATE: Audrey Denney

I have the music preferences of a 15 year old girl and a 65 year old man at the same time.  Two of the three best nights of my life were concerts – one was Taylor Swift and one was Garth Brooks. Taylor Swift’s song Change inspires me to keep fighting for justice even when it seems impossible. My best friend has the voice of an angel and sang it at the election night party last year. Garth Brook’s song Standing Outside the Fire was on the first CD I ever purchased. When I listen to it now, it feels like it perfectly sums up this chapter in my life. 'We call them weak, who are unable to resist the slightest chance love might exist, and for that forsake it all. They're so hell-bent on giving, walking a wire. Convinced it's not living if you stand outside the fire.

He Who Fu*ks Nuns Will Later Join The Church... Beto's #1 Band Is The Clash

A few weeks ago a media outlet in London used a few seconds of an interview I did with Paul Simenon of The Clash and I got a $260 or so royalty payment. I donated it to the Bernie Sanders campaign. It makes me sad that Beto's not running for the Texas Senate seat in 2020. If he changes his mind and does I'll send him the same amount. Beto's got musical taste and last week, in San Francisco, he was interviewed for the It's All Political podcast. He told them that in 1979 someone gave him London Calling and "it absolutely changed my life." He still uses "Clapdown" as the song playing when he walks out onto the stage during the campaign. Listen to this live version from 1980:




If Beto won the nomination I wouldn't hesitate for a second to vote for him, though he's not my first choice (or even second) for Democratic nomination. Way better than Trump of course-- or Biden. I'm pretty sure he's my first choice for guest dj out of the whole pack of them though. "The urgency in that music," he said. "Politics in a way I had never experienced it before... Wearing their politics on their sleeve. Trying to be a voice for those who otherwise would not have a voice-- but then making it popular. Bringing me in through the beat, the riffs, Mick Jones’s soaring vocals. They just absolutely changed my life."

Yeah, mine too. How about this one? This was/is my idea for the greatest band in the world:




I wish we knew what every candidate's favorite band is. Is there anyone cool enough among the moderators who would ask them? I wish we knew what every candidate's favorite band is. Is there anyone cool enough among the moderators who would ask them-- Rachel Maddow? Chuck Todd? Lester Holt? Savannah Guthrie? Jose Diaz-Balart? This is the crew. Wouldn't you want to know what music they feel as passionately about as Beto does about The Clash? I would.

Pelosi Is Just Plain Wrong About Impeachment

I understand why she's not moving forward. She thinks impeachment will cost her party House seats-- that a dozen members who rarely vote with the Democrats anyway could lose in swing districts. She's wrong about that and even if she were right, why should anyone give a crap about "Democrats" like Joe Cunningham (SC), Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Ben McAdams (UT), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Kendra Horn (OK) and Josh Gottheimer (NJ)? They may-- or may not-- be pleasant company at lunch, but they don't vote with the Democrats more than half the time anyway. The party is better off without them. And-- as we saw earlier in the case of Van Drew-- they undermine the party's values and brand.Borrowing from Paul Rosenberg's Salon piece (see below), the argument that impeachment will hurt House Democrats in swing districts next year "is premised on a number of false assumptions: That impeachment will necessarily be seen as partisan; that public opinion won’t change in response to new information; that everyone who voted for Trump in a swing district is part of Trump’s base; that voters will punish a principled stand, rather than respect it (see, for example, the standing ovation Amash received at his recent town hall); and that members of Congress can't articulate fact-based, nonpartisan arguments for impeachment, just to name some of the most obvious ones.

We’ve already seen initial evidence, both from Amash and from a few swing-district Democrats, indicating that all these assumptions are questionable at best. “We were getting about two to one in terms of the number of calls opposing impeachment and telling us to stop the investigation,” Rep. Katie Hill, D-Calif., told Chris Hayes last week. “Now we’re getting three or four to one saying, we need to be moving forward. This is getting too out of hand.” Hill is a self-described moderate who narrowly defeated Republican incumbent Steve Knight last fall.

Another newly-elected California Democrat, Rep. Katie Porter-- who unseated GOP incumbent Mimi Walters in an Orange County district Democrats had never won-- said she had seen “a real turning point” at her town hall, NBC reported. “Porter told voters here that while she did not run for office to impeach the president and never mentioned it on the campaign trail, ‘I will not shirk my duties if the time comes.’”

Democrats must certainly conduct a careful deliberative process along the lines of the Watergate hearings, as one participant in that process, former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, has argued. “Rather than dividing the country, the impeachment process brought it together-- most Americans agreed that more important than any president or party were the rule of law and the Constitution,” Holtzman writes. “Nixon was permanently disgraced-- and the Committee’s work has never seriously been challenged.”

The key to this success was a transparently fair process, and swing-district representatives like Hill and Porter can play important leadership roles in advocating for such fairness and transparency, with little political risk-- provided that Democrats not only deliver such a process, but vigorously defend it as well.

Over the weekend, the Washington Post published a piece by Mike DeBonis, Rachael Bade and Paul Kane, Inside Democrats' Divisive Impeachment Debate. Why are the House Democrats dragging their feet on impeaching Trump? All the considerations at the top are nakedly, disgustingly partisan and the leadership is not considering its constitutional duty to hold the criminal fake president accountable. Even their partisan considerations are wrong; they are further wrecking whatever is left of the party's good name. "Many," wrote the trio, "feel caught between party leaders fearful that impeachment will spark a political backlash and a growing sense that history will judge harshly those who chose not to act in the face of a norm-smashing president many Democrats believe has abused his power and broken the law."

A few weeks ago Katie Hill was "on the verge" of calling for impeachment. The Post keeps referring to her district as "Republican leaning," even as they report that calls to her office were 20 to 1 for impeachment. And, despite lazy reporters assertions, CA-25 is not Republican-leaning. The district has been turning bluer and bluer for years. The Democrats now have a registration advantage. Even as weak a candidate as Hillary beat Trump in 2016, by 7 points. And in 2018 Katie Hill ousted GOP incumbent Steve Knight 133,209 (54.4%) to 111,813 (45.6%). The demographics are totally on the side of the Democrats and as long as the party doesn't do too much to disincentive the base, Republicans will never win in CA-25 again. There is a reason Hill "is drowning in calls urging her to press for impeachment" and it is not because she's in what the DCCC keeps telling journalists to refer to as "Republican leaning."

What's the DCCC got to do with it? Plenty. DCCC chair and reactionary Blue Dog Cheri Bustos has instructed the committee's staff to use scare tactics on freshmen about impeachment. Bustos didn't like hearing Hill say she "was willing to lose her seat if impeachment were the right thing to do" and "after Hill appeared on CNN last month and said her 'red line' on impeachment was Trump defying a court order to comply with congressional investigations, her office got a call from a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee official, who cautioned her staff about Hill speaking in such definitive terms, according to an individual familiar with the warning, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss the conversation." Bustos is spreading her anti-impeachment poison everywhere. Trump couldn't have a better congressional advocate.

Mueller’s statement last month on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election has pushed many lawmakers closer toward supporting impeachment. The former special counsel said his office could neither clear nor accuse Trump of obstructing his investigation, citing a long-standing Justice Department opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Since then, freshman Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT) said she has noticed an increase in the volume and intensity of pro-impeachment calls and emails to her office.

“There are many people who said, six months ago, ‘It’s harmful to the country.’ And today they’re saying, ‘It’s harmful to the country but for a very different reason.’ So there definitely is momentum,” said Hayes, who added: “We have to do something. I don’t know what that something is.”

Grappling with what to do, freshman Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) has reached out to pro-impeachment Judiciary Committee members to ask whether an inquiry would actually help Democrats obtain documents and testimony they have sought through the courts. Levin huddled with [Dan] Kildee and Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-MD), a Judiciary panel member and former constitutional law professor, on the House floor last month, and Raskin told him impeachment would speed the process.

“Ultimately if [Judiciary members] believe that that’s what they need in order to most effectively conduct the investigations, then I would support that decision,” Levin said.

Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) is moving in the opposite direction. Even though Hillary Clinton carried his district with 84 percent of the vote and he voted for impeachment articles in the last Congress, he isn’t certain he would do the same now. [In the primary it was in Gomez's district that Bernie had his strongest showing. Bernie won the district in 2016 and will win the primary next year as well.]

“It has to be ironclad, and it has to be a mountain of evidence,” said Gomez, who favors launching an inquiry. “It’s too serious of a step, and it can’t be done willy-nilly just because people want it.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who was first elected in 1998 and hails from a liberal district, is balancing a pro-impeachment constituency with her longtime loyalty to Pelosi.

Pro-impeachment calls to her Washington office spiked from 130 the last week of May to more than 160 the first week of June, Schakowsky said. And during a recent meeting with senior Democrats, Schakowsky challenged Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), head of the campaign committee, and her claim that voters don’t seem to care about impeachment.

But while she has “absolutely no doubt that [Trump] has committed high crimes and misdemeanors,” Schakowsky said she is not there yet. “I think there may be just a bit more that we can do to make sure that we are traveling with the American people to that destination.”

Sunday, Newsweek reported that Michael Gerhardt, who teaches constitutional law at the University of North Carolina, in his summary of Congress’ view of impeachment, explained that "Impeachable offenses encompass serious abuses of power, breaches of trust, and serious injuries to the Republic." Other than conservative Kool Aid drinkers is there anyone in Congress who doesn't see that fitting Trump? Gerhardt added that those offenses must include two elements of misconduct-- 'bad intent or bad faith,' and 'bad acts.'" Who's going to argue-- other than miscreants like Gym Jordan and Matt Gaetz-- that that doesn't fit Trump to a T?

Newsweek also reported that Judiciary Committee member and pro-impeachment advocate Jamie Raskin said that "Trump's activities mirror President Nixon’s, but then go way beyond. Certainly, we can see the same kind of obstruction of justice, we certainly see the same kind of contempt of Congress, and we certainly see the same kinds of abuses of power."




Beto told the ABC News audience yesterday that "If we do not hold the president accountable, we will have set the precedent that some people in this country because of their position of power are in fact above the law and if we do that, we will lose this democracy forever. So regardless of the popularity of the idea or what the polling shows us, we must proceed with impeachment so that we get the facts and the truth and at the end of the day, there is justice for what was done to democracy in 2016."

Paul Rosenberg, writing for Salon this past weekend, noted that there are 11 things Pelosi has wrong about impeachment and that her "position no longer makes any coherent sense... If one ignores the threat of democratic backsliding, then it could be rational, pragmatic and even principled to be guided by fears of a political downside to impeachment, and to view everything through that lens. But that’s a threat one cannot ignore: Even if you view the argument in Pelosi's terms, the political downside of refusing to impeach is potentially far greater than the downside of impeachment itself." Here are the 11 points she's wrong on:

Pelosi believes that the American people don’t support impeachment, and that pursuing it will prove disastrous for Democrats. She’s focused on the downside of impeaching, while ignoring the downside of not doing so. This is clearly her overriding concern, and it’s fundamentally mistaken... 1) Trump wants impeachment, and is deliberately luring Democrats into it; 2) Impeachment will divide the nation, and 3) We don’t have enough facts to know whether impeachment is warranted.

• Mistaken Argument 1: Trump wants impeachment
• Mistaken Argument 2: Impeachment will divide the nation
• Mistaken Argument 3: We don't have enough facts
• Mistaken Argument 4: Impeachment will hurt House Democrats in swing districts next year
• Mistaken argument 5: Impeachment will distract from the Democratic agenda
• Mistaken Argument 6: The people don't want impeachment
• Ignored Argument 1: An impeachment inquiry is primarily about informing the public
• Ignored Argument 2:  There's a serious potential downside for Republicans, even if Trump is acquitted by the Senate 
• Ignored Argument 3: House Democrats' primary need is to demonstrate their seriousness
• Ignored Argument 4: Democrats have no reason to wait
• And one last thought on her strategy: It "neglects what may be the shrewdest political calculation of all: Putting Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate in the position of acquitting a president the House has calmly and deliberately proven to be a criminal. To repeat Adam Jentleson's formula, 'The decision not to impeach is not a decision to focus on other things, it is a decision to cede power, control, and legitimacy to Trump.' Surely Nancy Pelosi is too smart to do that."

Oh? We'll see about that, won't we?