Pennsylvania Voters Ready To Get Revenge

Pennsylvania was one of the states targeted by Russian hackers in 2016. They helped put an illegitimate "president" into the White House by a handful of votes. In Pennsylvania it was 44,292 votes out of 5,897,174 cast. Kushner's team told the Russians to concentrate on four counties: Erie, Luzerne, Northampton, Lackawanna, Obama country in 2012, all of whom provided Trump with "plausible" wins in 2016. He took the state's 20 electoral votes by beating Hillary 2,970,733 (48.18%) to 2,926,441 (47.46%). In 3 weeks, the Keystone State gets its revenge.

The partisan makeup of the state's congressional delegation is about to shift radically, with likely wins by Democratic challengers Scott Wallace (PA-01), Madeleine Dean (PA-04), Mary Scanlon (PA-05), Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06), Susan Wild (PA-07), a guaranteed incumbent vs incumbent win by Democrat Conor Lamb (against walking dead Keith Rothfus) and two toss-ups that could put George Scott and-- God willing-- Jess King (the best candidate running in the state) into Congress instead of Trump rubber stamps Scott Perry and Lloyd Smucker.

On Monday morning Steven Shepard, writing for Politico, reported that the Democratic surge in Pennsylvania is being powered by concerns over healthcare. Fair enough-- though I'd say it's being powered at least as much by disdain for Trump. His greater point though, is that the state that was the 2016 linchpin of Trumpanzee's victory, will be be "ground zero of Democrats’ 2018 comeback." He's going by an AARP poll showing both Sen. Bob Casey and Gov. Tom Wolf with double-digit leads over their GOP challengers and Democrats ahead on the generic congressional ballot.

The top issue for voters in Pennsylvania is health care: Nearly three-in-four, 74 percent, say it’s “very important” to their vote in November, outrating the economy and jobs (72 percent), Social Security (67 percent) and national security and terrorism (65 percent). For voters 50 and older, Social Security (81 percent) only slightly outpaces health care (79 percent).

In the Senate race, Casey leads Rep. Lou Barletta by 15 percentage points, 47 percent to 32 percent. Casey leads Barletta-- a four-term congressman who forged his political identity as an immigration hardliner as the then-mayor of Hazelton, Pa.-- by a similar margin among voters 50 and older, 49 percent to 34 percent.

Casey is one of 10 Senate Democrats seeking reelection this year in a state Trump won in 2016. But like his colleagues in other Midwestern states-- Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin-- he is a strong favorite for reelection...

Wolf, meanwhile, has a 12-point lead over former state Sen. Scott Wagner, 48 percent to 36 percent. Wagner has struggled to gain traction in his effort to unseat Wolf. The Republican released a Facebook video last week, in which he tells the incumbent, “Gov. Wolf-- let me tell you-- between now and November 6, you better put a catcher’s mask on your face because I’m going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes.”

Which reminds me-- you've probably already heard about Wagner’s utter meltdown on Friday. He stood in front of a billboard highlighting all the folks he sued and asserted, insanely, to Gov. Wolf: "I’m going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes" [video up top]. The billboard was put up by Pennsylvania Spotlight-- a group dedicated to shining a light on extremism and the deep-pocketed special interests acting against the best interest of Pennsylvanians. Obviously, they were delighted that it received national attention and showed what a lunatic and extremist Wagner is. An old friend of mine from Pennsylvania Spotlight, Joshua Henne, wrote this Op-Ed over the weekend showcasing a few more reasons that Wagner is completely unfit.

Scott Wagner needs cash and he needs it now.

That's at least what his most recent email to supporters laid out. Wagner-- who likes to portray himself as a tough guy and always in command-- pleaded, "With more than $10 million of my own money already invested in this race, I am tapped out."

What Wagner conveniently fails to mention is how he recently blew over $2 million investing campaign money into the stock market... and lost. This is far from standard practice. And it's pretty pathetic for a candidate who revolved his entire campaign the notion that he'd be running the state like he runs his business.

Wagner's desperate financial appeal comes on the heels of bellyaching about the recent gubernatorial debate. He's begging for more chances to make his pitch to the public.

As if Wagner hasn't had ample opportunity since announcing his campaign 21 long months ago on the floor of Penn Waste-- the politically connected trash-hauling behemoth he owns.

However, Wagner couldn't possibly have enjoyed a more receptive audience and forum than the one he already participated in, as incredulously, Penn Waste was the sponsor of last week's Chamber debate.

This is simply the latest example in a long litany of Wagner inappropriately and cunningly using his political campaign to benefit his personal bottom line... Some of Wagner's abusive business tactics are already well-documented. Infamously, he sued an 84-year old Springettsbury woman who didn't use Penn Waste's trash services... For years, the occasions of Wagner suing customers has been pegged by the press at a mere "hundreds of people that Penn Waste has sued for nonpayment of trash bills." However, the real number of lawsuits against customers stands at a whopping 6,979 individuals from January 2012 to May 2018 alone, filing over 10,000 total lawsuits.

The public deserves to know the true scope of Wagner's litigious nature at the expense of working families. So, we put up a website at www.PennWasterAlert.com, as well as some billboards laying out the real numbers.

Many Penn Waste lawsuits were filed against people who don't have the means to defend themselves. In some cases, they've been hammered for being late on one lousy bill.Wagner is a model intimidator who sues those without the ability to fight back.

His actions compound financial problems for working families. Moreover, Wagner's heavy-handed practices are predatory, with pressure going beyond the norm of other garbage removal companies in the operating area.

Penn Waste even goes so far as sending sheriffs to customers' homes to harass them.

...His Republican primary opponent, Paul Mango excoriated him, saying "Wagner has a lengthy history as a greedy bully who preys on those in our society who can't fight back. He does this simply to ensure that his personal wealth continues to grow. It should be clear to all that Scott Wagner is not trustworthy and will never put the needs of Pennsylvanians first."

Even though Wagner claims he's "far from an insider," the truth is that, for far too long, Wagner's used his political perch to enrich himself and his business.

Wagner has pocketed millions off municipal contracts and used his time in the state Senate to push legislation aimed at plumping his own piggybank - all at the expense of taxpayers.

Even though Wagner's personal wealth is directly tied to Penn Waste's ability to garner municipal contracts, he refuses to put his business interests in a blind trust. This is obscene, since local governments constitute Penn Waste's current-- and potentially future-- clients.

Moreover, Wagner steadfastly rejects releasing his tax returns. The trash tycoon explained it's because he didn't want Penn Waste workers knowing the full extent of how much he makes off their sweat and toil, lest they'd decide to organize a union to fight for their rights.

Much like President Trump, Wagner measures every step against how it will personally benefit both his ambition and bottom line.

In fact, Wagner embraces the comparison, once going so far as to proclaim "Donald Trump is actually a mini-Scott Wagner." Both men have a history of mistreating and intimidating customers. And both clearly relish frivolously suing vulnerable people who don't have the resources to fight back.

We already have a hot mess down in D.C. with this archetype. Pennsylvanians simply can't afford the same story to play out in Harrisburg, with Wagner taking not just a page, but chapter and verse from Trump's grotesque playbook.

Back to Shepard's Politico piece again. He reminded us that House Democrats "chances to make further gains were turbocharged earlier this year, when the state Supreme Court ordered the implementation of a new congressional-district map. It found the old one, drawn by Republicans after the 2010 election, was a gerrymander so egregious that it violated the state constitution. In the three elections held under the old map-- 2012, 2014 and 2016-- Republicans won 13 of the state’s 18 congressional districts, even in 2012, when Democratic candidates, on aggregate, won more votes than Republicans."

Can Establishment Dems Lose 2 Senate Seats Not Even Republicans Were Hoping For?

Greg Giroux penned an essay for Bloomberg News, All Signs Point to Big Democratic Wins in 2018, which is a hell of a lot more reality-based than the tepid Beltway prognosticators who "think" the Democrats "may" win the 24 seats they need to take over the House again. That was last year's discussion. 12 months on, it's about how many Republicans will be left after the tsunami washes the party away. And is Beto's O'Rourke's second consecutive quarter of outraising Ted Cruz an indication that the Democrats are going to win the Senate as well? "History, demographics and the national mood," wrote Giroux, "are pointing to one conclusion about the 2018 congressional races: Democrats are well-positioned to bring one-party government in Washington under Donald Trump’s presidency to a screeching halt... Even if only one chamber flips to the Democrats, Trump’s ability to impose his agenda would be thwarted, and his administration almost certainly would find itself pinned down by investigations and subpoenas from congressional committees. An analysis by Bloomberg Government of historical data, election maps and public polling points to sweeping Democratic gains in the November election, when all 435 House seats and one-third of the Senate are on the ballot."

Republican pollster Lance Tarrance wrote in a Jan. 5 analysis for Gallup. “Trump’s 20-point approval deficit in recent Gallup polling does not bode well for him, in part because none of the past five presidents saw an increase in their approval rating in the year before their first midterm.”

...The off-year and special elections conducted since Trump took office underscore the Republican challenges.

Democrats won governors’ offices by wide margins in New Jersey and Virginia while also capturing Republican seats in both states’ legislatures, as suburban voters shifted to Democratic candidates. In Alabama, Doug Jones became the first Democrat elected to the Senate from the state in 25 years in a race that featured a scandal-tarred and controversial Republican who divided his own party, even though he had Trump’s endorsement.

“That’s three pretty big canaries in the coal mine that ought to warn you that you’re headed into a turbulent period in the next election,” Cole said.

...Democrats improved their showing in well-educated, historically Republican areas in the 2016 and 2017 elections, so some hard-fought races in the fall will be in the suburbs. Among the House districts that may be in play are those of Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen and Leonard Lance in New Jersey, John Culberson in the Houston area, Barbara Comstock in the Virginia suburbs near Washington, and Peter Roskam in the Chicago area.

For various reasons-- primarily the GOP-oriented 2018 map-- Giroux is less sanguine about Democratic chances for a Senate takeover. All the Democratic red-state incumbents would have to win and the Democrats would have to pull off wins from two of the worst Senate candidates in recent history-- both handpicked by Chuck Schumer who pretty much always picks losers-- putrid Blue Dog Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and tepid, pointless Nevada nothing-burger Jacky Rosen. Or one of them plus someone the DSCC and the Democratic DC establishment has been ignoring, Beto O'Rourke. You can contribute to Beto's campaign-- and the other Senate candidates endorsed by Blue America-- by tapping on the ActBlue "Senate 2018" thermometer on the right.

But that doesn't include unexpected stumbles from Senate Democrats that could give the Republicans opportunities they shouldn't even have. Here are two: Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Trump won-- barely, and possibly with actual Russian vote tampering in 3 counties, Luzerne, Erie and Northampton-- Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes 2,970,733 to 2,926,441. That's 44,292 votes (0.72%). Casey is anti-Choice. He always votes that way-- as he did yesterday when he supported the Republicans' very extremist and probably unconstitutional 20-week abortion ban. (Also crossing the aisle on that one were Joe Manchin or West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana.) How turned off will parts of the Democratic base in Pennsylvania be by Casey's little reminder that he's as anti-Choice as any hateful Republican patriarchal goon who wants to interfere with women's ability to make their own health choices? How can Democrats denounce the GOP for voting that way when Casey and 2 other Democrats also did? Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowsky voted with the Democrats against the bill. Last time Casey faced the voters (2012) he beat Republican Tom Smith 3,021,364 (53.7%) to 2,509,132 (44.6%) and took all 3 counties the Kremlin tampered with for Trump, Erie, Luzerne and Northampton.

If the measure passes and is signed-- Ryan already got it passed by the House-- anyone performing an abortion on a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant would face a fine, up to five years’ jail time, or both. According to Planned Parenthood something like 99% of abortions occur before 21 weeks of pregnancy and those later on often involve severe fetal abnormalities or serious health risks to the woman.

New Jersey has a completely different nightmare brewing for the Democrats. It is not a swing state; it's a pretty safely blue state with a PVI of D+7. Hillary beat Trumpanzee there, winning their 16 electoral votes 2,148,278 (55.45%) to 1,601,933 (41.45%). So in 2012 Menendez, always a shady character but before the most recent scandals that rocked the politics of New Jersey, beat Republican Joe Kyrillos 1,987,680 (58.9%) to 1,329,534 (39.4%). Should be a safe seat, right? And it would be-- except for Menendez, who is adamantly refusing to resign.

Newark Star-Ledger columnist Tom Moran asked his readers to "try to envision Sen. Robert Menendez trying to manage his daily calendar when he's juggling his second trial on corruption charges with his campaign for re-election. Will he march in parades? Or will he attend the trial every day to save his neck?" He points out how dangerous-- actually he said "ridiculous"-- it is "in the Trump era, when a single Senate seat can tip the balance of power."

New Jersey voters haven't sent a Republican senator to Washington for half a century, and with Trump soiling the brand so badly, Democrats could win by picking a name out of the phone book.

Their only chance to lose this seat is to do exactly what they are doing-- rallying around Menendez with a unanimity that virtually ensures he will win the primary race on June 5, provided he's not sent to prison first.

Could Menendez win in November if he escapes conviction? Probably. The Cook Political Report rates him as the favorite today, even with the baggage. But that could change.

...Republicans have not chosen a candidate yet, but they are giddy about the prospects of Bob Hugin, a self-made millionaire and former Marine who told county chairmen recently that he would start the bidding by spending $20 million of his own money, and hopes to raise $40 million more, according to reliable sources in the GOP.

Imagine the flood of 30-second TV spots that money will buy. Menendez on a private jet to a luxury resort in the Caribbean, no charge. Menendez at a luxury hotel in Paris with a young woman, also gratis. Menendez hiding these gifts, despite the rules. Menendez doing favors for the man who paid for it all, his best pal, Salomon Melgen, a rich old man with a fondness for stray models, and now a convicted felon.

"Right now, a sitting Senator is vulnerable, and that creates an opportunity for us," says the state GOP chairman, Doug Steinhardt.

Think about the stakes. The repeal of Obamacare failed by one vote in the Senate, and the horrific tax bill passed by just three. Are Democratic leaders really that reckless?

Maybe not. Because there is a Plan B floating out there.

It goes like this: If Menendez is convicted, or so damaged that he's likely to lose, they will replace him, just as they replaced Sen. Bob Torricelli when he was under federal investigation during his 2002 re-election campaign.

Who would replace Menendez? Here's the leading theory among a long list of Democrats I asked over several weeks:

Rep. Donald Norcross (D-1st) would replace Menendez, answering a top priority of his brother George Norcross, who controls the biggest Democratic faction [faction?? The Star-Ledger isn't allowed to say "Machine," let alone "corrupt Machine?"] in the state Legislature.

Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) would leave the Statehouse to fill that vacant seat in Congress.

That would open Sweeney's top spot in the state Senate, which would go to someone loyal to Murphy, probably from northern New Jersey, for regional balance.

Can't get any worse? How about this stinky little scenario?

New Jersey politics are a mess. Chris Christie left the governor’s office stinking of corruption. Sen. Bob Menendez will seek re-election in November, less than a year after a hung jury declined to acquit him of bribery charges; a repeat trial is in the offing.

Menendez is among the least popular senators in the country, with an approval rating of 29 percent. He’s likely to be re-elected anyway, because New Jersey’s Republican Party is in shambles. Christie left office as the least popular governor in the country, with an approval rating of 19 percent. He won re-election in 2013 with 60 percent of the vote. His lieutenant governor and two-time running mate, Kim Guadagno, lost her race to replace him with just 42 percent of the vote.

...The Libertarian Party ought to take a stab at Menendez’s seat. And their candidate ought to be Alan Dershowitz... he isn’t a run-of-the-mill Democrat. He’s a member of a rare breed of originalist Democrats who oppose judicial activism and defend the inalienability of even the least trendy constitutional rights. He voted for Hillary Clinton in ’16 and prefers Joe Biden in 2020, but has on several occasions come to Trump’s philosophical aid. He defended the legality of Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director Jim Comey. He defended the legality of Trump’s travel ban. He’s defended Trump’s allegations of bias in the FBI’s Russia investigation, and he’s attacked the left for trying to delegitimize Trump’s presidency through innuendo and tele-psychiatry.

Dershowitz told Politico that he’s lost seven pounds since finding himself forced to defend Trump. He says his liberal friends don’t invite him to dinner anymore. No doubt John Adams had a similar experience when he agreed to defend the British soldiers who killed five Americans at the Boston Massacre. (That sounds hyperbolic-- and it is-- but really, does the half of the country that hates Trump hate him less than Colonial Boston hated those soldiers?)

All that said, the tsunami keeps on building. Another powerful close Ryan ally House Appropriations Committee chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) made it clear yesterday that he's another rat deserting the sinking ship. He's the 9th House committee chairman to be resigning rather than face defeat in November. I've never seen anything like that before. And it's likely Ryan himself will soon announce he wants to spend more time with his own family. The Democratic establishment, by the way, have a conservative piece of crap they're running, someone sure to disappoint the base and lose the seat in the nest midterm, New Dem/EMILY's List garbage candidate Mikie Sherrill, a Wall Street criminal the DCCC is trying to pass off as a great and valiant military heroine. The only nice thing I've ever heard about her from New Jersey activists is that she probably won't turn out as bad as Josh Gottheimer... probably.

Not News: Corrupt Establishment Democrats Don't Like Sestak Or Fetterman-- They Have Their Own Candidate

Yesterday, centrist/establishment Pennsylvania senator, Bob Casey, joined all the other centrist/establishment figures who are trying to destroy Joe Sestak's career. Casey endorsed the latest anyone-but-Sestak candidate, establishment's 6th choice, Katie McGinty. Let me amend that-- McGinty is the establishment's anyone-but-Sestak-except-Fetterman candidate. The establishment types-- think people like Rendell and Chris Matthews-- have been desperate to turn their sinking ship around after the latest polling seems to indicate McGinty isn't battling with Sestak for first place but with John Fetterman for second place! One prominent Pennsylvania Democrat told me today that he was "surprised it took him [Casey] this long to decide to go down with the establishment ship."

The Harper poll showed that Sestak's support has been solid and unshakeable despite all the poison Chuck Schumer has been spreading about him. (One has to wonder when Schumer has time to do anything else since attacking progressive Democratic candidates seems to be a full-time job for him.) In January, Sestak was leading with 33% and that is still where his lead is today. The big disaster was that as Democrats got to know McGinty better, her polling numbers collapsed. Widely considered an unserious puppet of Schumer and the Pennsylvania party bosses, her respectable 28% second place plummeted down to 17%, just two points ahead of Fetterman, who went from an 11% in January, when he was barely known, to a 15% today now that's more people are getting to know him. It's always good for a relatively new candidate like Fetterman to see an increase in support as he introduces himself and, conversely, it's really bad for a candidate like McGinty-- so identified as the establishment shill-- to be out introducing herself and to lose over half her support. Her campaign is basically on life-support, which is why Schumer, Brady and Rendell forced Casey to publicly make an idiot of himself this week by endorsing her.

Fetterman is doing best in the western part of the state-- where it's really a race between him and Sestak (and McGinty and the corrupt party bosses behind her aren't a real factor)-- and among the most progressive voters. Sestak continues to have the strongest image of the three candidates among likely Democratic primary voters. Image-wise, Fetterman has all the momentum., his favorables at 27% up from the 7% he had in the January poll. He's still mostly unknown to Democratic primary voters, especially outside the Pittsburgh area.

Sestak seems to have taken Casey's endorsement of McGinty in stride and has pointed out that it's no surprise that the DC establishment is fearful of an incorruptible and independent-minded senator like him (or Fettermnan, for that matter) in their midst. He wrote to his supporters that when he met with one of the Senate's Democratic Party bosses-- people are guessing Reid but this is such a Schumer-trademarked exchange that I would bet anyone (ten to one odds) that Sestak was taking about Lizardman-- the boss tried, figuratively, to mount and dominate him the way he's mangled to do with sniveling, weak Democrats like Al Franken, Martin Heinrich, Tim Kaine and Jon Tester. He wrote, "When a Senator once said, 'Sestak, whenever I tell you anything, the only answer is to be YES,' I could only think how a sailor might view me if he were ever to see me agree to such a command as his commanding officer-- and as assuredly a Pennsylvanian would shake her head, also, if I were ever to agree." Especially for some clownish party hack from New York!

With Bob Casey’s endorsement of my primary opponent today, it completes an all-inclusive rejection by Washington DC’s and Pennsylvania’s Democratic politicians of what I believe in, and stand for.

I don’t think it can just be about me (although I know I can be challenging).  Bob Casey is too nice a man for that. Nor can it be my voting record or courage in standing up for the right votes at all times, as I unhesitatingly did-- from Obamacare to the Economic Stimulus bill.

It certainly isn't my ability to work within the establishment... for it was the Democratic Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, who called me the "most productive" Congressman.

And after servicing 18,000 constituents who flooded my District office for help up to 9 p.m. seven days a week during the recession, even my Republican district voted to re-elect me by 20 points despite my having no time for any media ads.

I’ve doubted it was my refusal to "sit down" from running against Senator Specter after the Party leadership initially asked me to run against him in 2009 before he switched parties to become a Democrat. After all, that was 7 years ago.

And I’ve doubted it was my refusal to pay "street money" to the party machine or my refusal to take lobbying jobs from the consultant class. For while our newspapers are filled too often in Pennsylvania with stories of self above service, there are nice people in office, like Bob.

There aren’t many veterans in Congress, and none who served 31 years and was a flag or general officer-- except me. Perhaps that’s why… I never grew up in politics.

I grew up under the principle of being accountable for the men and women I lead-- it was always about them, above service to any officer senior to me.

So, again, a man of personal integrity and a sense of honor and ethics like Joe Sestak isn't going to roll over for a self-important, two-bit hack like Chuck Schumer, not even under threat of Schumer recruiting some sad puppet like Katie McGinty to run against him.

Now Schumer spends his time not just trying to raise money from his bankster allies for the hapless McGinty but also by personally calling Sestak's donors and demanding they stop contributing to his campaign-- just like what he's been doing against Donna Edwards and against Alan Grayson on behalf of the corrupt establishment Schumercrats in Maryland and Florida, respectively, Chris Van Hollen and Patrick Murphy.

SENATORS BOB CASEY AND JOHN W. McCAIN THINK OBAMA'S THE ONE-- PAUL KRUGMAN KNOWS McBUSH IS CERTAINLY NOT

McCain's slick (and deceptive) new Madison Avenue advert-- desperately trying to reassert the dubious proposition that he is heroic and honest-- clearly targets the Democrat he feels he will be facing in November: Barack Obama:



The last line-- "The American president Americans have been waiting for"--  appropriates Obama's populist and widely resonating "We are the change we've been waiting for."  The Chicago Tribune takes that as an example about how the lobbyists who run McCain's campaign have written off Hillary and are putting their anti-Obama game plan into action, a game plan so vicious, mean-spirited, divisive and racist that one of McCain's key advisors left the campaign in disgust when he saw it. With the Bush-McCain "surge" falling apart and Iraq descending into civil war again, McCain finds himself with no choice but to divert attention away from the catastrophe he helped author.

Meanwhile Obama still has to face the reality of a Clinton Machine that may not be able to win, but also will not admit defeat. Her husband blames it on caucuses, implying that only nuts bother going to them. They seem far more comfortable with easily-rigged voting machines-- like the ones in Harlem and Bedford-Stuyvesant precincts where Clinton won 100% of the vote and Obama won nothing at all. Both campaigns are working delegate-rich Pennsylvania now. Hillary was expecting to romp to victory on the shoulders of Governor Ed Rendell and reactionary congressman John Murtha (right on the war and wrong on every other important issue of the day from women's choice to corruption). But today Pennsylvania's Democratic U.S. Senator, Bob Casey, the man who banished the hated Rick Santorum from national politics in 2006, endorsed Obama.

Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president today in Pittsburgh, sending a message both to the state's primary voters and to undecided superdelegates who might decide the close race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Dan Pfeiffer, deputy communications director for the Obama campaign, confirmed that Casey would announce his support during a rally at the Soldiers and Sailors Military Museum and Memorial and that he would then set out with the Illinois senator on part of a six-day bus trip across the state.

The endorsement comes as something of a surprise. Casey, a deliberative and cautious politician, had been adamant about remaining neutral until after the April 22 primary. He had said he wanted to help unify the party after the intensifying fight between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton is so widely viewed as having Pennsylvania locked up and put away that if she stumbles there, the primary season would end on the spot and Obama could get to work fighting off McCain full time.

Meanwhile, sensing that the prolonged and increasingly bitter attacks inside the Democratic Party could cause lasting damage, DNC Chair Howard Dean is now advocating that uncommitted superdelegates make their decisions by the end of June. On CBS today Dean replied to another of the endless process questions newsmen are so enamored of, that most superdelegates have already expressed their choice. "I think that there's 800 of them and 450 of them have already said who they're for. I'd like the other 350 to say who they're at some point between now and the first of July so we don't have to take this into the convention.”

Al Gore also thinks the nomination battle will resolve itself before the late August convention. One of my friends, a moderate Democrat who has been known to vote for Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, said yesterday that he's sick and tired of the entire process and threatened to just tune it out. He was startled when I suggested that that was exactly what he and most Americans should do. The process is way too long and divisive, mostly because of the way the media has chosen to cover it. We get 90% process and gossip and 10% policies and issues. Were it the other way round, it would be worth watching. But corporate media has so dumbed down the voters that attention spans are far too short to focus on real issues. Hysteria and ginned up scandals are far easier for our Infotainment world. That's how we wound up with Bush, as Paul Krugman explains in his Times column today.

When George W. Bush first ran for the White House, political reporters assured us that he came across as a reasonable, moderate guy.

Yet those of us who looked at his policy proposals-- big tax cuts for the rich and Social Security privatization-- had a very different impression. And we were right.

The moral is that it’s important to take a hard look at what candidates say about policy. It’s true that past promises are no guarantee of future performance. But policy proposals offer a window into candidates’ political souls-- a much better window, if you ask me, than a bunch of supposedly revealing anecdotes and out-of-context quotes.

Which brings me to the latest big debate: how should we respond to the mortgage crisis? In the last few days John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have all weighed in. And their proposals arguably say a lot about the kind of president each would be.

Mr. McCain is often referred to as a “maverick” and a “moderate,” assessments based mainly on his engaging manner. But his speech on the economy was that of an orthodox, hard-line right-winger.

STEM CELL BATTLE HEATING UP AGAIN

With the country overwhelmingly behind them, both the House and Senate passed stem cell research bills last year. Bush, catering to his narrow, extremist base, vetoed the bill and the Democrats didn't have the strength to override him. According to today's New York Daily News, Harry Reid's office thinks they're within one or two votes of overriding Bush now. The House passed a bill as soon as they were back in session, 253-174 and the Senate will do likewise tomorrow. "The margin of victory in the House was not enough to beat a Bush veto. But activists and Democratic strategists hope that a Senate override can change the dynamic and raise the pressure on more House Republicans to support a measure that is broadly popular with the public." It looks like it's working because wingnuts are already running around screaming that the sky is falling.

Meanwhile, today's USAToday has graciously afforded uber-reactionary Sam Brownback the opportunity to show readers why he is utterly unfit for public office, at least in the 21st Century. (If not more fit, at least he would have fit in were he campaigning for something in the 11th or 12th Century.) An Opus Dei loon, adamantly opposed to stem cell research, Brownback doesn't care if 99 senators approve it; he's filibusterin'. And this narrow-minded pre-Neanderthal would like to be president.


UPDATE: REMEMBER WHEN PROGRESSIVES FELT LIKE THEY WERE BEING CRUSHED BETWEEN A ROCK AND A SQUISHY PLACE WHEN IT CAME TO THE MONSTROUS SANTORUM AND THE SOMEWHAT LESS MONSTROUS CASEY?

Tony Perkins' extremist Family Research Council sure is grateful to the reactionary Senator Casey today. Funny how Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter is voting with the Democrats on this and Casey has slinked over to Bush. Remember it was Schumer and the DSCC who shoved Casey down our throats. Have they asked you for money lately?