Nancy Pelosi Has Her Ideas About What The Country Wants And Expects If She Gets The Gavel Back-- Reach For The No-Doz

My guess is that Pelosi will be the Speaker starting in January. That's predicated on two things happening-- that the Democrats take back the House and that a majority of House Democrats elect her to be their leader again. According to a report from Mike Allen at Axios yesterday, she's got her plans for what she wants to accomplish between January and the crucial 2020 election when there's likely to be a Democratic president who will sign bills (also likely to be a Democratic Senate). In any case, Pelosi is still impeachment iadverse. She's claiming all the establishment-variety of the identity groups had input into "the plan." 

Allen reports that "The first three legislative packages will cover health-care costs, $1 trillion in federal infrastructure investment, and ethics and lobbying reform. Medicare-For-All? Job Guarantee? Are you kidding?

Although "polls show that health care and wages are voters' top concerns," Pelosi-- and the overwhelming majority of her leadership team-- is incapable of a grand, bold vision. Her plans are basically baby steps and the status quo ante. They're going to focus on some of Trump's 2016 promises that the GOP renegged on. One of her aides told Allen that "We're ready from Day 1 to fight for the people. These priorities took months and months of conversation with members to boil down." Wow, I would have thought they were put together while someone was taking a dump and re-reading the dull Better Deal thing that no one ever thought about twice and certainly never caught on with the voters.

Committees will investigate the Trump Regime, but will not move forward with impeachment until it's a bipartisan endeavor, which means never.

• Health care would be divided into two buckets: cost containment, including reining in premiums, and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
• The $1 trillion in infrastructure spending would be sold as a way to boost jobs and wages.
• Drain the Swamp for real means "sweeping lobbying reform, changes in internal rules (something the public may care about, but not all that much, and not at all compared to things like Medicare-For-All).

Stephanie and Rob are referring to Pelosi's Pay-Go idiocy

Allen also points out that "Pelosi, despite opposition from some progressives, is committed to reviving the 'pay-go' (or pay as you go) rule she had during her previous run as speaker, requiring that new spending be paid for by budget cuts or revenue offsets. It's almost as if she's hoping to build up a surplus for the next Republican Congress to squander instead of doing anything useful for the American people. This is why more and more people are calling them Democraps instead of Democrats. Except for the hatred of Trump, this plan would keep people from bothering to even get out to vote in November.

So what happened to that "We're the party that isn't afraid to think big" thing? No transformative policy agenda here. What do progressives want that Pelosi and her team are ignoring? Obviously, Medicare-For-All, but also free state colleges and universities, spending real money to tackle the opioid crisis, passing a paid medical and family leave program, job guarantee, incentivizing veteran hiring, a massive investment in green infrastructure, moving towards 100% renewable energy, student loan debt relief. Not a hint of any of that in the Pelosi Plan. For one perspective, her plan is more conservative than the Republicans'. They both sing from the same hymnal but the GOP is always ready to abandon fiscal responsibility for their priorities-- tax cuts, corporate subsidies, the military-- while Democratic leadership is too scared to. Pelosi is sending a message that makes the Democratic Party sound like the GOP of the 1950's-- "We're the party of responsible budgets. Elect us if you're mad about Trump and his congressional enablers racking up trillion-dollar deficits with his gigantic tax cut."

It was just a few weeks ago that Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) told NBC that "The instinct that some Democrats have, which is born out of a sense of responsibility as the 'governing' party, is to explain exactly how you're going to pay for everything and how it all adds up. It puts you at a total disadvantage because you're already constraining your priorities." Schatz also said that "the GOP is skillful about never talking about paying for what they want and Dems are always trying to satisfy the 13 people who are doing Third Way work on K Street. It’s a game that disadvantages Democrats. I don’t want to play it anymore."

That's the clarion call the Democrats on the Senate Buget Committee learned from their 2015-16 Chief Economist, Stephanie Kelton,who left that position to work as the Bernie campaign's economic advisor. "I have a strong sense the American people would care very little about the government's budget outcome if the government was delivering a good economy." Kelton added that "PAYGO is a self-imposed, economically illiterate approach to budgeting. Republicans know this. They understand that deficits pose no risk to our national solvency and that the budget can be used to improve the financial well-being of the donor class. So they have unabashedly used their power to expand deficits and, hence, deliver windfall gains for big corporations and the already well-to-do. Instead of vowing budget chastity, Democrats should be articulating an agenda that will excite voters so that-- when the time comes-- they can unleash the full power of the public purse on their behalf-- a cleaner planet, good jobs, a secure retirement, affordable child care, debt-free college, and Medicare-for-All."

Rashida Tlaib, who won her primary in Michigan and is guaranteed a seat in Congress. Having served in the state legislature she very much understands this austerity trick Pelosi and Hoyer are buying into. "Our families in MI-13 reside in the second poorest congressional district in the country, and they need real help from the federal government. House Democrats insisting on paying for progressive legislation that elevates working families with budget cuts elsewhere needlessly ties our hands before we even begin to fight. If Democratic leadership is going to buy into right-wing talking points and stand in the way of progress for our families, we will replace them with representatives more in touch with the families we represent."

As The Republicans Shift Further Right, The Democrats Follow Them And Are Now Your Father's GOP

"The Republicans," explained Kyle Kulinski last week, "have shifted further right to some weird brew of theocracy and authoritarianism and fascism and outright oligarchy." He forgot kakistocracy and kleptocracy but no need to quibble. "The Democrats," he continued, "are acting like the Republican Party." In a simple, straight-forward tweet over the weekend, Ro Khanna laid out an economic platform the Democrats need to be running on, something that Pelosi's and Hoyer's PAY-GO bullsit would largely negate: Medicare-For-All, Job Guarantee, debt free public college, and tackling climate change for real. Their ideas on being "fiscally responsible" are according to economist Stephanie Kelton,  "oldthink." Kelton was the Democrats' Chief Economist on the Senate Budget Committee in 2015 and then Bernie's top economic advisor during his 2016 campaign and she regularly preaches against the kind of austerity the establishment of both parties seek to impose on the country. In January she suggested I read Josh Mound’s piece from last July, The Democrats Are Eisenhower Republicans. It sounds like Kulinski may have read it as well.

For the last fifty years, the Right has waged a war on “objective” fiscal analysis in order to further their goal of upward redistribution. Republicans and their conservative allies invoke mainstream studies when they undermine progressive policy ideas, then discard those same analyses when they get in the way of their agenda.

In contrast, Democrats have touted themselves as denizens of the “reality-based community” and “the party of fiscal responsibility,” as Bill Clinton often put it.

The result is that, for decades, the parties have operated according to completely different rules on taxing and spending.

When Republicans put forward unrealistic tax and budget proposals, they waive away projected deficits by improbably claiming that economic growth will cover the massive shortfall. When Democrats are in power, they treat “pay fors” and budget balancing as paramount and CBO analyses as sacrosanct. And whenever a progressive figure like Bernie Sanders steps outside the neoliberal budgetary consensus, elected Democrats and liberal pundits join conservatives to smack down their proposals as “unrealistic.”

The predictable upshot of this policymaking asymmetry is that Democrats have spent the last forty years trimming their sails, inadvertently underwriting the GOP’s next tax cut.

Jimmy Carter’s austerity funded Ronald Reagan’s top-heavy tax cuts. Bill Clinton’s austerity funded George W. Bush’s top-heavy tax cuts. And now, the deficit reduction Obama worked so hard to achieve in the second half of his presidency will likely help fund Donald Trump’s top-heavy tax cuts.

Throughout the 1950s and ’60s, members of the incipient conservative movement bristled at the GOP’s balanced-budget orthodoxy, as embodied by President Dwight Eisenhower. Republicans’ fear of inflation, they argued, drove the GOP to balance the budget at all costs, unwittingly helping Democrats grow the size of government.

Some on the Right-- advancing what would become known as the “starve the beast” strategy-- began insisting that Republicans put all their focus on slashing taxes, rather than balancing the budget. Any deficits that resulted from tax reduction, these conservatives argued, would serve as a check on Democrats’ spending plans.

“I honor the Republicans for putting what they regard as the national interest ahead of partisan considerations. But I believe that they have been shortsighted in judging the national interest,” libertarian economist Milton Friedman wrote in a Newsweek column in 1968. “True fiscal responsibility requires resisting every tax increase and promoting tax decreases at every opportunity. That is the only way to put an effective ceiling on Federal spending.”

…President Jimmy Carter-- despite calling for a higher capital gains tax while running for president in 1976-- was, in many ways, the personification of this new centrist neoliberalism. And many conservative Democrats in Congress were sympathetic to lowering taxes on investment income. The combination of the Republicans’ “Tax Blitz” campaign and a concerted lobbying effort from business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Council for Capital Formation made the passage of Steiger’s bill a fait accompli.

The conservatives backing the capital gains reduction weren’t shy about its distributional effects. “Who will benefit from my amendment? Taxpayers in the upper bracket would benefit,” Steiger frankly admitted. He wasn’t kidding. The final version of Steiger’s plan, which was signed into law by Carter, gave a four-person family making $20,000-- just above median income-- approximately $100; a taxpayer making over $200,000 saw a tax reduction of more than $25,000.

By the 1980 presidential campaign, Carter had assumed the role of “green eyeshade” fiscal scold and Reagan the role of sunny spendthrift.

In late 1978, Carter had told the nation that the country was facing a “time of national austerity” that would require “difficult and unpleasant” belt-tightening. Throughout the rest of his presidency, Carter made clear that he believed his role as a president in a time of high inflation was to be “fiscally responsible in reducing the Federal deficit.”

He opposed any spending increases or further tax cuts, including indexing federal income tax brackets to inflation-- one of the few tax changes that would’ve disproportionally helped low- and middle-income taxpayers.

Reagan, in contrast, not only pushed a version of the Kemp-Roth rate cuts during his presidential campaign, he also favored indexation. He denied that his tax cuts would cause the deficit to balloon or that additional austerity was needed to fight inflation. Instead, he promised to replace the “eerie, ghostly silence of economic stagnation, unemployment, inflation, and despair” with the “confident roar of American progress and growth and optimism.”

Ironically, the only area in which Carter claimed to support more generous provisions than Reagan was in tax cuts for business. The inversion of the parties’ fiscal roles was complete.

Once in office, Reagan used language nearly identical to Friedman’s to justify tax cuts that would send the deficit spiraling.

“Over the past decades we’ve talked of curtailing government spending so that we can then lower the tax burden. Sometimes we’ve even taken a run at doing that,” Reagan told the nation in a televised address one month after taking office. “But there were always those who told us that taxes couldn’t be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance.”

When the CBO predicted huge deficits from Reagan’s cuts, the White House reacted just as the GOP is today. “That’s them practicing what they’ve been preaching for the last thirty years,” Reagan groused. “Their figures are phony.” The administration even attempted to oust CBO director Alice Rivlin and replace her with someone more pliable.

Despite the bill’s regressive effects, a majority of Democrats in the House and the Senate voted for Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. It was the largest tax cut in post–World War II history, and it exploded the deficit. Yet it did little to spur the growth that supply-siders had promised. As studies by the CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Joint Economic Committee all found, Reagan’s cuts made the federal tax system less progressive and worsened income inequality. Between 1980 and 1983, the bottom half saw their after-tax incomes fall while the top 1 percent enjoyed a more than 20 percent increase.

In the end, Carter’s legacy was laying the fiscal groundwork for Reagan’s giveaway to the rich.

The next Democratic president, Bill Clinton, would make the same mistake.

…[I]n typical “supply-side” fashion, the tax windfall for the rich blew a hole in the budget. By this time, the idea that there was no political downside to growing the deficit had become the Republican conventional wisdom. As Vice President Dick Cheney told Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

The Bush deficits had the intended effect on Democrats, too.

When Barack Obama took office, the deficit was enormous and the country was entering the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Obama initially pursued a more ambitious agenda than either Carter or Clinton, but both his stimulus package and the Affordable Care Act were scaled back in an effort to avoid sticker shock. And after his health care law passed, Obama shifted into deficit-reduction mode. He appointed a “bipartisan” National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that only heightened deficit hysteria, and he worked to strike a deficit-reducing “grand bargain” with John Boehner that would’ve slashed Social Security.

Now, Obama’s fiscal probity is likely to be undone by Trump and the Republicans in Congress.

…[T]he the top-heavy tax cuts contained in the GOP’s ACA repeal bill and Trump’s tax plan would mark yet another “Two Santas” victory for the Republicans.

And this time they’re pulling out all the stops.

The Republican ACA repeal plan is essentially a tax cut for the rich disguised as a health care bill. The richest 1 percent would enjoy a more than 2 percent bump in their after-tax incomes, while few in the 99 percent would see any tax benefits. Translated into dollar terms, the most recent Senate GOP bill would provide a tax cut of a few hundred dollars for most people and a quarter of a million dollars for the top one-tenth of 1 percent. And the price? Tens of millions of people losing their health insurance and the virtual destruction of the Medicaid program.

…Republicans have made clear time and time again that they don’t care about the deficit. And Democrats shouldn’t either. Rather than fixating on the GOP’s shaky math, Democrats should highlight the cruelty of shoveling money to the rich at a time when inequality is soaring and millions languish in poverty.

Fiscal policy is ultimately about distribution, not growth or deficits. Republicans understand this. Unfortunately, Democrats don’t.

Instead of worrying about crafting practical, deficit-neutral proposals, Democrats should be bold and single-mindedly focus on downwardly redistributive taxing and spending. Go for Medicare for All, public child care, green jobs. Propose popular programs, and don’t worry about the cost. If the GOP raises deficit concerns, waive them away by predicting fabulous economic growth, just like Republicans do.

And if, once enacted, the progressive programs do end up increasing the deficit? Let the next Republican president worry about balancing the budget.

This morning Alan Grayson put it more succinctly for us: "Pay-Go is a good example of self-hating Democrats trying to be the 'fiscally responsible' Republicans that the Republicans themselves never are. The GOP just passed a $3 trillion tax cut for the rich, with no offsetting revenue or budget cuts whatsoever. A Pay-Go rule means that all we’ll ever see is GOP tax cuts for the rich, never Democratic tax cuts for the middle class and seniors. The Republicans figured this out a long time ago: there are exceedingly few 'fiscal responsibility' voters, and they’re going to vote Republican no matter what."

Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) is the most recent candidate endorsed by Blue America. More on her tomorrow; I promise. I asked her about this whole PAY-GO scheme. She gets it... in a big way: "Our families in MI-13 reside in the second poorest congressional district in the country, and they need real help from the federal government. House Democrats insisting on paying for progressive legislation that elevates working families with budget cuts elsewhere needlessly ties our hands before we even begin to fight. If Democratic leadership is going to buy into right-wing talking points and stand in the way of progress for our families, we will replace them with representatives more in touch with the families we represent."

Kelton also told me she thinks Hawaii's junior senator, Brian Schatz, has demonstrated a more astute read of the political game than, perhaps, any other Congressmember. "The GOP," he said, "is skillful about never talking about paying for what they want and Dems are always trying to satisfy the 13 people who are doing Third Way work on K Street. It’s a game that disadvantages Democrats. I don’t want to play it anymore.

Attention Nancy Pelosi: Kelton added that "PAYGO is a self-imposed, economically illiterate approach to budgeting. Republicans know this. They understand that deficits pose no risk to our national solvency and that the budget can be used to improve the financial well-being of the donor class. So they have unabashedly used their power to expand deficits and, hence, deliver windfall gains for big corporations and the already well-to-do. Instead of vowing budget chastity, Democrats should be articulating an agenda that will excite voters so that-- when the time comes-- they can unleash the full power of the public purse on their behalf-- a cleaner planet, good jobs, a secure retirement, affordable child care, debt-free college, and Medicare-for-All."

Senate Developments: Hawaii And Montana

The news from Hawaii yesterday was great. Progressive Senator Brian Schatz beat corrupt conservative New Dem Colleen Hanabusa in the two Puna precincts on the Big Island that didn't vote in last weekend's primary because of Tropical Storm Iselle. Schatz went into yesterday's vote with a 1,635 vote lead. While Hanabusa spent the week whining about "voter irregularities" and making all sorts of demands to change the voting rules, Schatz was in Puna helping his constituents with storm recovery. Hanabusa's Honolulu-based district didn't include the Big Island and the voters there are less familiar with her other than reading about how she's the kind of Big Business oriented careerist Establishment type most people in Puna don't want anything to do with. 1,508 votes were cast in Puna yesterday-- 2,956 including early votes (dismal 36% turnout)-- and another 800 uncounted votes were discovered on Maui, scattered randomly across the county, on an electronic card. Hanabusa had to win better than 2/3s to overcome Schatz's lead. That isn't what happened. Hanabusa lost further ground as more votes were counted, with Schatz's margin expanding by 134 votes, giving him a final victory of 115,397 (48.5%)-113,628 (47.8%).

In all, EMILY's List wasted nearly three-quarters of a million dollars in Hawaii trying unsuccessfully to beat progressive male candidates-- in Schatz's case a progressive male Senator endorsed by every single woman senator who got involved in the race, including EMILY's List icon Elizabeth Warren-- with conservative women. They blew $697,891 bolstering Hanabusa and $49,971 bolstering far right reactionary Donna Mercado Kim, a religious freak who's commitment to Choice is highly suspect. EMILY's List has proven themselves to be, once again, the worst player inside Democratic Party politics. Meanwhile they flat out refuse to assist progressive women they have added to their list without giving any support at all. Shenna Bellows (D-ME), Kelly Westlund (D-WI) and Laura Fjeld (D-NC) could have really used that money to help them defeat dreadful Republican opponents. Instead, EMILY's List is still wasting resources trying to help corrupt conservatives like Mary Rose Wilcox (AZ) and Gina Raimondo (RI) in their bids to defeat progressive males.

Today, Montana Democratic Party officials are meeting in Helena at the Lewis and Clark County Fairgrounds to select a replacement for John Walsh, the corporate Democrat who was appointed to replace Max Baucus when he left the seat to take an ambassadorship. A NY Times exposé-- of a plagiarism scandal-- made it impossible for Walsh to continue the campaign. The two consensus candidates, Brian Schweitzer and Franke Wilmer, both passed on the opportunity to run-- as did current Governor Steve Bullock, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau and state Auditor Monica Lindeen. That left a populist state Rep. from Butte, Amanda Curtis, and Dirk Adams who doesn't seem to have any political core values and appears to be the kind of person who will say anything to achieve his goals. Like most politicians. I asked another state Rep., Franke Wilmer, what she thought about the possibility of Curtis getting the nomination and going up against Daines.

"Amanda Curtis," she told me this morning, "can not only unify and excite Democrats, but also bring our message of restoring the American Dream to all Montanans to those undecided voters who have heard what Steve Daines has to say and don’t buy what he’s selling.  That’s her path to victory. It won’t hurt that she can energize and get out the youth vote. We need to make sure she has the support to get her name and message to all Montanans. Amanda is a real person, not a profile, she pays her bills with her paycheck like most of us do, and spending long days with 15 and 16 years olds in the classroom for the past dozen or so years just might be the best preparation she could have for bringing some grown-up common sense to Washington DC."

The Daily Beast was less generous in their assessment, making a point about her having a nose ring as the centerpiece of their coverage.

In the scramble to replace Walsh (who dropped out last Thursday), Amanda Curtis has quickly emerged as the cream of a not particularly distinguished crop. Curtis, a first-term state representative from Butte who posted YouTube videos for every day that the Montana legislature was in session last year, has already received the backing of the biggest union in Montana and is attracting enthusiasm from liberal activists. In an interview with The Daily Beast, Curtis said she was “honored and humbled” to even be considered. The state representative, who isn’t running for reelection this year, said she “started getting texts, Facebook messages, emails, and phone calls” from “big Amanda fans” all over the state after Walsh dropped out. She made the decision to jump in after feeling it would be hypocritical not to run after her TEDx talk on "showing up and saying yes."

Curtis told the Daily Beast that, if elected, her top priority would be campaign-finance reform. However, on other issues, she still was sketching out her positions. When asked about the situation in Iraq and the Obama administration’s response, she didn’t have an answer. “I’m still studying a lot of these issues. I’m planning to listen to all sides and make these decisions listening to regular Montanans,” she said. She pointed out that “you have to appreciate please that I was painting my storm windows [this time last week].”

She also commented on what might be her most distinguishing feature, her pierced nose. Curtis said that she and her husband were just discussing this and she noted “I would probably be the first with something like that elected to the Senate.” But, it’s not a sure thing that the stud would stay in her nose through Election Day. Curtis worried that it might be “a distraction” and was “not opposed to [removing it] if it’s going to be an issue” in the campaign. In fact she was surprised that no reporter had asked about it already and told the Daily Beast, “You get the prize.”

…If nominated, Curtis faces some major obstacles to being elected in the Republican-leaning state.  She’d have to raise sufficient money to compete and build up a campaign organization from scratch with only 80 days until Election Day. Further, while Democrats were hailing the progress Walsh was making in the race prior to the scandal, the appointed incumbent was still down seven points in the polls. Curtis ducked questions about polls and state of play, saying, “I’m not a political analyst.” She did insist that the race would be winnable if Daines would debate her. Although she admitted that she might “seem like a little bit of a long  shot,” her plan was to just “swing for the fences” and to try to attract voters “who haven’t been involved in the process” or are simply sick of the status quo.

UPDATE: Amanda!

Amanda Curtis was officially nominated, 82-46, to take on Steve Daines for the open Montana Senate seat!

Racist Fanatic William Colmer Has A Minority Majority School In Pascagoula Named After Him-- Plus Hawaii Update

The William M. Colmer Middle School is in Pascagoula, Mississippi. 46% of the students are African-Americans and 15% are Hispanic. 79% of the students are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch program, somewhat higher than the average for Mississippi (71%). The school is named for Representative William M. Colmer who died on September 9, 1980 (age 90) and is buried at Machpelah Cemetery right their in Pascagoula. The students can walk over to the cemetery and visit their school's namesake. Perhaps they should read a little about the 20-terms congressman from Mississippi's Gulf Coast first though.

Colmer won a primary against Robert Hall in 1932, and that turned out to be a very good year for Democrats. Congressional Republicans lost 101 seats in the House that year. Colmer was elected with 94.5% of the vote-- the lowest percentage of any of Mississippi's 7 Members of Congress. He was swept into office as a New Deal Democrat but soon figured out that the New Deal not only helped whites, which he was fine with, but helped blacks… which he was very much not fine with. As time went by, he turned increasingly more reactionary and made opposing racial equality his life's work.

By all accounts he was a disgusting political figure and in no ways-- except the for "D" next to his name-- a Democrat. He was a blight on the party brand, just the way Blue Dogs, New Dems and corporate shills like Israel, Emanuel, Wasserman Schultz, Crowley and Hoyer are today. Even though Colmer endorsed Nixon against JFK, Humphrey and McGovern and endorsed Goldwater against LBJ, the idiot House Democrats allowed him to retain the Rules Committee chairmanship, putting him in a position to slow down desegregation for years. When he finally retired in 1972, his administrative assistant, Trent Lott-- another pile of racist dogcrap-- ran for his House seat and won… as a Republican-- the first elected there since 1873.

I didn't share this Colmer info with you just as another random example of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, although he was obviously that. I shared it because Karoli seemed so worked up Saturday about a Democratic judicial candidate in Connecticut, Anna Zubkova, whose husband, Rob Freeman, is a very public racist. "If whites had a voice in the government," he wrote, "there might not have been an Iraq war. There might not have been all these horrible trade agreements that are impoverishing everyone. We might have more fuel efficient cars, or more mass transit. Who knows what might have been?" I guess Debbie Wasserman Schultz would call it being part of her twisted conception of a "big tent party."


DREADFUL RESULTS IN HAWAII LAST NIGHT

Voter participation through absentee ballots was high, up over 12% since 2012. But that was the only good news there was yesterday. And although none of the candidates are as bad as William Colmer, it was a good night for the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. As expected, progressive Governor Neil Abercrombie was defeated by centrist David Ige in a huge landslide, 143,835 (67%) to 67,368 (32%). Ige will face Republican Duke Aiona and extreme right-wing ex-Democrat (now Independent) Mufi Hannemann in November. It will be a tough race for him.

With all 113 precincts counted in the first congressional district, the race to replace Hanabusa was won by Mark Takai, a reactionary claiming to have seen the light and miraculously "turned" progressive.

• Mark Takai- 48,510 (45%)
• Donna Mercado Kim- 30,979 (29%)
• Stanley Chang- 11,023 (10%)
• Ikaika Anderson- 7,269 (7%)
• Will Espero- 4,166 (4%)
• Joey Manahan- 3,941 (4%)
• Kathryn Xian- 2,786 (3%)

The Congressional Progressive Caucus undercut progressive Stanley Chang at the last minute by making his endorsement into a dual endorsement of him and conservative homophobe and militarist Takai. The strategy, one of the key players told me, was to stop Donna Kim, an even worse reactionary. Although Takai and Kim have been allies in the legislature and although, when asked, she said if she couldn't win she would like to see Takai win, 2 Japanese-American Progressive Caucus members claimed they could guide Takai in a progressive direction. The last time I heard such a patently spurious argument was when another Progressive Caucus member wanted to endorse Republican-turned-fake-Dem Patrick Murphy in 2012, telling me he could guide Murphy. Murphy did win-- and immediately joined the GOP-leaning, Wall Street-owned and operated New Dems. Murphy has amassed one of the worst voting records of any Democrat in Congress-- a dismal ProgressivePunch crucial vote score of 48.17-- and has worked consistently to undermine progressive values and principles inside the caucus. This cycle he is already the 3rd biggest recipient-- $801,750-- of shady cash from the Financial Sector, right after crooked conservative sell-outs Joe Crowley and Jim Himes.

Even worse news is the still undetermined U.S. Senate race, where corrupt New Dem Colleen Hanabusa has come close to unseating progressive champion Brian Schatz. There are 2 rural precincts on the Big Island that couldn't vote because of Hurricane Iselle-- polling sites at Hawaii Paradise Community Center and Keone-opoko Elementary School-- so it will be some days before the election is decided. Democrats there will vote by absentee ballot. Right now, as best I can tell, the 245 of 247 precincts have given Schatz the tiniest of leads-- 105,794 (49.38%) to 104,008 (48.55%). He's leading her by 1,786 votes and it's a real stretch seeing her make up that kind of a lead in just two precincts.

As of the July 20 reporting deadline, Schatz had raised $4,914,576, spent $3,937,606 and was sitting on $976,970. Hanabusa had raised $2,876,245, spent $2,408,572 and was sitting on $522,566. She wrote herself a check for $117,000 out of the personal bribes she and her crooked husband have taken from developers and other shady operators who have financed her sleazy career. Conservative Democratic group EMILY's List put another $697,920 into independent expenditures on Hanabusa's behalf, including a $75,000 push this week. Environmental and progressive groups spent $591,353 to bolster Schatz.

Again, Hanabusa isn't as bad as Colmer. But this is 2014, not 1950 and she's about as bad as you can be and still legitimately call yourself a Democrat today. Yesterday was a terrible day for Hawaii. At least EMILY's List failed-- and failed miserably-- to foist Donna Mercado Kim on Hawaii. They have become the single most destructive player inside the Democratic Party coalition, almost never a force for progressive politics-- almost always a force for reactionary thinking, a real corrupt, money-based pillar of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.


UPDATE: Who Are The Voters In The 2 Precincts?

The voters in the remaining precincts aren't exactly off the grid but many tend to be anti-establishment, anti-war, anti-GMO, pro-marijuana legalization, and anti-geothermal-- not exactly Hanabusa's crowd, no matter how you slice it or dice it. And she would have to beat Schatz in the two precincts on the Big Island by a 2-1 margin to take the lead, which isn't likely, no matter how much more money EMILY's List throws into her campaign. This post should give you a better idea about who the 8,000 people are who haven't voted yet. Excerpt: "In our district (Puna), Dennis got 60% of the caucus vote. On our island (Hawaii), 50%. In our state (Hawaii), 33%." Probably not admirers of militarist and corporate shill Colleen Hanabusa.

In Hawaii, Today's The Day… Two Moments Of Truth For Progressives

Today is primary day in Hawaii. Iselle hit Friday but had lost some ferocity and came in as a tropic storm. With the exception of the polling sites at Hawaii Paradise Community Center and Keone-opoko Elementray School on the Big Island, all polling sites will be open from 7AM 'til 6 PM. Hurricane Julio is also weakening slightly but may hit the Big Island tomorrow. The rare twin storms shouldn't hold down turnout in the election. And today's contests couldn't be clearer. The Senate race features two well-known politicians, one progressive (Senator Brian Schatz) and one from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (conservative New Dem Colleen Hanabusa). We have been comparing and contrasting their positions all through the cycle and we have also pointed out a career predicated on corruption in Hanabusa's case. There are three main issues voters should have foremost in their minds when they walk into the polling station: Social Security, health care reform and Climate Change/the environment. Before we look at those again though, let's look again at the difference between the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party and the Republican wing of the party.

Schatz has been endorsed by Howard Dean, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, virtually every Democrat in the Senate, MoveOn, the Sierra Club, Climate Hawks Vote and, of course, Blue America. Hanabusais the candidate of the corrupt conservative New Dems, a Wall Street owned Beltway operation funded by drug companies, banksters and the Military Industrial Complex. So far this cycle, among the New Dems' biggest donors are predatory Wall Street corporations with big agendas, like CitiBroup, Mortgage Bankers Assn, JP Morgan Chase, UBS, Investment Co Institute, National Venture Capital Assn, Deloitte LLP, US Bancorp, Visa, Prudential Financial, and Goldman Sachs. These are the "people" Hanabusa is indebted to, not the working families of Hawaii. And that explains her record in Congress and why it has been so very different from Senator Schatz's.

Let's start with Social Security. Schatz is a leader in the Senate on expanding Social Security. Hanabusa voted for the Simpson-Bowles plan that would cut Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age to 69. She favors chained CPI which would cut the cost of living allowances for retired people. That makes Wall Street very, very happy-- which explains why the've poured so much money into her shady career. But what about seniors who depend on these cost of living increases when prices rise for food, energy and medicine?

And speaking of medicine, Hanabusa has been a go-to shill for Big Phrama. She repaid companies like Amgen, UnitedHealth, Abbott, Wellpoint, tax cheats AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, and WalMart for financing her career by backing efforts to allow big drug companies to get massive giveaways from Medicare-- and sleazy Hanabusa staffers got caught illegally coordinating activities with drug company cronies. Schatz's record couldn't be more different. He co-sponsored a plan, supported by the AARP, to put Medicare on stronger financial footing and stop powerful drug companies from ripping off federal taxpayers. One works for the drug companies-- and to line her own pockets; one works for for ordinary families in Hawaii.

Not a single environmental group has endorsed Hanabusa. Every one of them-- who rarely agree on anything-- has endorsed Schatz. He's been one of the Senate's most effective champions on environmental issues, supporting the Clean Energy Initiative which tripled Hawai'i's renewable energy production from 6% to 18%, and supporting a bill that could lead to charging oil manufacturers a fee for emitting carbon. That work has earned him the endorsement of Al Gore and many local and national environmental groups. Meanwhile, Hanabusa voted for a coal-industry-backed bill to block enforcement of the Clean Air Act-- and cited it on her campaign website as one of her proudest votes.

Half Hawaii's voters also get to pick a replacement for Hanabusa in the Honolulu-based first CD. This should be day too. There's one progressive in the race: Stanley Chang, fighting off two grotesque conservatives from the Republican wing of the party: Donna Mercado Kim and Mark Takai. Stanley's absentee ballot push was easily the strongest in the race and he was up on TV before anyone else and started a serious field operation before anyone else. Partially due to the storms, but partially due to the especially nasty vitriol from EMILY's List in the Hanabusa race against Schatz, turnout looks depressed. That makes Stanley's aggressive field operation all the more valuable. The depressed vote today could push the share of the absentee ballots from a normal 50% to as high as 60 or even 70%. That bodes very well for Team Chang and much less well for the lazy efforts by his two main competitors. Let's hope we have two big victories to celebrate tomorrow, one for Brian Schatz and one for Stanley Chang.

Colleen Hanabusa's Crazy War Against The Environment

New Dem Colleen Hanabusa has built a political career not based on values or principles but on mutual backscratching and ugly corruption. She desperately, even shrilly, wants everyone to ignore the fact that when the Sierra Club, Climate Hawks Vote, Ocean Champions and the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Brian Schatz for senator, they compared both their environmental records and found his ideal and hers… far from ideal. She would also like voters in the August 9th Hawaii primary to ignore that MoveOn, the PCCC, DFA and Blue America all sited Schatz's work on environmental protection when they endorsed him. Every single U.S. Senator that cares about the environment endorsed Schatz, from Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer and Sheldon White House to all the Senate Democratic leaders, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray.

Not one environmental group is backing Hanabusa. Not one progressive group is backing Hanabusa. Not one senator is backing Hanabusa. And the only Members of the House who have been trying to help her are Rahm Emanuel puppet Tammy Duckworth and right-wing warmongers and anti-environment fanatics Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Randy Forbes (R-VA). Yes, two Republicans, that's what she's got… and the Laborers Union backing her because of her support for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Remember, the conservative running against Schatz isn't a Republican. Hanabusa is a New Dem from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, a purely transactional character. Her husband, John Souza, serves as her bagman. Honolulu political insiders know that the two of them are as thick as thieves with real estate developer Jeffrey Stone, who has spent and raised more for Hanabusa's political career than anyone else. She and Souza take good care of her contributors, regardless of environmental impact. In 2011, at a time when Maui’s Hawaiian Cane & Sugar's parent company (Alexander & Baldwin) was one of her largest donors, she voted with her Republican buddies to delay implementation of EPA rules governing air quality in buildings from industrial boiler systems-- two of which Hawaiian Cane & Sugar was using.

Yesterday the Star-Advertiser ran an important piece by Derrick DePledge differentiating between Schatz and Hanabusa on environmental issues. The first paragraph is very ominous for Hanabusa, who has been running away from her repulsive record and trying to twist it out of shape for months: "U.S. Rep. Colleen Hana­busa was one of just 41 House Democrats in October 2011 to vote to delay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's tougher clean air standards on industrial boilers." She claims her vote with the Republicans against the EPA was to save the jobs at a sugar mill (and not just for her campaign donors).

In trying to justify her vote against the Clean Air Act, Hanabusa falsely claims that this vote saved the plantation which is total nonsense. Mazie Hirono, Daniel Inouye and Dan Akaka all voted the other way on this bill, and the plantation is still alive and well. The vote clearly demonstrates Hanabusa's total lack of commitment to the environment. Combine this with her vote to clear cut the Tongass Forest and her support for drilling in ANWR and it paints a pretty dim picture of a typical lockstep New Dem shill for Wall Street interests. (As does this poll question from PPP:)

U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, Hanabusa's opponent in the Democratic primary, argues that Hanabusa made a false choice between the environment and the economy. The EPA was already in the process of revising the rule based on public feedback.

"The EPA has shown a willingness to be flexible when it comes to Hawaii," the senator said. "And if she wanted to get the attention of the EPA, there was no need to undermine the Clean Air Act and vote with tea party Republicans."

During the primary, the two Democrats have disagreed over votes on Social Security, the Bipartisan Budget Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Arctic drilling. But their dispute over the vote to delay the EPA's rule on industrial boilers, perhaps more than any other, gets closest to illustrating what each candidate believes is their own strength and, more importantly, their opponent's weakness.

…In Hawaii, environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, which has endorsed Schatz, have been concerned about air pollution at the HC&S mill. In addition to emissions from the boilers, HC&S also conducts pre-harvest cane burning.

In June, the state Department of Health cited HC&S for more than 400 alleged violations of state clean air rules between 2009 and 2013 and assessed a $1.3 million penalty. The company has said that any violations were unintentional and plans to contest the penalty as excessive.

Hanabusa considers the vote on the EPA's rule on industrial boilers one of several that demonstrate her independence and her ability to look deeper into federal legislation and see the potential impact on Hawaii. She said she would cast the same vote again today.

"It's not an easy vote to do," the congresswoman said. "But it's a vote that I feel had to be done. And the EPA slowed down. And I think the EPA needed it, too, to be able to slow down what it was doing, because it was under court order. And to come up with a set of rules that I believe is really workable."

Schatz counters that the issue was not as complicated as Hanabusa suggests.

"This was not a close call," the senator said. "Everybody wants to support the (HC&S) plantation, but there's nobody in the congressional delegation that thought it was necessary to undermine the Clean Air statute in order to make sure that it was implemented well."

Schatz said Hanabusa "continues to think that we have to make a choice between a clean environment and a strong economy," adding, "And she's flat wrong. That is not the choice that we have to make. We can and should fight for clean air and clean water and strong economic growth at the same time."

And, of course, it isn't just Schatz who has noticed how dishonest Hanabusa is. In February, 2012, the Center for American Progress commented on this very bill and said it "essentially puts the interests of polluters over that of the health and safety of American families. It creates enormous uncertainty and goes far beyond providing the EPA with extra time to finalize their rulemaking. More troubling, this bill would delay and could substantially weaken long-overdue public health protections by allowing the continued emissions of carcinogens and other toxic air pollutants that can cause developmental harm and other serious health effects." DC daily The Hill noted delved a little deeper into the consequences of Hanabusa's support for the Republican efforts to gut EPA rules. The standards imposed by boiler MACT rules, to limit emissions of harmful air pollutants from industrial boilers and incinerators, they wrote, go after mercury, acid gases and fine particulate matter, or soot, from boilers and incinerators. "The agency said the rules would affect about 1 percent of the nation's boilers. It added the rules would yield public health benefits, preventing 8,100 premature deaths and 5,100 heart attacks per year beginning in 2015."

And maybe this is why EMILY's List is rolling out the dirty campaign tactics on behalf of Hanabusa now. It's called desperation-- and it was just released this morning. When Republicans see a poll like this, they whine that PPP is a Democratic-affiliated polling firm. Is that Hanabusa's complaint too?

Hawaii: A Bastion Of Progressivism-- Let's Keep It That Way

Hawaii's primary is August 9, a week from Saturday. Saturday? Sure, that's how to encourage voter participation in a democracy-- have the elections when people aren't working. Conservatives are generally terrified at the prospect of more people voting-- especially working class people-- so they tend to block legislation like Hawaii's. Hawaii is a pretty progressive state, first to mass a $10.10 minimum wage, first to start the process of marriage equality. The Republican Party is pretty moribund there and the Democratic Party has been in charge since 1962. In recent times Bill Clinton won twice, George Bush lost twice and Obama won twice-- with over 70% both times. There are no Republicans in federal office, only one Republican state senator (out of 25) and only 7 Republicans in the 51 member House. In the last U.S. Senate race, pitting progressive Democrat Mazie Hirono against conservative (not extremist) Republican Governor Linda Lingle, Hirono beat Lingle 269,489 (63%) to 160,994 (37%).

That's not to say Hawaii doesn't have a powerful conservative faction working against the interests of working families. The problem is that they're smart enough to embed themselves in the Democratic Party and tell lo-info voters that they are also "progressives." So you wind up with shady career politicians like Ed Case, Colleen Hanabusa, Mufi Hannemann, Donna Mercado Kim, Mark Takai, who would be Republicans in any other state, festering as Democrats in Hawaii. Donna Kim, for example, is the state Senate president but just voted against increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 and against marriage equality for Hawaii's big LGBT community. And now she wants to bring her right-wing bigotry to Washington to replace fellow conservative Colleen Hanabusa, the anti-Social Security New Dem who is being pushed by EMILY's List against progressive Senator Brian Schatz.

Schatz, who has been endorsed by President Obama, Elizabeth Warren and every senator who has endorsed in the race, is the lead sponsor of the Strengthening Social Security Act, which would increase benefits by an average of $65-70/month and extend the viability of the Social Security system by removing the wage cap on Social Security, so that all Americans pay their fair share, even rich people. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare endorsed him because of this bill and because of Hanabusa's awful vote in favor of the Simpson-Bowles budget framework and her eagerness to "compromise" away hard earned benefits for working people and seniors, primarily by raising the age of retirement and by recalculating down the cost of living adjustments for retired and handicapped people, which is the Republican position, not the Democratic position.

Hanabusa and her shady lobbyist supporters have been trying to deceive voters in Hawaii by claiming that Schatz's vote on the Bipartisan Budget Act in 2013 cut Social Security benefits by extending provider cuts under Medicare for 2 years. This is total nonsense, and Hanabusa is trying to misrepresent her vote in opposition to the BBA as a vote to protect Medicare and Social Security. Although the BBA was not perfect, it rolled back sequestration cuts and Democrats would not agree to any deal unless Social Security and Medicare benefits were not touched. That's exactly what happened in the deal. As a result, every Senate Democrat and President Obama supported the legislation. Essentially, Hanabusa joined Senate Tea Party Republicans like Ted Cruz on this vote. On top of that, the "cuts" to Medicare/Social Security that Hanabusa is squawking about are actually decreases in provider reimbursements under Medicare that were extended from 2021 and 2023. These provider decreases were actually established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 which Hanabusa neglects to mention that she voted for. Essentially, she voted to establish sequestration and Medicare reimbursement cuts, spent all of 2013 complaining about the negative impacts of sequestration, and then when she had a chance to help fix the worst aspects of sequestration that she helped create, she voted against BBA in a thinly veiled effort to create a difference in position between her and Schatz.

And it gets worse since Hanabusa also bitterly complained that the BBA cut military retiree pensions. Senator Schatz and other Democrats didn't like this aspect of the legislation, and after the BBA passed, Schatz introduced legislation to eliminate that portion of the BBA. This repeal passed-- with Hanabusa and other conservatives voting against the repeal. Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America said this about Hanabusa's Republican posture on Social Security:

Hanabusa has been desperately trying to evade responsibility for her vote to cut Social Security and Medicare. At a recent debate, Schatz looked directly at Hanabusa and asked if she regretted her vote for the Simpson-Bowles plan to cut Social Security. She tried to say her vote wouldn't have cut benefits or raise the retirement age.

Schatz then pulled out his trump card. He read out a letter the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare wrote to her, pleading with her to vote against the Simpson-Bowles plan that would have cut benefits and raised the retirement age. The facts are clear-- Hanabusa can't be trusted to protect Social Security.

Hanabusa's claim that Schatz voted to cut Social Security benefits because he voted to extend Medicare reimbursement cuts by two years is typical, sleazy Beltway garbage. Medicare and Social Security are separate programs with different funding and trust funds, so it is absolutely false that Schatz voted to cut Social Security benefits. He's been endorsed by all the organizations voting to protect and expand Social Security. She's backed by conservatives like herself. "The Republicans in the House and the Tea Party," said Schatz, "seem bound and determined to undermine Social Security and I think it's important that for we Democrats in the Senate to stake out a position that not only are we not entertaining cutting Social Security, but we ought to be thinking about ways to enhance the program-- both for the beneficiaries and for the trust fund to be healthy over the long run."

Although EMILY's List promised Hanabusa they could "deliver" Elizabeth Warren's endorsement if she ran against Schatz, Warren not only refused, she enthusiastically endorsed Schatz. In a stunning rebuke to EMILY's List and Hanabusa's deceitful campaign, this week she told her supporters that "I am proud to stand with Senator Mazie Hirono, Senator Brian Schatz, and a growing number in Congress who are committed to protecting and expanding Social Security benefits. The most recent discussion about cutting benefits has focused on something called the Chained-CPI. Supporters of the Chained-CPI say that it’s a more accurate way of measuring cost of living increases for seniors. That statement is simply not true. Chained CPI is just a fancy way of saying cut benefits. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has developed a measure of the real impact of inflation on seniors. It’s called the CPI-E. If we adopted it today, it would generally increase benefits for our retirees-- not cut them. In the end, this is not just about math. It’s about our values. If we want a robust middle class-- a middle class that continues to serve as the backbone of our country-- then we must take the retirement crisis seriously."

As we've discussed before, Hanabusa was one of the congressmembers from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who refused to sign the Grayson-Takano Social Security pledge or to back Schatz's Strengthening Social Security Act. And on the same Saturday voters in Hawaii are choosing between Hanabusa and Schatz, they are also picking Hanabusa's replacement for the first congressional district (basically, Honolulu). Blue America, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, DFA and People for the American Way have all endorsed Stanley Chang against two well-funded conservative Democrats, Donna Kim and Mark Takai. Chang, who was one of Elizabeth Warren's students at Harvard Law, has backed the same ideas for strengthening and extending Social Security as Schatz. When we asked him this morning, this is what he told us:

I categorically oppose all cuts to Social Security and I am proud to have repeatedly pledged support for the Grayson-Takano Letter, which reads in part: “We will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits-- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.” For me, this promise is the first step in bold strategy to not only protect and defend Social Security, but to expand its critical benefits so that all of our kupuna can retire in dignity after a lifetime of work.

Social Security is the bedrock of the safety net our seniors have earned. The common-sense progressive solution that will ensure Social Security’s solvency for decades to come would be to “scrap the cap.” Currently, only the first $117,000 of income is taxed for Social Security, but if we eliminate this loophole, we will have the necessary funds to ensure that our seniors remain healthy and financially secure.

I am opposed to using so-called “chained CPI” to calculate cost-of-living adjustments. This is merely another way to enact deep, harsh cuts to Social Security, which keeps 22 million seniors out of poverty.

You can help Stanley Chang with his crucial get out the vote effort here and you can do the same for Brian Schatz here. They're both from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.



Crucial Primary In Hawaii-- August 9

Down in every poll, unable to get even a single woman senator to endorse her rotgut campaign against progressive Senator Brian Schatz, corrupt New Dem Colleen Hanabusa is eager to talk about anything other than her record in Congress because her record is so awful. She's talks more about what she did in the state Senate than about doing anything in Congress. That's because she hasn't done anything in Congress-- at least not for her constituents. Although she's always at the front of the line when corporate lobbyists are handing out their greasy checks, she's a quintessential backbencher. Hanabusa has passed exactly one bill since being elected to Congress-- naming a post office after former Rep. Cec Heftel-- and she has never introduced legislation on Social Security, college affordability, gun control, or clean energy.

Since she has no record of her own to talk about, the last debate saw her accusing Senator Schatz of inflating his record regarding his work on the tourism subcommittee, but when she was confronted by the facts of her own misstatements by Hawaii News Now, her own campaign chair admitted she spoke without knowing the facts. Which is, after all, a hallmark of Colleen Hanabusa's career.

Since absentee ballots were mailed out to 100,000 voters in Hawaii over the weekend, we thought we'd offer a look back over the Hanabusa campaign through the DWT coverage that started last April when Beltway anti-progressive operation EMILY's List recruited her to run against Schatz.

Hanabusa, an opportunist burning with ambition, was first elected to the House in 2010. She joined the conservative, Big Business-aligned New Dems and ran up a mediocre record as a backbencher with little to no influence. Rather than follow the trail being blazed by fellow congresswoman Mazie Hirono, a progressive champion, Hanabusa stuck to a path to nowhere started by much-disliked right-wing former Democratic Congressman Ed Case. Yesterday she announced she will give up her House seat to run for Brian Schatz's seat in the Senate.

Hanabusa had been considering primary challenges to either Schatz or Abercrombie. A source close to her campaign said Monday that Hanabusa had decided on a Senate campaign and was informing close allies.

A primary between Schatz, 40, and Hanabusa, 61, would evoke generational as well as political fault lines within the Democratic Party. Schatz, a progressive, has the potential to build seniority in the Senate over a generation. Hanabusa, a more traditional liberal, will contend that her experience prepares her to have an immediate impact.

By "traditional liberal," they mean corrupt conservative. The only mark Hanabusa has made in Congress, other than being a lap dog for K Street and a predictable New Dem, was pioneering a way around ethics rules to make money personally from her campaign. Hanabusa "collected significant amounts of money in interest from personal loans she made to her campaign. In addition, her campaign reimbursed her husband thousands of dollars in expenses."

Hawaii's primary is August 9. These posts should give you the ammunition you need to talking about this race with friends, co-workers, neighbors and relatives about why Hanabusa is a terrible choice for Hawaii and for the U.S. Senate and why every single U.S.senator who has decided to endorse has endorsed Brian Schatz, despite intense pressure from EMILY's List and from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, and why President Obama is urging voters in Hawaii to reelect Schatz.

• Hanabusa's disgraceful vote against the privacy protection Schatz and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are fighting for.

• Hanabusa's political cowardice on LGBT equality Why GOP warmongers and deep-pocketed defense contractors and arms manufacturers are backing Hanabusa

• Hanabusa's second thoughts on giving up her safe House seat for the Senate run she realized she would probably lose

• Hanabusa constituents petitioning her to resign from the corrupt conservative New Dems and work for Hawaii's ordinary working families instead

• Which candidate has a better record on Choice and on women's issues?

• Hanabusa's criminal activities on behalf of the corrupt drug lobbyists

• The two wings of the Democratic Party-- Hanabusa and the Republican wing and Schatz and the progressive wing

• A look at the shady Beltway insiders who are pushing-- and financing-- Hanabusa's run

• Why feminists are abandoning Hanabusa and backing Schatz-- it's all in their records

• Schatz/Hanabusa-- compare and contrast: the records

• PCCC endorses Schatz

• Hanabusa on the wrong side of the battle for raising the minimum wage and how she worked with Republicans and against workers to lower the increase

• Why President Obama endorsed Brian Schatz and not Colleen Hanabusa

• Hanabusa's bipartisanship means plotting with GOP warmongers and arms manufacturers

• The difference between bipartisanship and selling out

• Why progressive icon Elizabeth Warren ignored EMILY's List and endorsed Brian Schatz over Hanabusa

• How her record on pollution is hurting Hanabus'a chances against environmental champion Brian Schatz

• How voting records count in elections between incumbents and why voters are aghast at Hanabusa's

• Hanabusa refuses to tell Ben Cayetano that anti-Semitism has no place in Hawaii politics

• How her corporate-backed "free" trade agenda hurts Hawaii-- and her own campaign

• Hanabusa's less than stellar record on protecting Social Security

It's still not too late to help persuade people you know how important this race is and how much better Schatz is than Hanabusa. And it's not too late to contribute to Schatz's get out the vote efforts. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) explains the difference between the two wings of the Democratic Party: