Why Do Trump And The GOP Oppose Vote By Mail-- Even During A Deadly Pandemic?

That was a Tweet from Señor Trumpanzee yesterday. It would be paranoid to say he opposes vote by mail because the GOP has put so much effort into being able to rig electronic voting machines. But paranoia doesn't always mean you're wrong, does it? I asked some of the progressive candidates we've been talking with how they felt about Trump's attempts to vilify and block vote by mail proposals. I start with the two progressives in the Kentucky primary that will determine who takes on Trump's most repulsive enabler in the Senate, Mitch McConnell.

Charles Booker, endorsed by Blue America, was the first candidate to respond. "The Republican position against vote-by-mail-- even in the midst of this pandemic-- is galling," he told me. "To force people to choose between their health and exercising the right to vote is horrifying. But it isn't surprising. " But he went on from there:

I'm black, and I'm a Type 1 diabetic--- two groups of people who have been shown to be more likely to die from the coronavirus. Republican leaders who stand against vote-by-mail in this pandemic are telling me I have a choice: participate in our democracy, or drop dead.

In Kentucky, I have long fought for increased access to the ballot box by breaking down barriers to voting. I've sponsored legislation to automatically restore voting rights to people who have completed their sentences for felony convictions; I've supported our Governor as he has made that policy law with an executive order. And I've railed against Republican efforts to suppress the vote, most recently with a photo voter ID bill that our Governor vetoed just days ago. And I have called on our leaders in Washington to support states in implementing vote-by-mail for all 2020 elections.

When I was a little boy, my granddad told me about being forced to guess the number of beans in a jar before he was allowed to vote. That was 30 years ago. I spent a lot of my adult life thinking things had gotten better, and that such blatant voter suppression was in America's past. Now, in 2020, I know better, as the President and Republicans across the country tell people like me that we can vote, but we might die. Our choice.

Moments later, Mike Broihier, who was endorsed by Marianne Williamson yesterday, weighed in as well. Like Charles, Kentucky Democrats know how fast and loose McConnell's GOP plays with election security. "I used to agree with the saying that Democracy isn't a suicide pact, but seeing the lines of Wisconsin voters sent out  en masse during the pandemic by conservative state and US Supreme courts makes me wonder. The right's vision of voter suppression as a path to success was later made clearer in a presidential tweet, when, as usual, President Trump was unable to focus on a single message, even for 280 characters. If he'd just stuck with the canard that mail-in voting is rife with fraud-- it isn't-- he might have successfully dog-whistled his base. But he had to add "...and for whatever reason, (it)doesn't work out well for Republicans. Exactly, if you don't suppress the vote and disenfranchise people the arc of history bends more quickly towards justice and that is what entrenched politicians fear. Trump even previewed this thinking last week, speaking about the House COVID19 relief bill, saying, 'They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.' The take away, for me, is that this is the time to double down on voter registration efforts and grassroots turn-out-the-vote operations. Here in Kentucky in 2019 the work of Indivisible and other organizations flipped several solid red counties and moved the needle far enough to eject a cretinous Republican governor. On the ground, from what I have seen in my campaign, those same people, having tasted their influence, are not resting on their laurels but are ready to continue the fight, mail in ballots or not."

I also spoke to several House candidates who still have primaries coming up against Republican-lite fake Democrats. Milwaukie Mayor Mark Gamba is running for the Oregon seat occupied by GOP-friendly Blue Dog Kurt Schrader. "It's amazing how easy it is to make Republicans afraid of a thing," he told me soon after Trump's tweet. "Now they are going to be afraid of the mail. What the wealthy puppet masters fear is an actual democracy, where the person who represents the actual people, the person with the better ideas, the person with the proven track record of causing positive change gets elected, rather than the person who has the most wealthy supporters. The great American experiment is collapsing under the weight of all of that wealth. We watched it play out this morning in the democratic primary, no thinking person can imagine that Joe Biden will make a better president, a better leader, a better inspirer to greatness than Bernie Sanders will.  But Joe will kowtow to the rich, Joe will maintain the status quo that is killing our democracy and our very future on this planet.  But he won't tax the rich, by god. He won't stop the fossil fuel industry from continuing this headlong suicide cult they have created and maintained. It is now more critical than ever that we replace every bad senator and congressperson we can with a thinking, progressive champion for the people and the planet."

Boston progressive Brianna Wu is running for a seat occupied by anti-healthcare reactionary Stephen Lynch. Today she asked "What is Trump talking about? The problem is, and continues to be, that even he doesn’t know. What 'voter fraud' is he speaking of? None. Of course he doesn’t support voting by mail. If more people were able to vote, he would lose, and he knows it. And more importantly, it’s sickening that he is more concerned with perpetuating lies for his own political purposes than coordinating a real federal response to COVID-19, which is killing thousands of Americans. We need voting by mail, and we need to save lives."

Tom Guild is running for the Oklahoma City seat occupied by another Blue Dog, Kendra Horn, who's even further right than Schrader. He told me that Senor Trumpanzee fights every battle "with a view towards what’s good for him, but not necessarily for most Americans. In the current national emergency, people may literally be risking their lives to go to the polls on election day, so it makes sense to have prudent alternatives, where ordinary Americans can both exercise the right to vote and also remain healthy and alive. Several states have relied mainly or exclusively on mailed ballots for some time now and have not only increased participation, but have had few, if any, reports of fraud or abuse. As in many areas of law and public policy, we may have to bring the current POTUS kicking and screaming into the current century. When it comes to the fundamental right to vote, while maintaining the health and safety of voters, mailed ballots are a promising way to protect and preserve both. Come on Mr. President, don’t lead from behind!"

Arizona progressive Eva Putzova is also taking on a reactionary Blue Dog, Tom O'Halleran, this one an "ex"-Republican legislator with a horrifying conservative record. O'Halleran may not recognize what a liar Trump is, but Eva sure does. "There is no voter fraud connected to mail-in ballots or in-person voting anywhere in the country," she told me, "and numerous studies show that. Trump, and his Republican enablers, want to suppress the vote generally, and with youth and people of color in particular. Trump himself said high levels of voting hurt Republicans. So, DEMOCRACY hurts Republicans according to the leader of the Republican Party. We need to carry on the fight to expand democracy and the right to vote at every level in this country. This is the fight of our lifetime. If we lose, and voting becomes a privilege rather than a right, we will live in a quasi-fascist society where rights are not inherent but accrue only to those favored few. I will oppose such an outcome with every breath in my body."

Queens progressive Shaniyat Chowdhury-- replying to Trump's lies-- summed it up for virtually all the candidates Blue America has endorsed: "Voter fraud is when you work with Cambridge Analytics to manipulate emotions of voters without their knowledge. He should know all about it. We should be able to vote without any suppression. It’s a guaranteed right but also a privilege that many tax paying Americans do not have."

The Word "Moderate" Has Been Perverted To Cover Up The True Meaning In Democratic Party Politics: "Conservative"

Do you ever read Historic.ly? You should. A couple of days ago they asked Paul Rockwell to write about the history of moderates. He began by reminding readers that "In 2016 Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton, not because she was a visionary, certainly not because her agenda generated enthusiasm among young voters, but because Democrats-- influenced by media-- simply assumed that centrists are automatically more electable than progressives. That assumption has no basis in reality. Even worse, the centrist viewpoint could well lead to another Clinton-like fiasco. Many voters may be too young (or too old) to remember the sorry record of centrist failures. I am 82 years old," continued Rockwell, "and I have painful memories of seven ignominious defeats of Democratic nominees. And prior to all the nominations, pundits and press insisted that Democrats needed to move the party to the right in order to defeat their Republican adversary. They blamed the misfortunes of the Democratic Party on excessive liberalism. However, when we actually look at the historical record, a different story emerges, a story that dispels the myth of centrist electability."

Example 1:
Moderate Loser: Adlai Stevenson
Progressive Winner: Dwight D. Eisenhower

I was a teenager when Democrat Adlai Stevenson ran a pitiful, overly intellectual campaign against Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower ("Ike"). Stevenson was a liberal from Illinois who, in order to win the presidency, became a centrist in his campaign. Centrists are afraid to confront the war machine that sucks wealth and treasure out of our domestic economy. Stevenson never had the guts to call for an end to the Korean War. I remember when my father, a Democrat, voted for Eisenhower in 1952, after Ike wiped out Stevenson with a single announcement: "I will go to Korea. The time has come to bring our boys home." Stevenson's wimpy centrism lost big in 1952.

Despite that loss, the Democrats didn't change their agenda or strategy in 1956. The party nominated Stevenson again. During the 2nd campaign against Eisenhower, a black woman asked Stevenson to take a clear stand on the historic Supreme Court ruling against segregated schools. Stevenson choked, and he refused to support the use of federal troops to enforce the ruling. As a result of his default on civil rights-- a subject on the mind of most Americans-- Stevenson lost by a bigger margin in 1956 than in 1952.

Eisenhower’s Winning Platform:

Example 2:
Moderate Democratic Loser: Hubert Humphrey
Republican Winner: Richard Nixon

In 1968 Hubert Humphrey, once proud of his liberal record, campaigned as Lyndon Johnson's proxy. His centrist campaign, his refusal to make a clean break from LBJ's war, made Nixon's victory possible. Republicans know how to goad liberal Democrats into war, only to leave them with blood on their hands, the consequences of their own right-wing follies.

Notwithstanding his record as a hawk and witch-hunter, Nixon became-- by default of the Democrats-- the "peace" candidate. Nixon offered a "secret plan" for ending the war. The Democrats, so far gone in their pro-interventionist policy, were outflanked again.

Moderate Loser Hubert Humphrey Loses To "Anti-War" Nixon

Example 3
Moderate Loser: Walter Mondale
Right-Wing Winner: Ronald Reagan

Antipathy to progressive politics dominated the conservative money-drenched leadership of the Democratic Party throughout the 1980s. The thrilling grassroots campaign of Reverend Jesse Jackson caused panic in the halls of Congress. Democratic insiders nominated Walter Mondale, as right-wing as Joe Biden today. When nominated, Mondale rejected all of Jesse Jackson's platforms at the convention. Mondale went on to engineer the ugly system of "superdelegates," designed to prevent progressive candidates from ever winning a nomination. The Congressional Quarterly called Mondale's platform "economically the most conservative platform in the last fifty years." It promoted cuts in social spending and an increased military budget. Mondale expected he could win the election by appeasing militarists and conservatives. He won 40% of the popular vote.

Example 4:
Moderate Loser: Michael Dukakis
Progressive Winner: George H.W. Bush

The 1988 Democratic primary was far more exciting than most. Seven million Americans supported Jackson's second bid for the nomination. Not one United States senator or governor endorsed the African-American candidate. But the Mayor of Burlington, Vermont-- Bernie Sanders-- not only endorsed Jackson, he won over the majority of Vermont delegates for the Rainbow Coalition.

Michael Dukakis ran a typical centrist primary: he leaned to the left to win the nomination, only to turn to the right to campaign in the general election.

Awed by pundits and self-proclaimed pragmatists, Dukakis tried to look conservative. He organized a dramatic, histrionic photo operation.





He invited national TV to capture him riding around in a tank. You could barely see his tiny head in the cockpit. The media loved it. And while Dukakis won the "asshole of the year award" from a group of anarchists, our mastermind of centrist tactics lost the election.

Example 5:
Moderate Loser: John Kerry
Right-Wing Winner: George W. Bush

Of all the centrist defeats, none is sadder than John Kerry's campaign against "W" Bush, the man who initiated the 2003 invasion of Iraq and facilitated the rise of ISIS.

Kerry was actually beating the drums for intervention in the Mideast even before Bush launched the invasion. On July 2, 2002, Kerry gave a speech to the centrist Democratic Leadership Council: "I agree completely with this administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq."

During the 2004 primary, I remember sitting on the couch watching TV with my wife. A reporter pressed John Kerry to answer George Bush about whether, "knowing what we know now" (that there were no weapons of mass destruction), would he have supported the Bush decision. "Yes, I would have voted for the authority."

"Oh my God!" I turned to my wife and said, "He just lost the election!"

Euphemism is inherent in centrist realpolitik. Kerry would tell reporters: "I think it the right decision to disarm Hussein."

Disarm? The U.S. did not just disarm Hussein. The U.S. Air Force bombed Bagdad and other populated cities. Thousands of children were injured or killed. Museums with 2,000-year-old artifacts were looted. Muslims were tortured at Abu Ghraib. Rivers were drenched with oil and set on fire. Refugees fled into Syria. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians became sick, and babies were born with deformities from U.S. depleted uranium.

(Kerry now supports the candidacy of Joe Biden, who also voted for the war in Iraq and, like Kerry, equivocates about the real meaning of his vote.)

Example 6:
Moderate Loser: Hillary Clinton
Right-Wing Winner: Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton ran against the most unpopular candidate in the history of presidential elections. And lost. Until we recognize how such an ignominious defeat was possible, voters are likely to make the same mistake again, to run the Clinton campaign one more time-- with a new face, of course, Joe Biden.

Let us recall the pivotal debate between Trump and Clinton over foreign policy. When Trump denounced Clinton's infamous Iraq war vote, he was able to present himself as a kind of peace candidate who would halt endless wars. Trump understands centrist vulnerability. He put Clinton on the defensive, and she was helpless. Everyone knew she was a hawk. And it was disingenuous of her to portray her war vote as some isolated mistake, something out of the ordinary, when all Washington knew she was an interventionist, voter for military budgets, for sanctions, arms sales to dictators, a foreign policy wheeler-dealer with experience.

Why George McGovern Lost
Democratic Sabotage of Progressive Candidate

Richard Nixon's defeat of George McGovern, the anti-war candidate in 1972, is often cited as an excuse for choosing centrists over progressives (regardless of the litany of centrist presidential defeats).

Nixon's victory is not especially difficult to understand. His monetary policies, which caused inflation in the long run, fired up economic growth prior to the election. The incumbent's approval ratings were high.

Nixon was a master of timing. He claimed to be winding down the war. In February he made his historic trip to communist China and met with Mao. After George Wallace was shot, Wallace supporters went over to Tricky Dick.

  The Democratic Party was still in disarray from the Johnson-Humphrey betrayal of their mandate for peace and social justice. Humphrey and other centrists continued to attack McGovern.

  In sum, as Joshua Mound wrote in the New Republic (Feb.29, 2016): "Any Democratic nominee was doomed in 1972."

Audio Recording of Hubert Humphrey Admitting He Sabotaged McGovern On Election Day

Don’t pick Moderate Losers. Pick Progressive Winners

I believe Sanders has a better chance of defeating Trump than Biden or any centrist candidate. Sanders does not just dwell on the white middle class. His campaign reaches beyond the party establishment to the chronically unemployed, to the poor, the unhoused, the young, rising electorate of the time. Victory over Trump requires a mass coalition strategy.

The Green New Deal is often compared to the New Deal of FDR and Truman in the '40s and '50s. However, the old New Deal was deficient. African Americans were denied access to college, turned down for home loans, and domestic and agricultural workers were not even covered. In essence, minorities were excluded.

In contrast, the Green New Deal is inclusive. Its preamble calls attention to the "large racial wealth divide in the U.S. amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and average black family."

Representative Barbara Lee, one of 90 co-sponsors of the Green New Deal resolution, writes: "Black, brown and low-income communities bear the brunt of pollution and environmental degradation from accelerated climate change.…That is why addressing climate change is not just an environmental issue, but also an imperative to achieve racial and economic justice."

Bernie's "Economic Bill of Rights" is clear:

"Every person in this country must have a right to:

• A decent job
• Quality health care
• A complete education
• Affordable housing
• A clean environment
• A secure retirement
• It's time for a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights."
• It's time for a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights."

With our help, history will vindicate the message of Bernie Sanders: "Not me, Us."

Wednesday morning, Boston progressive congressional candidate Brianna Wu felt she needed to fire up her troops after Status Quo Joe's wins in Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi and Idaho. "I know a lot of women and progressives are feeling frustrated this morning. We started with the most diverse field in history with bold ideas for our party. The good news is-- those ideas are still on the ballot this year. But instead of betting on the presidency, we need to support downballot progressive candidates to keep our movement going. It's about more than just the presidency. It's about electing local, state, and federal progressive lawmakers that create the legislation we need to change the course of our country... The president signs bills that Congress writes. True change that will benefit us, and not the establishment, starts there. So please don't lose hope! Continue fighting!"

Or, in the words of our own Thomas Neuburger...

There Really Is A Lot More To 2020 Than Just Electing A President

Brianna Wu sent this homemade kitchen video out to her supporters acknowledging that many of us felt discouraged on Wednesday morning after the Super Tuesday results in some states-- like Massachusetts, where she lives. "But," she wrote, "I'm also optimistic about what we can achieve. Fighting for progressive values means a lot more than just winning the Oval Office. The president cannot write and pass legislation, and we need progressives in office all the way down the ballot to get Medicare for All passed, to enact a Green New Deal, and to restore our democracy."

I wondered how widespread that kind of optimism was yesterday. So I reached out to some of the congressional candidates who have been endorsed by Blue America and asked them. Robin Wilt, up in Monroe County, New York, is someone who thinks things through carefully from every perspective. She's someone who will make an absolutely outstanding Congress member. And she's a dedicated Berniecrat. She told me "It's not just Bernie; it’s all of us. We can’t forget that it wasn’t simply the Executive Branch that enabled the rampant wealth inequality, military adventurism, climate crisis, and other regressive policies that we are experiencing today. In fact, the House of Representatives is referred to as 'the People’s House' because the framers wanted it to be the body of the federal government that is most sensitive to voter opinion. With members representing individual localities rather than states at-large, with terms limited to just two years, and with every vacancy requiring a special election, rather than appointment to be filled, one would assume that the U.S. House, more than any other body, would reflect the political attitude of the national electorate. Of course, with the disproportionate influence of the monied elite, we know that not to be true."

  "In the documentary Knock Down the House," she continued, "Alexandria Ocasio Cortez observed that 'For one of us to get it through, a hundred of us have to try.' True to that mantra, we have unapologetic Berniecrats contesting establishment Democrats all over the country. My own race represents a fight to give voice to the voiceless of NY-25. Pay careful attention to the establishment’s criticism of Bernie Sanders-- that he won’t help their down-ballot cronies. We need to ensure that we support the down-ballot races that will provide Bernie the legislators that he needs to pass his progressive agenda."

At the other end of New York state, in the Bronx, another deep thinker, Tomas Ramos, is contesting an open deep blue seat in a crowded primary. "The essence of democracy is not just rooted in the presidency," he told me. "The framers created a representative democracy, not a despotic crown. It is the responsibility of the Congress to create laws and 'check' the constitutionality of the judiciary and presidency. I am running for NY-15 because we are the poorest congressional district and our representative (for the last 30 years) has not invested in nor allocated the resources that we need to create thriving communities."

Another guy who speaks with forethought is Mark Gamba, major of Milwaukie, Oregon and candidate for a seat held by venal Blue Dog Kurt Schrader. "America’s Constitution was written with the intent to limit the overgrowth of power in any one branch of government. Unfortunately, the presidency has been turned into a flashy celebrity position instead of a solid team player. Meanwhile, much of the real work that keeps our society functioning is done in Congress. That is why it is SO VITAL that we pay close attention to who is running for Congress and vote for folks in both the House and the Senate who will represent a bold climate agenda, healthcare for all, and income equity to name a few of our pressing issues. Brianna Wu has it exactly right-- Progressive Congress-- An America for ALL.

San Francisco progressive, Shahid Buttar beat out the Republican who wanted to run against Nancy Pelosi and will face her in November. He told me that he's "committed to making Bernie our next President because we need his vision in the White House. I also know that without major changes in Congress, Bernie will struggle will implement his visionary agenda. We need to capture Congress to re-align it with the American people and human rights. That, in turn, will require ending a few careers-- including that of corporate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. I'm not running for Congress to start a career. I'm running for Congress to continue my service to my neighbors, our communities, and our Republic."

How Young Donald Learned To Weaponize His Racism

Over the weekend, a tweet from Ro Khanna alerted me to a favorite Trump shenanigan-- a roll back to an Obama housing desegregation rule. The very first time the name "Donald J. Trump" appeared in the New York Times, a thrill for the young publicity hound, was in connection to a government law suit in which he and his crooked, racist father were charged with violating a civil rights act in regard to housing. In short, they were refusing to rent apartments to blacks and hispanics even though the properties were built with government loans that prohibited racial discrimination. When the Trumps were able to worm their way out of it with countersuits and by making themselves unbearably annoying it set Trump on a path of action about how to get away with criminal behavior that is apparent today-- and in every phase of his miserable life.

A few months before he managed to steal the 2016 election, the New York Times reprised that episode: 'No Vacancies' For Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, And Was First Accused Of Bias. Jonathan Mahler and Steve Eder reported on the Trumps' "practice of turning away potential black tenants [which] was painstakingly documented by activists and organizations that viewed equal housing as the next frontier in the civil rights struggle."

The Justice Department undertook its own investigation and, in 1973, sued Trump Management for discriminating against blacks. Both Fred Trump, the company’s chairman, and Donald Trump, its president, were named as defendants. It was front-page news, and for Donald, amounted to his debut in the public eye.

“Absolutely ridiculous,” he was quoted as saying of the government’s allegations.

Looking back, Mr. Trump’s response to the lawsuit can be seen as presaging his handling of subsequent challenges, in business and in politics. Rather than quietly trying to settle-- as another New York developer had done a couple of years earlier-- he turned the lawsuit into a protracted battle, complete with angry denials, character assassination, charges that the government was trying to force him to rent to “welfare recipients” and a $100 million countersuit accusing the Justice Department of defamation.

When it was over, Mr. Trump declared victory, emphasizing that the consent decree he ultimately signed did not include an admission of guilt.

But an investigation by the New York Times-- drawing on decades-old files from the New York City Commission on Human Rights, internal Justice Department records, court documents and interviews with tenants, civil rights activists and prosecutors-- uncovered a long history of racial bias at his family’s properties, in New York and beyond.

...[Fred Trump's] establishment as one of the city’s biggest developers was hardly free of controversy: The Senate Banking Committee subpoenaed him in 1954 during an investigation into profiteering off federal housing loans. Under oath, he acknowledged that he had wildly overstated the costs of a development to obtain a larger mortgage from the government.

In 1966, as the investigative journalist Wayne Barrett detailed in “Trump: The Greatest Show on Earth,” a New York legislative committee accused Fred Trump of using state money earmarked for middle-income housing to build a shopping center instead. One lawmaker called Mr. Trump “greedy and grasping.”

By this point, the Trump organization’s business practices were beginning to come under scrutiny from civil rights groups that had received complaints from prospective African-American tenants.

People like Maxine Brown.

Mr. Leibowitz, the rental agent at the Wilshire, remembered Ms. Brown repeatedly inquiring about the apartment. “Finally, she realized what it was all about,” he said.

Ms. Brown’s first instinct was to let the matter go; she was happy enough at the Y.W.C.A. “I had a big room and two meals a day for five dollars a week,” she said in an interview.

But a friend, Mae Wiggins, who had also been denied an apartment at the Wilshire, told her that she ought to have her own place, with a private bathroom and a kitchen. She encouraged Ms. Brown to file a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights, as she was doing.

“We knew there was prejudice in renting,” Ms. Wiggins recalled. “It was rampant in New York. It made me feel really bad, and I wanted to do something to right the wrong.”





Mr. Leibowitz was called to testify at the commission’s hearing on Ms. Brown’s case. Asked to estimate how many blacks lived in Mr. Trump’s various properties, he remembered replying: “To the best of my knowledge, none.”

After the hearing, Ms. Brown was offered an apartment in the Wilshire, and in the spring of 1964, she moved in. For 10 years, she said, she was the only African-American in the building.

Complaints about the Trump organization’s rental policies continued to mount: By 1967, state investigators found that out of some 3,700 apartments in Trump Village, seven were occupied by African-American families.

Like Ms. Brown, the few minorities who did live in Trump-owned buildings often had to force their way in.

...Unlike the public schools, the housing market could not be desegregated simply by court order. Even after passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited racial discrimination in housing, developments in white neighborhoods continued to rebuff blacks.

For years, it fell largely to local civil rights groups to highlight the problem by sending white “testers” into apartment complexes after blacks had been turned away.

“Everything was sort of whispers and innuendo and you wanted to try to bring it out into the open,” recalled Phyllis Kirschenbaum, who volunteered for Operation Open City, a housing rights advocacy organization. “I’d walk in with my freckles and red hair and Jewish name and get an apartment immediately.”

...Donald Trump said he had first heard about the lawsuit, which was filed in the fall of 1973, on his car radio.

The government had charged him, his father and their company, Trump Management Inc., with violating the Fair Housing Act.

Another major New York developer, the LeFrak Organization, had been hit with a similar suit a few years earlier. Its founder, Samuel LeFrak, had appeared at a news conference alongside the United States attorney, trumpeting a consent agreement to prohibit discrimination in his buildings by saying it would “make open housing in our cities a reality.” The LeFrak company even offered the equivalent of one month’s rent to help 50 black families move into predominantly white buildings.

Donald Trump took a different approach. He retained Senator Joseph McCarthy’s red-baiting counsel, Roy Cohn, to defend him. Mr. Trump soon called his own news conference-- to announce his countersuit against the government.

The government’s lawyers took as their starting point the years of research conducted by civil rights groups at Trump properties.

“We did our own investigation and enlarged the case,” said Elyse Goldweber, who as a young assistant United States attorney worked on the lawsuit, U.S.A. v. Trump.

A former Trump superintendent named Thomas Miranda testified that multiple Trump Management employees had instructed him to attach a separate piece of paper with a big letter “C” on it-- for “colored”-- to any application filed by a black apartment-seeker.

The Trumps went on the offensive, filing a contempt-of-court charge against one of the prosecutors, accusing her of turning the investigation into a “Gestapo-like interrogation.” The Trumps derided the lawsuit as a pressure tactic to get them to sign a consent decree like the one agreed to by Mr. LeFrak.

The judge dismissed both the countersuit and the contempt-of-court charge. After nearly two years of legal wrangling, the Trumps gave up and signed a consent decree.

As is customary, it did not include an admission of guilt. But it did include pages of stipulations intended to ensure the desegregation of Trump properties.

Equal housing activists celebrated the agreement as more robust than the one signed by Mr. LeFrak. It required that Trump Management provide the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all its vacancies.

This did not stop Mr. Trump from declaring victory. “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt,” he wrote in The Art of the Deal.

Only this was not quite the end.

A few years later, the government accused the Trumps of violating the consent decree. “We believe that an underlying pattern of discrimination continues to exist in the Trump Management organization,” a Justice Department lawyer wrote to Mr. Cohn in 1978.

Once again, the government marshaled numerous examples of blacks being denied Trump apartments. But this time, it also identified a pattern of racial steering.

While more black families were now renting in Trump-owned buildings, the government said, many had been confined to a small number of complexes. And tenants in some of these buildings had complained about the conditions, from falling plaster to rusty light fixtures to bloodstained floors.

The Trumps effectively wore the government down. The original consent decree expired before the Justice Department had accumulated enough evidence to press its new case.

This past October, ACLU staffers Linda Morris and Alejandro Ortiz, warned that Trump was about to slam the door on fair housing: Trump Administration's new rule would dismantle critical housing protections for the most vulnerable and marginalized communities. It's as though Trump was looking for revenge against a government that called him and his family out on their racism. "Fifty years after the enactment of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), housing discrimination remains a national disgrace in the United States. Across the country, a growing tide of housing providers, perhaps emboldened by Trump’s anti-“other” rhetoric, discriminate against the very communities the FHA was designed to protect. In 2017 alone, there were nearly 29,000 reported complaints of housing discrimination across the country. Despite growing diversity in population, residential segregation persists at alarming rates hurting local schools, property values, and much more. Just this year, Black homeownership rates dropped to a record low of 40.6% which is the lowest level recorded by the Census Bureau since 1950. Despite this ongoing crisis, the Trump Administration proposed a new rule that will dismantle critical housing protections for the most vulnerable and marginalized communities.

In one of this administration’s most outrageous attacks on civil rights yet, the proposed rule will make a mockery of one of the FHA’s most critical enforcement tools: the Disparate Impact Rule. The Rule allows potential victims of housing discrimination to challenge unjustified policies or practices that disproportionately harm them. Courts have recognized disparate impact liability under the FHA for decades, culminating in the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision affirming disparate impact liability in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project.  There, the Court explained the significance of disparate impact liability: “[H]ousing restrictions that function unfairly to exclude minorities from certain neighborhoods without any sufficient justification . . . reside at the heartland of disparate-impact liability.” Under the Obama administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) acknowledged this principle by formally codifying the Disparate Impact Rule in 2013, and consistently affirming the existing Disparate Impact Rule through its fair housing enforcement and guidance as recently as 2016.

...Why does Trump want to undermine this rule? Because it works. Disparate impact liability is a tool like none other in the law with numerous examples of how it has helped dismantle the many systemic barriers to fair housing. The Disparate Impact Rule has been critical in challenging covert or disguised forms of housing discrimination that otherwise escape easy classification. Advocates have invoked the Disparate Impact Rule in challenging discriminatory zoning regulations, predatory mortgage lending practices that charge excessive rates to people of color or people with disabilities, overly restrictive occupancy requirements that shut out families with children, and policies that threaten housing for survivors of gender-based violence and women of color.

By early January, HUD was proposing a rule that would redefine the way jurisdictions are required to promote fair housing and scrap a key assessment tool used to map racial segregation under the 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule. The 2015 rule-- which the Obama administration introduced as a way to beef up enforcement of the landmark Fair Housing Act of 1968-- required local governments to track patterns of poverty and segregation with a checklist of 92 questions in order to gain access to federal housing funds.

Lisa Rice, executive vice president of the National Fair Housing Alliance, said the proposal is "a step in the wrong direction. It would weaken fair housing enforcement and basically abdicate jurisdictions and public housing authorities from their fair housing responsibilities. It’s even weaker than the scheme that HUD had before the 2015 rule was implemented …That’s the system that the [Government Accountability Office] found to be completely inept and ineffective."

“The Obama administration’s fair housing rule made the strongest effort in decades to reverse harmful patterns of segregation and discriminatory practices in communities across the country,” said Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Carson, the only black member of President Donald Trump's cabinet, “is scrapping years of extensive input and intensive work that went into the fair housing rule and essentially reverting to the agency’s previous flawed and failed system,” Yentel said.

Boston progressive congressional candidate, Brianna Wu told me that affordable housing is the single biggest issue for many voters in her district. "Of course Trump would reverse any protections to end segregation and discrimination of affordable housing," she said. "Any initiative from the Obama Administration that actually works and helps people is on Trump’s hit list. This is yet another example of Trump’s blatant racism and trying to line his pockets. Affordable housing and gentrification is a significant issue in Boston and other areas of my district. My opponent, Stephen Lynch, has been silent on the issue to appeal to his donors from the real estate industry. I know this has been said many times before, but it bears repeating-- elections have consequences. If we keep electing real estate 'moguls' and representatives who are owned by the real estate industry, change will never happen. We have a lot of work to do, and truly affordable housing for all will be a top priority for me when I get to Congress, both for my district and the nation."

Yesterday, The Senate Passed NAFTA 2.0-- Does Anyone Really Think Anything Good Can Come Out Of Trumpism?

The passage of Trump's flawed North American trade policy should help voters discern differences in the candidates who voted for it and the candidates who voted against it. The vote was 89-10. Only one presidential contender in the Senate opposed it, Bernie. Like MoscowMitch, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and, obviously, Colorado neolib Michael Bennet, voted for it. Nine Democrats and one Republican opposed Trump on this:

• Bernie (I-USA)
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
• Cory Booker (D-NJ)
• Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Kamala Harris (D-CA)
• Ed Markey (D-MA)
• Brian Schatz (D-HI)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
• Jack Reed (D-RI)
• Pat Toomey (R-PA)

Erica Werner and Rachel Siegel wrote the vote up from an establishment perspective for the Washington Post, noting it is "delivering on President Trump’s promise of a new and better North American trade deal just ahead of his impeachment trial," although why they decided to lead by deciding it is "better" is anyone's guess.

Only 41 members of the House had opposed it last month, 38 Democrats, 2 Republicans + Michigan independent Justin Amash. Among the Democrats voting no in the House were outstanding progressives like AOC (NY), Pramila Jayapal (WA), Ilhan Omar (MN), Jamie Raskin (MD), Ted Lieu (CA), Rashida Tlaib (MI), Mark Pocan (WI), Barbara Lee (CA), Andy Levin )MI), Jim McGovern (MA) and Ayanna Pressley (MA).

Werner and Siegel reported that "months of negotiations between Democrats and the White House produced pro-labor revisions and jettisoned drug exclusivity language sought by the pharmaceutical industry. The 12-million-strong AFL-CIO was closely involved in negotiating the changes and backed the agreement, along with some other major unions... Senate Republicans had little influence in the process because Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held a make-or-break role in deciding whether to bring the deal up on the floor of the House, which by law had to act first on the agreement. The outsized role played by House Democrats and their allies in labor angered some Republicans, including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), the deal’s most outspoken opponent, who complained that the Senate got 'rolled' in the process."

Bernie voiced his opposition on the floor of the Senate on Wednesday during the debate.

"This agreement is opposed by labor unions like the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers.  It is opposed by the Sunrise Movement, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters and every major environmental group in America.

  "And it is opposed by the National Family Farm Coalition, which believes it will lock in rules that have devastated family farms and expanded corporate control over agriculture in North America.

"I am proud to stand with these labor unions, environmental groups and family farmers against Trump’s NAFTA 2.0.

"I not only voted against NAFTA in 1993, but marched against it. In 2000, I voted against Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. I opposed the United States–Korea Free Trade Agreement and DR-CAFTA. And I helped lead the effort in Congress and with the grassroots across this country against the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

"There is no doubt in my mind that we need to fundamentally rewrite our disastrous trade agreements and create and protect good-paying American jobs, to improve the environment and combat climate change, and to stop the destructive race to the bottom.

"Unfortunately, this revised trade agreement with Mexico and Canada does none of those things. It must be re-written.

"While NAFTA has led to the loss of nearly one million American jobs, this agreement does virtually nothing to stop the outsourcing of jobs to Mexico. Under this agreement, large, multi-national corporations will still be able to shut down factories in America where workers are paid $28 an hour and move to Mexico where they are paid less than $2 an hour.

"When Trump was a candidate for president he promised that he would stop the outsourcing of American jobs to Mexico, China and other low-wage countries. It hasn’t happened.

"The truth is, since Trump took office, over 170,000 American jobs have been shipped overseas. In 2018, we had a record-breaking $891 billion trade deficit in goods, a $419 billion trade deficit with China and an $81 billion trade deficit with Mexico. In 2018, for the first time in history, manufacturing workers began getting paid less than workers overall. Today, manufacturing workers get $28.15 an hour while the average worker makes 15 cents more.

"Last month alone, we lost 12,000 factory jobs and despite Trump’s rhetoric we are in a manufacturing recession.

"Mr. President, there is a reason why virtually every major environmental group is opposed to Trump’s NAFTA 2.0. This agreement does nothing to stop fossil fuel companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron from dumping their waste and pollution into Mexico and destroying the environment. In fact, it makes it easier for fossil fuel companies to bring tar sands oil into the United States through dangerous pipelines like the Keystone XL. It does not even mention the words 'climate change'-- the most existential threat facing our planet.

"The deal preserves the disastrous Investor-State Dispute Settlement system for oil and gas companies, allowing them to continue to put corporate profits ahead of our air, water, climate and health.

"Mr. President, at this pivotal moment in American history, it is not good enough to tinker around the edges. The scientific community has been very clear-- if we do not act boldly and aggressively to transform our economy to sustainable sources of power, there will be irreparable harm done to our planet.

"In my view, we need to re-write this trade agreement to stop the outsourcing of American jobs, to combat climate change, to protect the environment, and stop the destructive race to the bottom.

"We have got to stop large, profitable corporations that are outsourcing American jobs overseas from receiving lucrative federal contracts.

"And we have got to repeal Trump’s tax giveaway to the wealthy that have provided huge tax breaks to companies that shut down manufacturing plants in the U.S. and move abroad.

"Trade is a good thing, but it has got to be fair.

"Let us defeat NAFTA 2.0 and go back to the drawing board to protect American workers, to protect the environment and to lift the living standards of all workers."

I asked some of the 2020 congressional candidates how they feel about this trade bill. Many answered the same way Brianna Wu, running in the Boston area against a reactionary New Dem, who said she understands "why people would support this, but it's clear this is not a long-term solution for American workers. And I agree with Senator Sanders that this does not go far enough on raising wages or addressing climate change. When I am serving in Congress we won't settle for half-measures that pad corporate profits. We will stand unapologetically with working class Americans."

Werner and Stein also noted that "The deal created divisions in the Democratic presidential primary field. In a debate Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) predicted that the agreement would lead to the continued outsourcing of U.S. jobs and said, 'We could do much better than a Trump-led trade deal.' But other leading candidates, including Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), support the deal. Warren called it a 'modest improvement' that will deliver needed relief to farmers and workers hurt by Trump’s trade policies.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) voted against USMCA, saying that while the deal does include labor provisions, “it does not address climate change, the greatest threat facing the planet.” In a statement, Schumer said that the Trump administration is giving incentives for manufacturers to move businesses and jobs from the U.S. to Mexico, which has weaker clean air and water regulations.

“The Trump administration also included handouts for the oil and gas industry, such as lifting tariffs on tar sands, and refused to include any mention of the climate crisis in the agreement," Schumer said.

...USMCA also includes new rules for digital trade, something that barely existed when the original NAFTA was written. Among these, however, is a provision that provides protections to big tech companies by giving legal immunity to internet platforms over content posted by users. Pelosi opposed the provision but was unsuccessful in keeping it out of the deal in the final throes of talks last month. She cited it as her one disappointment in how the deal turned out.

Economists also worry that USMCA will spur a spike in car prices, especially on smaller cars that used to be produced in Mexico but may be subject to duties at the border. U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel are also still in place.

Our progressive hero in Arizona, Eva Putzova, was very clear she won't be voting for this kind of trade agreement when she replaces Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran. "Like Bernie Sanders and AOC," she said after the Senate vote, "I oppose the USMCA, also known as NAFTA 2.0. We need trade agreements that protect workers and the environment and address climate change, not to enhance corporate profits. We have to retool the global economy and those agreements can be part the climate crisis solution. When I am in Congress that is the lens I will use when considering any future trade agreements. There won't be any trade on a dead planet."

Mark Gamba, mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon, is running for a congressional seat occupied by a another reactionary Blue Dog, the notorious Kurt Schrader. Gamba told us that "The childishly named USMCA is only nominally better than NAFTA. Both allow for environmental destruction to leak to other countries, dramatically reducing the effectiveness of our own environmental laws. At a time when we should be taxing oil companies to pay for the damage they've caused this agreement does the opposite. Thousands of good American jobs will continue to be killed so that millionaires can make even more, by paying mexican workers 1/10 of what Americans make. At a time when we should be helping small family farms that grow our food sustainably, this does the opposite and guarantees more giant aggribusiness takeover of food production. Most importantly, at a time when the greatest existential threat to all of humanity is climate chaos, an agreement that doesn't even mention it, let alone create protections from it, should have made this a NO vote for every thinking member of congress. Of course, my Blue Dog opponent was happy to vote for this terrible trade agreement. I would not have."

Dick Gephardt And Status Quo Joe Are A Certain Kind Of Democrat-- One Where A "P" Works Better Than A "T" As A final Letter

These people all belong in prison-- but only because no one would ever agree their crimes are capital offenses

Dick Gephardt’s dream was to be President or Speaker of the House or very wealthy; he never made it beyond majority leader, but he sure did become very wealthy, selling access to his friends in office to the highest bidders. Now he’s one of the nation's most contemptible Goldman Sachs and PhRMA lobbyist scumbags. Believe it or not, he was once an actual contender for president (of the United States). First elected to Congress by the St. Louis Democratic Machine, he never experienced one moment of politics that wasn’t drenched in corruption, criminality and convenient flip-flopping on any issue he needed to switch positions on. People outside DC sensed he was a piece of shit and-- like Biden-- all his attempts to run for president, starting in 1987 were smartly rebuffed.

After he helped Bush and Cheney trick Congress into declaring war on Iraq (2002), his political career as a Democrat was pretty much done. He didn’t run for a 15th term in Congress but he switched from anti-Choice to “pro”-Choice and tried to run for president again. That’s how I allowed myself to interact with him, against my own better judgment. I’ll make the story of how, as short as I can. The RIAA had paid a huge bribe to the Democratic Party in order to get Congress and President Clinton to go along with some internet publishing deal. But they wanted a president of one of the labels to go thank Clinton personally and there was no one else among the label presidents who had ever experienced the internet, so I was chosen. Therefore they put the bribe in my name, without even asking me-- of even telling me. I’ll skip over the Clinton part and how he and Charlie Rangel tried shaking me down for more cash and go right to the Gephardt story.

By the 2004 campaign my name was on all the political fundraising call lists as a mega-donor because of that RIAA bribe I had nothing to do with. The good news was that I got calls from some cool people, like Howard Dean, but the bad news is that I got attention from the shady characters like Al Gore-- I’ll never forget his wife, who I loathed for her censorship attempts, asking me while I was dancing with my boyfriend at the White House if I would become a Gore bundler-- and Dick Gephardt. Gephardt insisted on meeting me in person even after I told him bluntly that I was firmly and irrevocably backing Howard Dean because he was opposed to the war Gephardt helped Bush start. So I met him. Terry McAuliffe was there too. I felt like I was drowning in a cesspool of the kind of criminality that was destroying politics. Once I made it clear to Gephardt that I wouldn’t give him 5 cents if his life depended on it, he dismissed me and I knew without a doubt I would never hear from him again. (His last campaign puttered out after one of his staffers called a Dean aide a “faggot” and punched him.) Among Gephardt’s endorsers were Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn, Sherrod Brown, and lots of Blue Dogs who were soon defeated in their own reelection attempts. Gephardt, who had once won the Iowa caucuses, came in 4th in 2004 and that was that. He has devoted the rest of his life to crime, handing out bribes on behalf of corporations instead of taking them for himself from corporations the way he used to.

He immediately went to work for them after losing his presidential bid

So why bring this turd up? He led the battle against the public option in 2009 and has worked diligently to keep drug prices high by pushing to extend patents and block generic drugs from coming to market. It’s largely due to the efforts of Dick Gephardt that drug prices are often TEN TIMES higher in the U.S. than in other countries. And, as Lee Fang, just reported for The Intercept Gephardt is still helping PhRMA rip off the American public as he nears his 80th birthday. Ironically, for me at least, the lead picture in Fang’s article is Gephardt and McAuliffe. Today-- no surprise-- Gephardt is paid to act as a general in the war against Medicare-for-All.

Fang noted that the mere prospect of single payer has elicited swift derision from some corners of the Democratic Party, with Dick Gephardt “laughing off the idea at a health insurance conference earlier this month. ‘Not in my lifetime,’ scoffed Gephardt, when asked if the United States will ever adopt such a system. Gephardt, who serves as a Democratic ‘superdelegate’ responsible for choosing the party’s presidential nominee, was asked about the possibility of single payer at the Centene Corporation annual investor day conference at The Pierre, a ritzy five-star hotel in New York City. ‘There is no way you could pass single payer in any intermediate future,’ Gephardt declared. America, he added, has the ‘greatest health care system in the world, bar none.’ And while single payer would provide universal coverage, there would be less quality and innovation without the ‘involvement of the private sector.’ Haley Barbour, the former Republican National Committee chair, another speaker at the event, chimed in to agree. ‘Hear, hear. Put me down as agreeing with Leader Gephardt as usual,’ Barbour chuckled.”

The claim that single payer suppresses innovation is an old argument that does not stand up to scrutiny. Most medical innovation in the U.S. are already government funded, through universities receiving federal subsidies and grants, as well as through the National Institutes of Health. A single-payer insurance system, like Medicare, would simply negotiate for lower prices from providers, and would likely steer savings towards greater investments in research and development. Claims about lower quality care are also highly disputed, given that countries with single payer and tightly regulated universal health systems perform much higher than the U.S. in a range of health outcomes.

Despite well-entrenched opposition from much of the private health care industry, political momentum for single payer has enjoyed a rapid boom of late.

Does it make your blood boil? It does mine. It makes me want to commit myself to electing Bernie to the presidency and progressives to Congress even more. I spoke with some of the congressional candidates who are running on Medicare-for-All platforms and asked them how they deal with political opponents who use these same manufactured lies about Medicare in their campaigns. Eva Putzova isn’t from the Dick Gephardt wing of the party. She served as a Bernie delegate from Arizona to the Democratic National Convention in 2016 and she’s been fighting for working families every since. The revolving door between politics and corporate lobbyists is not something she looks at kindly, primarily because the results are horrifically damaging to the people she is running to represent in Congress. “We need to implement a single payer, Medicare for All system that will remove the profit-making insurance and pharmaceutical industries from the influence and control they presently exert on health care policy, and policy-makers,” she told me earlier today. “In no other industrialized nation do these profit-making interests have such influence as in the U.S. We need to chase these ‘money lenders from the temple’ as rapidly as possible in order to provide good, quality, universal healthcare to all Americans.”

Massachusetts progressive Brianna Wu addressed her comment directly-- “Here’s what I have to say to those elected officials and candidates who don’t support Medicare For All-- you’re simply not spending enough time listening to your constituents. I can’t count how many people in my district have told me they have no healthcare or inadequate health care. They don’t go to a doctor when they get sick because they just can’t afford it. Some have gone bankrupt because of obscenely high medical bills. These are real people who work hard for themselves and their families. In one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, it isn’t just unfair, it should be criminal. My opponent, Rep. Stephen Lynch, has said that he isn’t yet convinced that Medicare For All would be a good idea. I’m sure that’s true. He enjoys his cadillac insurance plan as a congressman. So do his campaign donors who work for the insurance industry. It’s clear that Rep. Lynch isn’t spending enough time listening to his constituents. If he and other establishment-backed elected officials did listen, they would learn that their days in office are numbered, and that we need Medicare For All. Now.”

Heidi Sloan has a keen understanding of how congressional agendas need to be analyzed. A TX-25 progressive, she is campaigning heavily on Medicare-for-All and for cleaning up campaign finance corruption and the revolving door between congressional offices and lobbying firms. "The most effective piece of the Affordable Care Act was the Medicare expansion, and now we have a movement of people demanding the expansion of Medicare to every person in this country. We have real enemies in this fight, people like Roger Williams who oppose us because his class interests conflict with the goal of single-payer universal healthcare. The ruling class is smart enough to realize that workers who don't depend on employers for healthcare are a lot more likely to go on strike or walk away from a lousy job. Besides, even one of the richest members of Congress doesn't want to lose contributions after the for-profit industry funding his campaign is abolished. He'd rather corporations profit off of the denial of healthcare than to have less industry money to run on. Roger Williams has got to go, and all of the crooked politicians who take corporate money have to go with him."

David Scott stays quiet in Congress-- a career-long backbencher and Blue Dog with a tendency to back Republicans back in Georgia. This year there’s a strong progressive contesting the right to represent the suburban district south and southwest of Atlanta-- Dr. Michael Owens. Yesterday he told us that his platform has "included Medicare for All since day one of my campaign-- which is in stark contrast to my opponent’s stance. This is very unfortunate especially when you consider that there are parts of my district that rank among the least insured in the whole state. This is typical of Scott. He has consistently not supported Medicare for All. In the 114th, 115th and now in the 116th Congress, Scott hasn’t backed Medicare-for-All legislation. I would have signed on as an original cosponsor of Pramila Jayapal’s H.R. 676.  Remember, Georgia currently has the highest maternal mortality rate in the United States-- 46.2 deaths per 100,000 live births. More than 60 of Georgia’s 159 counties do not have a pediatrician. My opponent’s solution is the same that it has been over the last 15 years-- to host a one-day ‘health fair.’ This is a far cry from the bold health care solutions we need. 'Affordable and accessible health care' is a term we should learn to not trust. We also shouldn't trust an elected official who has received over $400,000 from the insurance industry over the last 4 election cycles. The women, children and men of my district and of this country need a single payer system, specifically Medicare for All, to ensure that all Americans have healthcare. Not 'affordable and accessible' healthcare via insurance companies whose goal is to maximize profits and deny and delay coverage. Healthcare is an an American crisis and we must put the need of the people over the greed of the health insurance industry."

Rachel Ventura’s New Dem opponent, Bill Foster, is a total DC insider who plays all the lobbyist games that see congressmen betraying the interests of their constituents for the interests of their campaign donors and other insiders. It might not be as bad if he lived in the district and met some of the folks he’s supposed to be representing. Last night, Rachel told us that “In 2018, Americans spent an all-time high of $360 billion on prescription drugs! Bill Foster won’t support Medicare for all because he supports a tiered healthcare system for those who can afford better insurance. We all deserve to have quality healthcare! Dick Gephardt and my political opponent have one thing in common. They are both part of our political past. Gephardt’s candle is fading quickly and it won’t be long before we are passing single-payer healthcare. We will do things different when I am elected to represent the people of Illinois’ 11th congressional district. There is an intelligent group of young people running for office this cycle, and we are going to win. We will join those who are already reshaping the political landscape in Washington and fighting to represent people over corporations. Change starts in the political campaign. I won’t be taking a penny from big PhRMA or from the for-profit healthcare system. I will have no problem hanging a “not for sale” sign on my office door and refusing meetings with those who have corrupted our political system to a point where voters, in desperation, choose a chaotic outsider like Donald Trump. It’s time to put the past behind us. The old way of doing things and the old players who are still scrapping for relevancy in this changing system will one day be written about as the dark ages in American history.”