Kevin McCarthy Wants To Be Speaker-- And He's Very, Very Corrupt

The DCCC never seems to be very enthusiastic about targeting Republican leaders. This cycle, for example, they made sure there would be relatively strong opponents for the candidates in the districts that surround Kevin McCarthy's CA-23, while ignoring McCarthy entirely. They have no candidate opposing him, not even someone viable enough to build towards a 2020 challenge. CA-25 has a hot race between Katie Hill (D) and Steve Knight (R). CA-22 has a hot race-- although ignored by the DCCC-- between Andrew Janz (D) and Devin Nunes (R) and CA-21 has a warm race between TJ Cox and David Valadao, CA-04 has a hot race between Jessica Morse and Tom McClintock, CA-24 has a Democratic incumbent and CA-08, has two Republicans facing off in the general. And in McCarthy's own CA-23? Not a creature is stirring.

Going into the final stretch, the pitiful and meaningless Democrat "running," Tatiana Matta, has $6,103 up against McCarthy's $4,135,573. Neither the DCCC nor Pelosi's SuperPAC has spent a cent against McCarthy-- something like how they treated Paul Ryan for his entire career. The L.A. Times exposed an interesting McCarthy story today, one that the DCCC will not publicize and that Tatiana Matta doesn't have the means to spread: House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s family benefited from U.S. program for minorities based on disputed ancestry

A company owned by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s in-laws won more than $7 million in no-bid and other federal contracts at U.S. military installations and other government properties in California based on a dubious claim of Native American identity by McCarthy’s brother-in-law, a Times investigation has found.

The prime contracts, awarded through a federal program designed to help disadvantaged minorities, were mostly for construction projects at the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in McCarthy’s Bakersfield-based district, and the Naval Air Station Lemoore in nearby Kings County.

Vortex Construction, whose principal owner is William Wages, the brother of McCarthy’s wife, Judy, received a total of $7.6 million in no-bid and other prime federal contracts since 2000, The Times found.

The Bakersfield company is co-owned by McCarthy’s mother-in-law and employs his father-in-law and sister-in-law, Wages said. McCarthy’s wife was a partner in Vortex in the early 1990s.

Vortex faced no competitive bids for most of the contracts because the Small Business Administration accepted Wages’ claim in 1998 that he is a Cherokee Indian. Under the SBA program, his company became eligible for federal contracts set aside for economically and socially disadvantaged members of minority groups, a boon to its business.

Wages says he is one-eighth Cherokee. An examination of government and tribal records by The Times and a leading Cherokee genealogist casts doubt on that claim, however. He is a member of a group called the Northern Cherokee Nation, which has no federal or state recognition as a legitimate tribe. It is considered a fraud by leaders of tribes that have federal recognition.

Vortex was awarded more than $4 million in minority set-aside contracts for projects at China Lake. McCarthy has been a staunch advocate in Congress for funding and staffing for China Lake, the Navy’s largest property at more than 1.1 million acres, and spearheaded successful efforts to expand its borders.

McCarthy is no ordinary member of Congress, but one of the most powerful elected officials in California and on the national stage. The contracts obtained by Wages’ company have prompted questions about whether he improperly benefited from being McCarthy’s brother-in-law.

...“There is a direct and symbiotic connection between who McCarthy is and what he does and what his brother-in-law does,” said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson, a former member of the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission. She said Wages’ work on federal contracts important to McCarthy’s in-laws and his district “should never have happened at all.”

...All three Cherokee tribes with federal recognition consider the Northern Cherokee group illegitimate.

“It’s very much a con,” said David Cornsilk, the Cherokee genealogist and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, the largest of the recognized Cherokee tribes.

At The Times’ request, Cornsilk cross-checked Wages and his ancestors against census records and the membership rolls of the recognized Cherokee tribes. Neither Wages nor any of his known ancestors appear on the rolls, which date to the early 19th century, Cornsilk said.

A Times examination of census, birth, death, marriage and other available public records show Wages’ ancestors were identified as white. He is listed as white on his birth certificate.

“It’s disheartening to see this,” Cornsilk said. Native Americans are “the poorest people in the United States,” and “the poverty gets worse” if there are abuses in the SBA program, he added.

Cherokee leaders said the Northern Cherokee group is one of many masquerading as bona fide tribes. Chuck Hoskin Jr., secretary of state for the Cherokee Nation, said “it is particularly disturbing” when minority set-aside contracts are granted to members of “a group that is posing as a tribe.”

UPDATE: Will Tax Cheat Donald J. Trumpanzee Now Welch On The Million Dollars He Owes The Charity Of Elizabeth Warren's Choice?

As you probably know by now, on Sunday Elizabeth Warren released a DNA test that provides "strong evidence" she had a Native American in her family tree dating back 6 to 10 generations. Earlier today, she released the biographical video below. The DNA analysis was done by Carlos Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field who won a 2010 MacArthur fellowship, also known as a "genius grant," for his work on tracking population migration via DNA analysis. So when will Trumpy-The-Clown hand over the million dollar check to the National Indigenous Womer's Resouce Center, the charity of her choice, like he publicly promised he would? (SPOILER: Never.) In fact, a couple of hours ago, Trump lied and said that he never promised to send a million dollars to a charity of Warren's choice if she took a DNA test. Maybe he needs to look at his segment in the video below:

Americans Want Privacy-- Including Republicans

A couple of nights ago, Rachel Maddow did a long and interesting segment about what the Trumpist Regime does behind closed doors. The whole segment is posted above. And it's primarily about how the Trumpists are secretly moving more troops into Syria without asking for congressional approval. The decision making is behind closed doors. The second example that Maddow discusses though, is the one I want to take up today. Just before the 11 and a half mark on the clip, she mentions how the Regime tried hiding the fact that Trump signed the incrediblely unpopular Republican bill that allows internet providers to sell your personal data without getting your permission or even alerting you that they're doing it.

Jeff Flake's Joint Resolution "providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to 'Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services,'" passed the House March 28 215-205 Not a single Democrat voted for it, not even the worst corporate whore Blue Dogs and New Dems. Even Sinema, Cuellar, Peterson and Gottheimer voted against this-- and they vote for everything the Republicans want. This one was too politically toxic even for them though. in fact it was too politically toxic for 15 Republicans as well. That's why the vote was so relatively close.

A combination of Freedom Caucus purists like, Justin Amash (R-MI), Mark Sanford (R-SC) and Mo Brooks (R-AL), and Republicans in unsafe seats in swing districts, like Mike Coffman (R-CO), Dave Riechert (R-WA), John Faso (R-NY) and Lee Zeldin (R-NY) refused to go along with Ryan and McCarthy on this one.

In The Senate, Flake's resolution had already passed, 50-48, on March 23. Every Democrat voted NO, including Manchin and Heitkamp, and every Republican voted YES, except 2 who were absent. Back to Maddow... she is very correct in calling it "a big deal, a big deal for all of us. This is a material change from the way your data is handled now... Thanks to this bill that President Trump just signed, my Internet prcvider-- and yours-- can take your browsing history, can take their record of everything you have ever downloaded, can take their data about everything you have ever done online, all of your financial information, everything they have got on you, and they can sell it-- to anyone, without even giving you notice that they're doing so, let alone allowing you the opportunity to object. And if you don't have a lot of choice of internet providers, which a lot of people don't, your only option is for opting out of this system, for protecting yourself at all is to... not use the internet?... As you might imagine, this thing is radically unpopular. Even the radically pro-Donald Trump corners of the internet... Trump supporters are freaking out that he just signed this thing."

YouGov's national poll asked people if Trump should sign the bill or veto it. 11% thought he should sign it. 74% wanted him to veto it. But he didn't veto it. He kicked out the cameras, shut the doors and signed it-- behind closed doors... "no press, no tweets, no cameras... They signed it in secret."

Democrats running against incumbents would have to be insane not to make this into a big campaign issue. It isn't some abstract; this touches all of our lives and it shows the Republicans off at their corporate worst-- and their authoritarian worse. So, for example, the internet providers-- like AT&T, Century Link, Charter (Spectrum), Comcast, Cox, Frontier, Optimum, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and Windstream-- gave Darrell Issa $317,200 last year alone for his cooperation on this kind of legislation. This issue of taylor-made for Doug Applegate, Issa' progressive opponent. This afternoon he told us that "Darrell Issa will do anything to avoid talking to his constituents. But he'll gladly vote to allow his internet service provider donors to his campaign profit from selling those same constituents' internet history. Daryl hasn't served a single day in Congress without rigging the system."

Same in an inland district north of Issa's, where Kevin McCarthy gobbled up an astronomical $400,300 from the internet providers so that he would guide their legislation through Congress. I asked his Democratic opponent, Wendy Reed, who told me that "This is a perfect example of how our so-called Representative represents corporate donors and corporate-controlled government while I represent the interests of real people. This action shows patent disrespect for our liberties and our right to consent. Americans have the right to a government that serves the people and reflects the will of the people. This action, allowing corporations to sell our private and personal information for profit, is the opposite of what Americans want."

Exactly right-- and even if her district, CA-23, has a PVI of R+16 with far more registered Republicans than registered Democrats-- this issue transcends political parties. And McCarthy is on the wrong side of it while Reed is standing with the people from Lancaster, Rosamond, California City, Tehachapi, Bakersfield and Porterville.

The Three Inventories-- A Guest Post By The Woman Running Against Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy

-by Wendy Reed, MPA

Americans appear energized for civic engagement-- in community organizations, political activity, and government offices-- but in our passion and urgency for change we must take time to do research, to evaluate facts, and to make informed choices.

From the questions people ask me about my experience as a congressional candidate, I developed what I call the Three Inventories™. The Three Inventories include a Personal Inventory, a Skillset Inventory, and a Resources Inventory, and I will apply them in this article in three ways: considering civic engagement; choosing political parties and candidates; and becoming a candidate yourself.

This article is intended for anyone considering civic engagement, but it is especially intended to inspire those who choose to engage in the Democratic Party and fight for the progressive soul of our party. At our May Convention, the delegates of the California Democratic Party will vote for a new Chair and leadership team, a choice that is important to our continued success. The California Democratic Party continues to lead the nation in progressive policies and legislation, thanks to the long work of our progressive party leadership. I hope this article helps people understand the party better, and inspires people to take time for the research to make informed choices.

Inventories for Civic Engagement

People getting involved in the community for the first time should first conduct a Personal Inventory. Consider the level of involvement that feels comfortable to you, and what issues are important to you. Some people prefer making phone calls from home while others like to attend rallies. Participation in community organizations and outreach is very valuable, but it wouldn’t be a good fit for someone who doesn’t like attending meetings. Consider how your involvement might impact other work you do or relationships you have, or conflicts of interest it might pose. Everyone can do something, so the key is finding something that fits comfortably into your life.

Second, conduct a Skill-set Inventory. Consider what you are trained or experienced to do and how that might be applied to the issues you are interested in. Your skills might include taking notes, bookkeeping, public speaking, or baking cookies, and you may have knowledge in law, organizational management, or public relations. You may have expertise in a field where you can serve in an advisory capacity. Find and connect with organizations or government agencies that work on the issues you want to engage in, read their mission, bylaws, and platforms, and consider ways your skillset might help their needs.

Third, conduct a Resources Inventory, considering the resources it will require for you to participate. Consider your available time, your transportation, your health, and if there are costs or contributions involved in participating. Choose engagement that fits into your lifestyle, that you can actually commit to accomplish, and that you will enjoy. Many political groups have notification lists you can join to learn of rallies, guidance for contacting (lobbying) your public officials by phone or email, and community efforts that seek help from people like you.

Inventories for Choosing Political Parties and Candidates

Lobbying elected representatives and working with community organizations serving community needs are all incredibly important ways to engage. But at the end of the day, only by electing representatives will you gain the political power to promote policies and values of your choice. Party affiliation is one of the most important choices we make as adults and as citizens, and involvement in a party is the most powerful way to influence elections and government.

Our party allegiance starts in childhood as our parents’ choice, but as we mature it is important to conduct a Personal Inventory, to determine which values and policies we support, and which values and policies will affect us in ways that we prefer. The political parties have Platforms, outlining their positions on a variety of issues. In addition to reading the Party Platforms, we should read independent analyses of the historical, real-world outcomes of those policies. A policy may sound good on paper, but have an opposite outcome or an unintended outcome.

Once we understand the Platform and policy outcomes, we should conduct a Skillset Inventory of the Party, researching the success and integrity of the party’s work. Does the party have democratic processes in its own operation? Where does the party funding come from?

Most Americans seem to invest very little time in research, and we can see where this has gotten us! Democracy requires an informed electorate, and with the loss of the Fairness Doctrine and deregulation of media ownership, it is harder to be informed. But that does not justify voting the way your friend votes. We must do the research for ourselves. Which brings us to the Resources Inventory, because in the real world, a policy platform is not a party. Party infrastructure includes manpower, communication networks, tools for voter engagement, and financial resources for outreach and overhead.

Most people I meet don’t know that the structure of the Democratic Party is “small d democratic.” There are Democratic Clubs in communities all across America. There are County Central Committees in almost every county of America. The Central Committee Members are mainly elected in Presidential Election Year Primaries by the registered Democrats of each Assembly District, joined by members from community Clubs and candidates/electeds. These committees send delegates to the State Committees, and the State Committee Delegates elect Democratic National Committee (DNC) Members. The DNC is a reflection of our own involvement, and changes constantly. There are also additional national committees that focus on legislative issues, Congressional Candidates, and Senatorial Candidates. And there are Democratic incumbents. The level of infrastructure of the two major parties is unmatched.

And, as with any organization, the greatest resources of the Party are its people. All across America (and even abroad) Democrats of every shape and size attend meetings, pay dues, walk precincts, register voters, serve on boards and committees, and help campaigns.

At our upcoming California Democratic Party Convention, 40 percent of our ADEM Delegates are brand new, which is wonderful but also challenging. Not surprisingly, many new delegates are unfamiliar with party structures, party operations, election processes, bylaws, or even the Platform. Many are unfamiliar with our 2016 candidates or incumbents, and unfamiliar with the candidates for CDP Chair for whom they will vote. Without factual information and careful deliberation, we run the risk of discarding the progressive leaders who have made our California Democratic Party the most progressive in the nation.

Inventories for Becoming a Candidate

Lastly, people ask me what they should consider when deciding to run for public office.

In deciding to become a candidate for the US House of Representatives, I first conducted the Skill set Inventory-- what skill-set would I bring to job of Representative and the role of candidate. My Master’s in Public Administration, 30 years of community advocacy in my district, experience in government processes and legislative issues, and my love of engaging people in government, were an appropriate skillset for a Representative. My public speaking skills and understanding of our district’s issues made me a candidate people trusted and voted for. I read volumes, had mentors, and attended training to expand my campaign skillset.

Second, I conducted a Personal Inventory. I considered what I would give up by being a candidate, how I would face criticism or falsehoods published about me, and I discussed the impacts of a campaign with my family and found that I had my family’s support.

Third, I conducted a Resources Inventory for a campaign. I had time to devote to a campaign, good transportation, good health, and sufficient financial resources for the things that campaign contributions can’t fund. And I had the invaluable resource of being known by people across the district for my conservation work, so when I reached out to communities across our vast district I met people who already respected me.

It is said that “anyone can run for office” but, in reality, not everyone should. We need to elect qualified leaders who understand American history, economics, law, public administration, public policy, math, and basic science, with formal training in ethics and critical thinking. The need for qualifications and knowledge hold true for service in the party structure, as well as for voters, because these political processes are the path to elected office and legislative power.

###

About the Author: Wendy Reed holds a Master of Public Administration degree from CSUN and founded the Antelope Valley Conservancy in 2005, a community-managed corporation that provides habitat preservation and restoration for local, state, and federal agencies. With 30 years of community organizing experience, Reed became a grassroots Bernie organizer, and then the Democratic Nominee for California’s 23rd Congressional District, earning historic votes in her race against Rep. Kevin McCarthy. Reed is running again for 2018, so if you wish to help CA-23 oust the GOP Leader, please visit www.wendyreedforcongress.com.

Time For A Change In Bakersfield And Across Kern County-- A Very Big Change?

CA-23 is an inland California congressional district represented by Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, this year's biggest vacuum of big money for Republican candidates around the country. He may not be doing much for the people who reside in Kern County but vulnerable Republicans everywhere are seeing a stream of money from corporate money flow their way via McCarthy. (Small pieces of northeast L.A. County-- a portion of the Antelope Valley-- and of Tulare County are also in CA-23.)

Most of the people live in Bakersfield, Lancaster, Rosamond, Tehachapi and California City in the southern third of the district and the district has voted reliably Republican for all of living memory. There is a growing Hispanic population-- over 35% now-- which, until the advent of Señor Trumpanzee, hasn't had the best participation rates. That's changing this year as registration efforts have gone through the roof.

Berniecrat Wendy Reed came in second in the 4-way jungle primary, knocking off prominent teabagger Ken Mettler two-to-one, as she prepared to face McCarthy in November. The Tea Party Express SuperPAC threw over quarter million dollars into the primary against her. Beating McCarthy will be a far tougher task, considering that he's already raised $6,727,189 and Reed, who had raised just $30,097 by June 30, had only $9,603 in the bank post-primary. But she is waging a relentless on the ground grassroots campaign. As we've pointed out before, the DCCC has no interest in going after McCarthy and is offering Wendy no help of any kind despite her primary win. Blue America has been helping her collect small dollar contributions and if you'd like to help her grassroots effort, please tap the thermometer on the right.

Before the primary, Wendy told us she believes that Bernie's stand against the inherent corruption of democracy by pay-to-play politics-- of which McCarthy is a national posterchild-- is perhaps the policy that most potently crosses all party lines. As a first time candidate, she has been stunned at the typical costs of campaigns. She has learned that many candidates end up in debt, and some have lost their homes, "just for attempting to participate in self-government! The costs are obscene," she says. "Americans across party lines acknowledge that pressure to represent donors’ interests turns congressmen away from representing the people in their districts. Public funding of elections fosters cooperative, collaborative governance, and that’s how politics is conducted in many other countries. What America now has is more of a competitive reality show. But I couldn’t talk about this in my campaign if Sanders wasn’t talking about it on the national level. Even his opponent is talking about it now."

Public funding of elections allows qualified candidates to run for office without selling influence or being independently wealthy. Reed holds a Master’s Degree in Public Administration, and manages a nonprofit corporation that preserves habitat for wildlife and rare plants. In this role she has worked with local, county, state, and federal agencies. She has lived in the district for 30 years.

"Many of the rights, liberties, and programs that our ancestors fought and died to secure are under attack, and need protection. A vast majority of Americans agree on the issues, and are fed up with special interests buying our government. I believe that in 2016, the American people are prepared to elect real people to represent the interests of real people, regardless of party affiliation."

Last week I asked her about the ballot measure coming up this year to legalize marijuana in California, something McCarthy isn't backing in any way, shape or form. "I've seen people suffer all my life from the illegalization of hemp/marijuana," she told us. "Enforcement has ruined people's lives and families, prevented productive people from participating in government or even employment, created a dangerous gang underworld and black market, suppressed sustainable industries of hemp products thereby subsidizing environmentally and socially unsustainable industries of cotton and forestry for paper goods, and I believe that illegalization was a political move to oppress certain constituencies and subsidize otherwise unsustainable markets, rather than a concern for any public danger."

Please consider chipping in at the thermometer above and, if you haven't watched the 10 minute interview on local TV with Wendy from yesterday... well, what do you have better to do late on a Saturday night?

The DCCC Refuses To Lift A Finger To Help, But Meet The Democrat Working To Replace Kevin McCarthy

Blue America endorsed Bill Ostrander in the 9 person race for the Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo CA-24 congressional seat. He ran a strong issues-oriented campaign, very much in line with Bernie's political revolution, to which he ascribed. He wasn't left standing on election night and voters in the 24th will have to pick between a garden variety careerist Democrat or a corruption-tainted GOP extremist. There are no good choices there.

A few days ago, Bill called me and told me he's backing another "Berniecrat" though, Wendy Reed, who made it through the primary and will face off against Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy in November in the district next door. In line with their policy of never challenging GOP leaders, the DCCC has refused to help Reed take on this onerous task. McCarthy, one of the most corrupt members of Congress-- only Paul Ryan has taken more money from Wall Street than he has this year-- has raised $6,727,189 this cycle something like 250 times more than Reed!

McCarthy is not especially popular in his district, which is now a white minority district, has an over 36% Hispanic population, and includes much of Bakersfield and Lancaster, as well as Tehachapi, Rosamond and lots of wide open spaces and national wilderness preserves that McCarthy wants to sell off to developers, including Sequoia National Park and Kings Canyon National Park.

This morning, Bill sent me this note telling me why he is so enthusiastic about backing Wendy's campaign, over and above just helping her beat the odious McCarthy:

CA-23 is the district next door. The two districts meet at Los Padres National Forest, the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge and at the Carrizo Plain National Monument, space very much valued and cherished by people in both districts and space that Wendy Reed has pledged to protect from rapacious developers. She is a land use planning activist who has worked in the community for 3 decades and, like myself, was immediately drawn to Bernie's values-and-policy oriented campaign. She went back to school to earn a Masters degree in Public Administration and is a land trust founder, and a climate change educator, with experience working with federal, state, county, and local agencies.

I saw a mailer, a hit piece, that McCarthy sent out about her called "The Choice Is Clear." It featured a picture of Wendy and Bernie and excoriated her as a liberal. She probably didn't have the resources to create and send out a flier like that herself but I know it brought her a tremendous amount of positive attention.

I was impressed that her top two platform commitments are (1) to get money out of politics/politics out of government-- as she said, "reversing or superseding Citizens United, eliminating loopholes for contributions, establishing limits for expenditures, excising lobbyists from the halls of government, establishing clear conflict of interest and insider trading restrictions and enforcing them mercilessly, prosecuting patronage at all levels of government, and supporting effective public funding for elections-- to restore representational self-government, and (2) to bring resources to this part of our state to invest in local infrastructure, upgrade the health and safety of our industries, and face the challenges of climate change. These aren't partisan issues and they appeal broadly to people in central California regardless of party ID.

McCarthy was advertising that he is a friend to veterans while he was whipping GOP efforts in Congress to slash Veterans Administration funding and services, and eliminate safety nets for military families. He blamed President Obama for FEMA's denial of services and loans to the Kern River Valley after the Erskine Fire, while he was whipping GOP efforts to slash FEMA funding, staffing, and services. McCarthy and the Republicans even tried to eliminate FEMA as an agency in 2012.

McCarthy appears to do nothing for central California and nothing for the taxpayers of the 23rd district. That, along with Wendy's reasonable and innovative approach to the problems in our area, are why I'm asking my supporters and the Blue America members who did so much to help me to contribute to her grassroots campaign today.

Why Don't Conservative Democrats Debate?

The Democratic establishment insisted on pushing doddering and conservative relic Ted Strickland as the Ohio Senate nominee. Strickland was too scared to debate his young and intellectually vigorous opponent, PG Sittenfeld-- he never did-- and now he's facing a situation where he is unprepared to debate his Republican opponent, Rob Portman. In the end, Strickland beat Sittenfeld by a landslide, 720,336 to 248,776, and taking part in the series of debates-- or even one debate-- Sittenfeld challenged him to do, wouldn't have changed the outcome. But it would have prepared the 74 year old Strickland for the tough debates he won't be able to worm his way out of with Portman.

There has been marked tendency this cycle of conservative Democratic candidates ducking out of debates with their opponents. The video up top is the first TV ad from the Tim Canova congressional campaign for the FL-23 seat held by manipulative anti-debate maven, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has never faced a vigorous opponent in her entire miserable career and has no capacity to debate anyone.

Her fellow New Dem up the coast, Patrick Murphy, is another one who's afraid to debate. Several neutral groups have tried to set up debates between Murphy and Grayson. Grayson has agreed to each one and Murphy, predictably, refused. I asked Grayson if he had any insights into Murphy's behavior. He quoted Mark Twain to me: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt."

Another shady Democrat who's refusing to debate his primary opponent is corrupt congressional lifer Lacy Clay of St. Louis, who is facing a dynamic and inspiring state senator, Maria Chappelle-Nadal. "It's incredible," she told us today, "a 16-year incumbent is afraid to debate in front of his own constituents. Oddly enough, long time, establishment candidates give carte blanche access to the most unscrupulous lobbyists. It is now clear why so many poverty pimps serve in Congress. The people have lost their power in the 1st congressional district of Missouri."

Maybe it's because the whole idea of a conservative Democrat is inconsistent enough to not make sense in a primary election. Republicans usually do debate their general election opponents but this year House Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, who has a penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth when he opens it in public, has so far avoided debating the progressive Democratic running for the sprawling Bakersfield/Lancaster House seat (CA-23), Wendy Reed, a local activist and Berniecrat. This morning, she told us that "McCarthy told the Bakersfield Californian that he would make himself available for debate, but declined invitations from California State University Bakersfield and KGET TV with Jim Scott. He then wanted to send a surrogate to debate for him at the Taft Chamber of Commerce, despite being home in the district. That debate was scheduled to his convenience, yet McCarthy later told the Bakersfield Californian that he had a preexisting commitment. The more I hear from him, the harder it is to believe anything he says. I look forward to debating him. If he can't represent himself in a debate, how can he represent us in Congress?" McCarthy may not have time to debate the issues in from of CA-23 voters but he does have time to read a speech from a teleprompter at the Trump convention next week.

If you'd like to contribute to Wendy's and Tim's campaigns-- and to the campaigns of the other progressives whose opponents are playing debate games with... just tap the thermometer:

Will Bernie Inspire Enough California Voters To Help Wendy Reed Take Down Another Establishment Republican Leader?

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy graduated from the California Assembly to Congress in 2006 and with 71% of the vote. Two years later he had 100% and 2 years after that 99%. The DCCC has long been in the habit of giving McCarthy a free pass. In 2012 he had some token local opposition and was reelected with 73% and last time, it was the same story and a 75% win. And, no, he's not that popular. The DCCC just ignores him, the way they ignore all Republican leaders. 2016 was looking like it would be the same thing; the DCCC decided to extend their professional courtesy to McCarthy once again but then along came Bernie Sanders. No, Bernie isn't running against McCarthy, but Bernie has inspired a lot of people in Lancaster, Bakersfield, Porterville, Rosamond and points in between and now one of them, Wendy Reed, who lived and worked and raised her family in the Antelope Valley for decades, has stepped up to the plate to take McCarthy on. The DCCC, of course, has discouraged her when they're not ignoring her. We know the phrase "this is an important election" can be overused, but 2016 is proving to be one for the history books. Bernie's authenticity and issues-based campaign is inspiring hundreds of thousands of Americans to attend rallies and volunteer for campaign work, but is a "political revolution" materializing across party lines? Can his reengagement of disaffected voters help down-ballot candidates, turn red districts blue, and produce "a Congress he can work with" to achieve the goals the American people tell pollsters they want? Wendy Reed says YES. [You can contribute to her campaign here.]

Even in the deep-red 23rd District, comprised of largely rural portions of Los Angeles County, Kern County, and Tulare County, the call for a political revolution is being answered by a diverse group of Americans. The Bernie volunteer groups include young and old, even former Republicans who say "the party left me." They make phone calls, host debate watch parties, banner on street corners, conduct voter registration, and faithfully talk and share about the candidate.

Most strikingly, they contribute small amounts on a regular basis to the Sanders campaign which overall almost keeps pace with the giant corporate and Wall Street war chest at the disposal of Establishment shills like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz. Any time Bernie is attacked in the press or by Trump or by a Clinton operative, they make another donation, as a show of protest and solidarity. They have faith that the democratic process will elect him, because that is how self-government is supposed to work.

Reed told us yesterday that, "I’m seeing incredible enthusiasm about Senator Sanders, and I think it will produce larger than usual turnout of voters at the polls who will be open to authentic or even progressive Democratic candidates. I see people who had given up on the political process reengaging."

But Reed doesn’t think that typically moderate candidates with the DCCC seal-of-approval will be successful in 2016. She feels that she is actually more successful in crossing party lines when she sticks to her progressive principles. She references the tea party gravitation toward basic American principles of "For the People" and acknowledges, "Their hearts were essentially in the right place even if their information sources were faulty. I don’t think people are fundamentally Democrats or Republicans; we are Americans, and we are humans on a small planet facing serious challenges. My campaign is about real people’s priorities."

Even in the deep red 23rd Congressional District-- where Kevin McCarthy slid into incumbency through gerrymandered redistricting, and was the only candidate on the ballot for several of his reelection bids-- people of all political persuasions are disenchanted with the economy, income inequality, their children’s and grandchildren’s prospects, and they are ready to try something new. Even his supporters can’t recall what he has done while in office. Wendy is running a campaign based on these same very basic issues that have motivated Bernie and other progressives who think the special interests have had all the special attention they need for now and that it's time to give a hand to ordinary working families.

Stories like this are coming in from all over the country

Reed believes that Senator Sanders’ stand against the inherent corruption of democracy by pay-to-play politics is perhaps the policy that most potently crosses all party lines. As a first time candidate, she has been stunned at the typical costs of campaigns. She has learned that many candidates end up in debt, and some have lost their homes, "just for attempting to participate in self-government! The costs are obscene," she says. "Americans across party lines acknowledge that pressure to represent donors’ interests turns congressmen away from representing the people in their districts. Public funding of elections fosters cooperative, collaborative governance, and that’s how politics is conducted in many other countries. What America now has is more of a competitive reality show. But I couldn’t talk about this in my campaign if Sanders wasn’t talking about it on the national level. Even his opponent is talking about it now."

Public funding of elections allows qualified candidates to run for office without selling influence or being independently wealthy. Reed holds a Master’s Degree in Public Administration, and manages a nonprofit corporation that preserves habitat for wildlife and rare plants. In this role she has worked with local, county, state, and federal agencies. She has lived in the district for 30 years.

"Many of the rights, liberties, and programs that our ancestors fought and died to secure are under attack, and need protection. A vast majority of Americans agree on the issues, and are fed up with special interests buying our government. I believe that in 2016, the American people are prepared to elect real people to represent the interests of real people, regardless of party affiliation."

Blue America maintains a special ActBlue page for congressional candidates who have endorsed Bernie and are running on his issues. We were proud to add Wendy Reed to it and if you'd like to contribute to her campaign and to any of the other candidates on it... well, here's where you'll find it.

Kevin McCarthy-- Unfit To Be A Congressman, Let Alone Speaker Of The House

Kevin McCarthy, the Republican Majority Leader of the House-- still on track, if just barely, to replace John Boehner as speaker-- pissed off everyone by admitting that the purpose of the Benghazi committee was to give hyper-partisan Republicans an opportunity to smear Hillary Clinton and bring down her poll numbers. Only a complete moron didn't know that from the day the committee was proposed, but it still isn't something you're supposed to say out loud, even on Fox News. So now Democrats, from Harry Reid in the Senate to Adam Schiff in the House (and Tammy Duckworth in between), are calling for abolishing the committee, and some of the members are threatening to resign from it. Pelosi said she's thinking about yanking all the Dems off the bogus committee.

Even as complete a hack and shill for the GOP establishment as Joe Scarborough was on TV lamenting McCarthy's impolitic public exposure of the GOP plot-- if not the plot itself-- calling it "a rookie mistake." All process; no substance, as always on Morning Joe:

Morning Joe panelist and Bloomberg Politics editor Jon Heilemann also speculated that McCarthy's remarks would damage him in two ways. First, Heilemann said, McCarthy cited the Benghazi committee as one of his top accomplishments as GOP leader rather than an actual act of governing. Second, he said, McCarthy deviated from Chairman Trey Gowdy's (R-SC) and other Republicans' talking points about the committee being nonpartisan and not a "witch hunt."

"It gives her [Clinton] a huge talking point, undermines Gowdy and makes, I think, a lot of people in the Republican caucus wonder whether Kevin McCarthy is in fact up to the job of being speaker of the House," Heilemann said.

Georgia right-wing fanatic Erick Erickson used the episode to warn Republicans not to elect McCarthy Speaker, writing on his website:

McCarthy actually admitted that the Benghazi committee was designed to hurt Hillary Clinton politically" and that "[h]e is shallow and unprincipled and is showing what an opportunist he is willing to be. Conservatives in the House call him transactional-- meaning they think they can do business with him-- but at what price?... It's all downhill from here.

Yesterday, at the Washington Ideas Forum, when the only gal in Republican House leadership, Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), tried claiming the Benghazi committee isn't just a political tool the GOP came up with to beat up on Hillary, she was booed and hissed at. And on and on and on. But there's more to this than the Benghazi committee, which, thanks to seven of the worst right-wing Democrats, (only three of whom-- Patrick Murphy, Kyrsten Sinema and Collin Peterson-- are still in Congress), is counted as a bipartisan creation. More to the point, a point that Rachel Maddow made brilliantly in her Wednesday night show's opening (the video up top), is the competence of Kevin McCarthy for the job of Speaker.

McCarthy is a consummate schmoozer who just got bounced along by circumstance from one job to another until now he has become the ultimate personification of the Peter Principle, which holds that in a hierarchy-- like Congress-- people tend to "rise to their level of incompetence." As a relatively mediocre politician like McCarthy was promoted and rose in the ranks, he become progressively less effective, since even tangentially good performance in one job certainly doesn't guarantee acceptable performance in the next highest job. When he finally reaches the job where he can't hide poor performance, he doesn't get promoted-- and stays where he is forever (the definition of stagnation).

As Alex Rogers pointed out at the NationalJournal (and Maddow demonstrated in that video above), McCarthy doesn't have even close to the requisite knowledge and experience to do even a vaguely competent job as Speaker. He will always be dependent on-- and at the mercy of-- those around him. Whatever strengths he has have more to do with partisan politics than with legislating or policy. As Rogers put it, McCarthy 

rose to the top of D.C. in a flash-- about eight years-- up the lead­er­ship lad­der, fo­cus­ing less on ne­go­ti­at­ing com­prom­ises and more on build­ing the ranks of Re­pub­lic­ans (tak­ing the House in 2010) and his re­la­tion­ships with them, al­though in his role as his party’s primary vote-counter there were a hand­ful of high-pro­file face-plants.

Those who think he is up to the task are toadies or people of even less competence than he is.

By the way, though McCarthy's district is shifting demographically (because of a huge influx of Latinos, now 38%), the DCCC hasn't run against him since... since forever. Thanks to the DCCC, he's never been in a competitive race. Last year he was reelected with 75.4% of the vote. He didn't even have a token opponent in 2008 or 2010 and ran unopposed.

Taliban Dan Wants To Be Speaker (Of The U.S. House Of Representatives)

Right-wing crackpot Daniel Webster (R-FL) was the first member of the extremist Freedom Caucus to say he wants Boehner's Speaker's gavel. He'll be the far right's sacrificial lamb against current Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). Oddly enough, both men are in electorally vulnerable districts. McCarthy's district, CA-23 has been solidly Republican and still officially boasts an R+16 PVI. Romney beat Obama there 62-36%, Obama's worst performance the state. But don't be fooled; the district is changing demographically-- and rapidly. Nearly 36% of the population is now Hispanic, a numbering growing faster than any other demographic group in the district and 30.9% of the voters are Hispanic, also a number that is growing quickly. Over half the newly eligible voters in the district are Latino, Asian and immigrants. And, unlike McCarthy, 76% of the voters in CA-23 support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The district starts in Los Angeles County's Antelope Valley and includes the northern and western parts of Lancaster, as well as Rosamond, Mojave, California City, Taft, Maricopa and most of Bakersfield. Civil rights icon Dolores Huerta is a resident and Democrats have begged her to run against McCarthy for years.

Webster is even even worse shape. When Florida's court's threw out the gerrymandered districts that gave Webster a congressional career, FL-10 (with a PVI of R+6 and which saw Romney beat Obama 54-46% became a lot bluer, a Democratic-leaning district that would be very hard for an extremist like Webster to win. (In 2012, up against a terrible candidate, DCCC-hack, DINO Val Demings, Webster scraped by 164,873 (52%) to 153,646 (48%). This year, were he to stay in FL-10, he would like have to face an actual Democrat, Bob Poe, who would in all likelihood wipe the floor with him. But it appears that Webster is moving north. Fellow crackpot Ron DeSantis (FL-06: from just south of Jacksonville, through St. Augustine, Daytona Beach nd nearly to Cape Canaveral and inland to Palatka) is giving up his nice red R+9 district in a futile attempt to win Marco Rubio's open Senate seat. The district includes John Mica's original base of support and Mica, whose district is also becoming less Republican, is going to jump into FL-06, leaving FL-07 (Deltona, Altamonte Springs, Winter Park, Maitland and Oviedo) to Webster. It isn't a safe Republican district but it is considerably safer than Webster's FL-10.

OK, that complicated situation, especially for Webster, leaves us to look at the last time Webster ran for Speaker, when he was the Tea Party candidate against Boehner on January 6 of this year. He came in 3rd. Boehner got 216 votes. Pelosi got 164 votes. And Webster got 12 votes-- Rod Blum (IA, likely to lose his seat to Pat Murphy next year), Scott Garrett (NJ), Pope Francis boycotter Paul Gosar (AZ), Koch puppet Tim Huelskamp (KS), Walter Jones (NC), racist Steve King (IA), Boehner-antagonist Mark Meadows (NC), Rich Nugent (FL), Bill Posey (FL), Scott Rigell (VA), Marlin Stutzman (IN) and... Webster himself. Other members of Ted Cruz's suicide caucus voted for Louie Gohmert, Ted Yoho, Jim Jordan, Jeff Duncan, Trey Gowdy and Kevin McCarthy (who got one vote, moderate Chris Gibson) and two senators, Rand Paul (compliments of yet another Florida nut-case, freshman Curt Clawson) and KKK Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. At the time, the over-excited Webster sent around a treatise he wrote-- which he sent around again yesterday, Widgets, Principles and Republicans, noting that he was the first Republican speaker of Florida's state House.

If a widget maker produced flawed widgets, the owners could choose to make significant alterations by offering additional colors, new packaging, and special pricing. They also could employ new marketing techniques like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Although well intentioned, none of these improvements will fix the flawed product. It is the process by which the widgets are made that is flawed.

If the process is flawed, the product will be flawed. The only way to improve the product is to fix the process.

By his own admission, the midterm election was a referendum on the President’s policies, and those policies received a strong rebuke. The American people have made their voices heard.

Does that mean that, by default, the Republicans are the answer? No; that verdict is still out.

Republican leaders from Washington and across the country have said that our GOP brand is tarnished and must be fixed. Low public approval of Congress speaks clearly of a flawed process.

The only way to improve the GOP brand and make good public policy is to fix the process.

Republicans now own the Congress and must change the way they lead. Not just a change in packaging and marketing, but a different process-- one that is focused on principle, not on power. We only have one opportunity to prove we can lead. Our opportunity is now.

A pyramid of power in a legislative body always works the same. A few people at the top of the pyramid make most of the decisions with the bulk of the members at the bottom-- unless needed. A legislative body that is founded on principle pushes down this pyramid of power and spreads out the base so every elected member becomes a player.

Power and principle cannot coexist.

Power focuses on self-preservation; principle focuses on making ideas successful. Power tends to protect itself merely to maintain its own status and control. Principle gives up power for the sake of the highest good and to create the best public policy.

Power demands to be heard; principle earns the right to be heard. Power focuses on rights; principles focus on responsibility.

One of the most significant contrasts between power and principle is how it treats policy. Power tends to view an idea based on the position, loyalty, rank, or seniority of the sponsor. Principle focuses solely on the merits of the idea itself.

The Republicans have a choice. This is it. This is our moment. We only have one opportunity to make a first impression.

Flawed widgets or solid principles; which will it be?

Taliban Dan, who thinks he's fit to be Speaker, home-schooled his 6 kids using the widely discredited Bill Gothard curriculum. The poor kids are grown up now and all unemployable & working in his air-conditioning repair shop. Webster on Gothard's demented teachings: "They are the basis for everything I do today." In the video below he brags about using Gothard's sick, corrupted rants in the political life of his district:



Webster ally and co-founder of the Liberty Caucus, Tim Huelskamp, rattled the right-wing sabers that his caucus, which had just tasted blood, can prevent anyone from being elected Speaker. He says, the Freedom Caucus will vote as a bloc and there are probably 40 radicals who will apply a litmus test for right-wing extremism. There is little doubt that had Pelosi cleaned house at the failed, incompetent and dysfunctional DCCC after their last two stupendous catastrophic cycles, the Democrats would be figuring out how big their 2017 majority would be. But she did't and they aren't. They are practically being handed back the majority of the House but Steve Israel and his bitterly anti-progressive allies would rather see Republicans back in control than see more progressives elected to the House. These are progressives running for House seats who the DCCC is either ignoring or sabotaging; think about thwarting Steve Israel and helping these Democrats win and helping make Nancy Pelosi speaker again. (Remember how good she was and how well the House functioned back when she was?)