Does Anyone Still Feign Surprise When A Blue Dog Finally Comes Out As A Republican? Joe Baca's Running Again-- As A GOPer

Joe Baca was one of the worst members of Congress when he was in Congress-- a corrupt, conservative Blue Dog and NRA shill. Although he voted with the Republicans against core progressive values and principles virtually all the time, there is such an utter lack of party discipline that he was able to cross the aisle with complete impunity. No one really doubted that his political raison d'être was maintaining his position as a member of the Houses two biggest founts of bribery-- the Agriculture Committee and the Financial Services Committee. He was using congressional funds to enrich and promote his large ethics-free family and was widely known as a big sexist slob. Latinas in the House complained about his abusive behavior. But... conservative Democrats can do no wrong.

He had been first elected in 1998 and was defeated by Democrat Gloria McLeod, who he referred to as "a bimbo," in 2012 when anti-NRA crusader Michael Bloomberg dumped over $3 million worth of ads into the race against Baca. Two years later he stumbled around an adjoining district, CA-31, but was defeated in the primary. A sleazy coked up, New Dem, Pete Aguilar, won that race and Baca is running for the seat again-- this time as a Republican. Yes, he's a Republican now. Like all the Blue Dogs he always voted with the Republicans anyway, so why not? It's what Blue Dogs always do. After they suck immense amounts of resources out of the Democratic Party they eventually joining the GOP. The crackpot, right-winger who is the current governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal, started out as a Blue Dog before switching to the GOP. Dozens of Blue Dogs have become fence jumpers. It's what they are.

Baca claims his switch was caused by his "core Christian values." On switching, he also mouthed some GOP claptrap about being pro-growth and pro-business. "I’ve always been very conservative in nature... [it's] how I voted the majority of the time I was in office," he said. No kidding! You'd think House Democratic would have noticed. But... people like to forget that one of Pelosi's top lieutenants, failed DCCC head Steve Israel, was also a Blue Dog before joining the House leadership and he took it on himself to always protect his fellow Blue Dogs, spending millions and millions of DCCC dollars to try to keep them from being flushed down the toilet. (The vast majority of Blue Dogs have been flushed down the toilet.)

So now Baca is running against Aguilar. There's no good outcome in that race, but it'll cost the DCCC more money to help one corrupt conservative from defeating another corrupt conservative.

But, as we saw earlier this week, the biggest Blue Dog action this cycle is a challenge by progressive former state legislator Dave McTeague to Blue Dog chairman Kurt Schrader. Usually, the only way we get rid of Blue Dogs is when they're taken out by Republicans (or become Republicans). The opportunity in Oregon should be cherished and McTeague should be supported-- Blue America has endorsed him-- just as Tim Canova's campaign to oust New Dem Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be cherished and supported. (Blue America endorsed Tim too.)

Yesterday Thom Hartmann wrote about how important it is for real Democrats to work to drive DINOs from power inside the Democratic Party. His target was the very visible Wasserman Schultz. Who, outside of Oregon and DWT's readership, has even ever heard of Kurt Schrader?

[S]he should have resigned months ago, and she probably shouldn't have ever held the position in the first place. Not just because she's repeatedly and blatantly attempted to tip the scales in Hillary Clinton's favor during the Democratic primary, but also because, based on her words and her votes, she is exactly the type of so-called "centrist" corporate Democrat that the party needs to rid from its ranks.

To start, she's right now co-sponsoring a bill that would gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's payday loan and car loan regulations, basically protecting loan sharks from regulations at the expense of low-income Americans. Never mind the fact that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one of Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren's major progressive achievements to reign in financial abuses.

She also just lifted the ban that President Obama himself put in place that bans lobbyists from donating to the Democratic National Committee, and her lifting of that ban officially ended one of the few remaining rules that stem the tide of corporate money into the Democratic Party.

In the most recent omnibus spending bill, she voted for one provision that prevents the Securities and Exchange Commission from writing rules that would require corporations to disclose political spending to shareholders. In the same bill, she voted for another provision that would make it impossible for the IRS to create rules to curb special interest donors from forming "social welfare organizations" to hide political spending.

Schultz was one of the 28 Democrats who voted for fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and she received $300,000 from interest groups backing the trade deal, presumably for that vote, according to the American Prospect.

Just after the Democratic party lost the House and Senate catastrophically back in 2014, Wasserman Schultz voted to eliminate that part of Dodd-Frank that had prevented big banks from using deposits to speculate in financial derivatives.

Not to mention the fact that even though 58 percent of people from both parties in Florida support legalizing medical marijuana, Debbie Wasserman Schultz still opposes legalizing medical marijuana. She says it's because marijuana is a gateway drug, but it might have more to do with the tens of thousands of dollars she's gotten from the alcohol industry since she's been in Congress.

That's just a glimpse at Wasserman Schultz' voting record, and it shows a pattern of voting for pro-corporate legislation and for legislation that opens our political system to even more political spending and corruption.

On defense and national security, she's supported Republican ideas like extraditing NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden back to the United States to be arrested and prosecuted because he "jeopardized millions of Americans,"and she voted to extend the Patriot Act.

But even if she did support truly progressive and Democratic causes, she's not even particularly good at rallying the party that she's supposed to be leading.

She even recently alienated part of the Democratic base when she told the the New York Times that young women aren't supporting Hillary Clinton because there's "a complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v. Wade was decided."

Back in 2014, before the Republicans took control of both chambers of Congress, Debbie Wasserman Schultz successfully depressed the Democratic base by telling Politico, "I'm not going to confidently predict that Democrats will take the House back." With that kind of leadership, Democrats didn't just not win the House, they also lost the Senate.

Considering her positions, though, she's probably more comfortable with a Republican-controlled Congress than a truly progressive Democratic Party.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz isn't the only Democrat-In-Name-Only (DINO) in the Democratic leadership. But as the DNC Chair, she is the highest-ranking DINO in the party.

Even if Bernie Sanders doesn't get the nomination, progressive Democrats need to stand up and challenge the corporate DINOs who currently run the party, like law professor and real progressive Tim Canova is doing with his primary challenge in Debbie Wasserman Schultz' district.

It's time to restore the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and we should start with the chair.

This cycle the 4 worst DINO incumbents with viable progressive primary challengers are Wasserman Schultz (FL), Kurt Schrader (OR), Lacy Clay (MO) and Donald Norcross (NJ). You can find their opponents-- respectively Tim Canova, Dave McTeague, Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Alex Law-- by tapping the thermometer below:

The Complete Washingtonization Of Politics

This election cycle should serve as a case study in how not to run the DCCC. We've been referring to it as The Steve Israel Effect but, even if Israel is the worst practitioner ever, the DCCC's inability to do its job predated Israel for as long as anyone alive can remember. This goes beyond spending $4,000,000 in a blue-leaning New York City district for a recruit so unattractive that he could lose in a landslide to a Mafia thug with 20 criminal indictments. The story, or a version of it, can be told in any district in the country that Steve Israel stuck his nose into.

As an example, let's look at Friday morning's memo from California Democratic Party vice chair (for Southern California) Eric Bauman, entitled "New Data Indicates Turnout In The Inland Empire Is Dismal This Year." It would never occur to Bauman-- like Israel (in so many ways)-- that dismal candidates make for dismal turnout-- and dismal years. Bauman and Israel pushed Pete Aguilar, a failed bank lobbyist and crony of Jerry Lewis' old Redlands machine pretending to be a Democrat, for a second cycle in a row, helping him to a primary win against a candidate, Eloise Reyes, who would now be wiping the floor with Republican nonentity-- and likely congressman-- Paul Chabot. Instead the DCCC and their House Majority PAC have squandered $1,447,118 on a D+5 solid blue district where the NRCC didn't spend a nickel (although the NRA did spend $4,530).

Vice President Joe Biden is visiting the Indland Empire on Saturday, in an effort to prop up the campaign of Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands), who is running in the open 31st Congressional District against Paul Chabot (R-Rancho Cucamonga), Sources tell InlandPolitics the Aguilar camp is feeling pretty stressed these days, and rightfully so.

Aguilar could easily lose again.

Republicans don't win in D+3 districts, not ever. D+5? Only when someone like Steve Israel is running the DCCC and can get away with recruiting something like Pete Aguilar as the Beltway's favorite candidate. This week, coincidentally, a friend of mine, Moe, dug up a Washington Post OpEd from a reform-minded Democratic congressional candidate, Advise and Resent: Mr. Smith Went to Washington-- and Fled the PACs, which was published on August 25, 1991. It's worth reading and relating to the situation DCCC chairs like Rahm Emanuel and Steve Israel have reinforced and are still reinforcing on House Democrats and candidates who would like to run for Congress.

Even in a quiet year, many believe, we Iowans are being inundated by presidential contenders. Our first-in-the-nation caucus state is seen as a model of democracy. Perhaps it is, yet there is a terrible feeling here that it just doesn't matter anymore. Those who once took pride in raising issues at their neighborhood caucuses, knowing they had a chance of affecting the national agenda, are feeling left out.

This has happened because people believe they're trying to work within an American campaign system that's gone haywire. I'm no political evangelist, but I've made it my business to tell my fellow Iowans just what's happened. More specifically, I tell them about my experience last year as a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.

They've found my experience appalling-- exemplifying what many Iowans believe has gone wrong: the dramatic shift from a participatory democracy to a highly centralized and manipulative system. At the risk of sounding naive, I'll confess that I was struck by this realization when I made my quest for the Democratic nomination in Iowa's second congressional district-- a seat vacated by Rep. Tom Tauke, who unsuccessfully challenged Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin.

My instruction was served up by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the group whose purpose it is to maintain a Democratic majority in the House. On March 1 last year, the DCCC put on a workshop for challengers at its Washington headquarters, a couple of blocks from the Capitol. The Republicans were doing the same thing at a different time and place.

I attended the workshop with 70 Democratic candidates from all over the country. We hoped that those in Washington, and particularly in my party, had been awakened to the compelling need for campaign reform. After all, one would have expected scandals like the "Keating Five" situation to have brought on a rush to find a better way. I looked forward to returning to Cedar Rapids filled with ideas, ideals, issues and inspiration.

It didn't happen that way. Instead, we were lectured by members of Congress, PAC representatives, pollsters, consultants and media specialists who told us how the "game" is played. As our tape recorders took down their words of wisdom, we heard political "axioms" like the following:

"Marty Stone, staff member of the DCCC: "Money drives this town."

"Tom King, principal of Fenn and King consultants: "You have to sell yourself in Washington first" (pointing out the primacy of Washington professionals over the people you intend to represent). "Negative politics in a primary campaign produces damaged goods," he added, "but you've got to do what you've got to do."

"Frank Greer of Greer, Margolis, Mitchell: "The game of raising PAC money here in Washington will make the difference. Understand how the game is played. It's crucial to your being one of the few that will win." He continued: "It doesn't matter whether negative campaigning is good or bad; it's a reality."

There was more advice at the workshop: Rep. Peter Hoagland, a Nebraska Democrat, assured us that "Raising campaign money from Washington PACs is much easier than from individuals because it's a business relationship."

I wondered just what kind of business relationship he had in mind. Having been in business for 25 years, I believed such a relationship to be an exchange of money or some other consideration for products or services of value. Marty Stone clarified this concept for us: "These people are paid to give you money," he said, "You have to do certain things, but they want to give you money."

George Gould of the letter-carriers union indirectly explained why so little PAC money goes to challengers-- and how PAC giving has less to do with ideology than with access to power: "I don't give my people's money to those I think are going to lose, so you have to convince me you're going to win."

He didn't mince words about the implied agreement between the PAC and the recipient of the PAC's largesse. Nor did he flinch when he said, "When you take PAC money, you are saying you're their friend."

As a candidate, I refused PAC money-- one of two House candidates in the nation to do so. In part, this was a reflection of the caucus-generated platform of Iowa Democrats-- one that called for an end to the influence of PACs and a limit to the obscene levels of campaign spending. In addition, I had been working for campaign reform since 1980 in the belief that the best way to return the agenda of representative democracy to its citizens is to assure a government beholden only to them and not to Washington-based, special-interest pressure groups.

In light of that, you can imagine my reaction to being lectured at the workshop by Hoagland, who said, "Some of you may be under pressure to repudiate PACs. I strongly suggest you not take the hook. Restrain yourself, don't let zeal for reform influence you. Process challenges just don't work."

There were many candidates present who, like myself, were fighting personal financial odds to take a year or more from their jobs to campaign for Congress. Nevertheless, we were told by Hoagland-- who, incidentally, spent $ 180,000 of his own money on his campaign-- that the "ultimate test of your commitment is how much of your own money you are willing to put into your own campaign. If you aren't willing to use your own money, you ought to think about [doing] something else."

He further urged us to adopt this approach because "It will be a permanent career change, you'll be here as long as you want." He was apparently underscoring a system of campaign funding that has become an overwhelmingly effective incumbent-protection tool. He was also, in my view, advocating the principle that personal wealth is an appropriate qualification for election to office.

The complete Washingtonization of politics had become abundantly clear. It was all right there. Everything you could ever want for a successful election was either right in the room or within walking distance. The second day of the workshop began with a "mating dance" brunch, limited to candidates and PACs. Candidates wore blue name tags and PACs wore red. The occasion was opened by Arkansas Rep. Beryl Anthony, then head of the DCCC, who defined PACs as an acronym for "People Are Concerned." He said that candidates facing those who criticize PACs must "take that issue straight to 'em because PACs represent thousands of little people."

I saw the Phillips Petroleum PAC representative smile with approval. I wondered if he was representative of the "little people" to whom Anthony referred. The congressman went on to tell the PAC people they'd be able to pick winners and find matches in the room that will "make your board of directors proud of you."

Candidates were coached to hire Washington consultants and pollsters with the money they raised from Washington PACs. Hoagland told us we "must hire world-class people and not local [back home] people. That's why you have to raise a lot of money." The letter-carriers' Gould said, "You can't hire local people-- forget it!"

Talk about vertical integration of the campaign industry! Here was a congressman telling us how to get the money and a PAC director giving the specifics, while on the same panel were the consultants, pollsters and media gurus who were ready to spend every dime of it for us. Left out of the equation were the people I sought to represent.

Gould went on to warn candidates of the folly of involving volunteers from home districts, saying we may need them near election day to "walk the streets." Said Gould, "In the first phases they'll be no help. They can't do polling, radio, direct mail or TV." At the moment he spoke, my campaign had scores of volunteers who still believed in a government "of the people," phoning neighbors to talk about the campaign and issues that concerned them. Other volunteers were stuffing and stamping envelopes for a "direct mail" response to those concerns.

I suppose you could say that my reaction was pretty emotional. I stood and implored the candidates and panelists, saying that much of what we'd heard is much of what is wrong with the process of politics, campaigns and government today. I told the gathering that it ought to be the Democrats who lead the effort to end the kind of politics we had been coached that day to execute.

There was an uncomfortable moment of silence after my comments. It was broken when PAC director Gould said, "Well, I guess we don't have to worry about contributing to that campaign!" There was polite laughter and the workshop proceeded.

Later, though, many of the candidates approached me individually to second my chagrin about a system out of control. At one point, there were five of us in the restroom during a break, railing against the seaminess and proposing how we might best change the system. However, most of them already had committed to raising as much PAC money as they could, so they didn't want to express their concern in the presence of PACs and the DCCC. But, before the workshop was over, more than half of the candidates present, one at a time, whispered their affirmation of my remarks and their deep disappointment in the position of those representing our party.

One lasting impression came during a brief discussion I had with a would-be candidate who decided, during those two days, not to run. "This has got to change," he confided. He pointed out the difficulty of bringing such activity to an end. A psychologist by profession, he concluded that the behavior we witnessed was addictive in nature and that he had often seen similar symptoms in his practice. We mused that the habit-forming "politically addictive cocaine-- PAC" fueled all of what we saw here. It is an addiction, he said, that has to be "kicked."

In looking back, I realize how serious Frank Greer was when he said, "The campaigns that get the help are the ones that listen to the DCCC when they say that you have to go after a specific PAC and the like. The candidates that listen will get the help in the last few months of the campaign."

Our campaign was cut from the DCCC mailing list soon after the workshop. The issue papers, congressional calendars, updates on important legislation and all the rest were sent only to my primary opponent, Eric Tabor, who was making his third run for the House. He had been the third highest PAC-funded challenger in the nation during the prior election. On election night, when I called my opponent's office to concede, the person who answered his phone was a paid staff member of the DCCC. In November, Tabor was defeated by Republican Jim Nussel.

Now, the Senate has taken some steps toward campaign reform, and the measure it passed in the spring is before the House. I would like to show members of Congress the petition I have. It was signed by the 13 members of the Daughters of the American Revolution who met on a Tuesday noon in the library in Marion, Iowa. The same response came from the 41 members of the Clinton Kiwanis Club; 27 members at the meeting of UAW Local 1024; the executive committee of the Linn County Farm Bureau; the Lions Club of Lansing; Rotarians in Manchester; a Guttenburg High School government class; a local chapter of the American Business Women's Association; Dubuque Optimists; Teamsters retirees; the Cedar Rapids NAACP; and over 50 other diverse eastern Iowa service clubs, civic groups and the like.

The citizens at these gatherings, including Republicans, Democrats and independents, signed a petition that is a call to action to end the stranglehold that PACs have on democracy, return the agenda of government to its citizens and stop the "arms race" of campaign spending.

You have to wonder if it is possible for House members to hear the voices like those in eastern Iowa and join with the Senate to begin the return to a government of, by and for the people. Or will they adhere to a government of the PACs, by the consultants and for the special interests?

Steve Sovern, formerly a sign manufacturer, is now a law student at the University of Iowa.

What Did Pelosi See In Steve Israel? The DCCC Chairman Shows What He's Worth

In the final week of the midterm election cycle, House Republicans are on the offensive and an abysmally-led DCCC is retreating almost everywhere. Boehner is on the attack against Democratic incumbents while the DCCC-- which bragged all cycle about they have out raised the Republicans-- now says it doesn't have the resources to spend on its recruits and has abandoned almost all of them to their fates and the hands of surging Republicans.

The DCCC has been reduced to spending millions in districts that were "in the bag," like NY-11, where Michael Grimm was indicted on 20 criminal counts but will probably beat Israel's pathetic recruit, Domenic Recchia, or CA-31, where another execrable DCCC recruit, worthless bank lobbyist Pete Aguilar is making history by losing an overwhelmingly blue (D+5) district, despite out raising his GOP opponent $1,957,871 to $415,375. The GOP hasn't spent a nickel on behalf of Paul Chabot and the DCCC and their House Majority PAC have spent $1,297,759. Aguilar was also bolstered by the corrupt, right-wing Credit Union National Association PAC which took time out from their efforts on behalf of reactionaries Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Steve Southerland (R-FL) and Tony Strickland (R-CA) to pump $346,841 into Aguilar's campaign. All that said, an internal Aguilar poll shows him down 2-- and down 9 among high-propensity voters. As the DCCC should have learned in 2012, Aguilar's sleazy corrupt demeanor may make him fit in amazingly well among Beltway New Dems and the Steve Israel circle but ordinary working families in the Inland Empire want nothing to do with him. Had Steve Israel not interfered in the primary, Eloise Reyes would be up by double digits going into next week's vote.

Another Israel recruitment disaster has come home to roost in NY-19, a blue (D+1) district in Upstate New York, where Obama beat both McCain and Romney. The DCCC recruited a self-funding multimillionaire, turned him into a mystery-meat nothing and who now looks like he might not even get 40% of the vote. Last night the Siena Poll showed unimpressive GOP incumbent Chris Gibson leading Sean Eldridge by 23 points. This is a blue district... in New York. If Steve Israel, the most incompetent DCCC chairman since 1866, doesn't even know how to win those, why does anyone think he can win anything anywhere? Eldridge has outspent Gibson $4,659,027 to $1,798,884-- most of which, $2,840,000, came from his own personal bank account.

A week before Election Day, Republican Representative Chris Gibson continues to hold a commanding lead over Democrat Sean Eldridge. Gibson holds a 58-35 percent lead, virtually unchanged from his 57-33 percent lead seven weeks ago, according to a new Time Warner Cable News/Siena College poll of likely 19th C.D. voters released today.  By a 60-25 percent margin, voters have a favorable view of Gibson, whereas Eldridge divides voters, with 33 percent viewing him favorably and 35 percent unfavorably.

“Gibson heads into the final week of the campaign largely unscathed and with a commanding 23-point lead over Eldridge,” said Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg. “Over the last seven weeks, the Eldridge campaign has gained little or no traction with practically any constituency.

“Gibson has overwhelming support from 86 percent of Republicans, strong support from 60 percent of independents, and even has the support of more than one-quarter of Democrats, all virtually the same as the previous Time Warner Cable News/Siena poll,” Greenberg said. “He maintains a 13-point lead in the Ulster/Dutchess portion of the district and better than two-to-one leads in the other regions. He has a dominating 42-pont lead with men and leads among women by nine points. He leads by more than 20 points with voters 55 and older and has an even larger lead with voters younger than 55,” Greenberg said.

And the only really good news coming back from the pollsters-- from MI-06, the Paul Clements race against Fred Upton-- is a race Steve Israel not only refused to let the DCCC get involved with but one in which he worked actively against the Democrat to help the Republican! Despite Israel's treachery and despite him having wasted millions of dollars on races in Michigan he's now abandoned as hopeless, the MI-06 race is now within the margin of error. An entirely grassroots effort, it could well be the only glimmer of hope for House Democrats next Tuesday!

The race in Michigan Congressional District 6 has narrowed significantly in recent weeks, as voters have learned more about the negative aspects of Fred Upton’s tenure in Congress, and have been introduced to a viable alternative in Democrat Paul Clements. Additionally, political gaffes by Upton have brought scrutiny to this long-term incumbent who has never faced a credible challenger in a district that Barack Obama won in 2008 and trailed Mitt Romney by only 1.4 percentage points in 2012. Paul Clements has momentum in the closing days of the campaign, in what has turned out to be the most competitive congressional race in Michigan, for a seat that many thought was safe for Republicans.

Paul Clements has momentum on his side, and a top-ticket Democrat leading the way. The race for Congress has narrowed significantly since our last survey only three weeks ago (43% Clements – 47% Upton – 10% undecided). At the top of the ticket, Democrat Gary Peters has a strong lead in the U.S. Senate race in this district (48% Peters – 39% Terri Lynn Land – 12% undecided)... Clements’ path to victory comes by converting Democrats and Independents who are already supporting Democrat Gary Peters in the U.S. Senate race to his side.

...With persistent outside pressure focused on how Fred Upton has changed in the 27 years he has spent in Washington, it is possible for Paul Clements to defeat a long-time Republican incumbent. It is the job of the Clements campaign to finish with powerful positive communications in the closing week of the race, to continue to introduce Clements to Democrats and Independents who are inclined to split their ticket, but have growing reservations about supporting Fred Upton. With a strong fundraising week to finish the campaign, we can make this the “race to watch” in Michigan next Tuesday.

As recently as last week, Israel was working the phones, demanding Democratic groups not help Clements beat Upton. If Clements wins next week, it will be a resounding victory for the grassroots over the corrupt, transpartisan Beltway Establishment of which both Upton and Israel are so emblematic.

Tuesday Alex Isenstadt wrote that House Democrats are fretting over the prospect of debilitating losses Tuesday. They should have fretted when Pelosi reappointed Israel after his disastrous 2012 cycle. Israel is trying too blame progressive donors and President Obama's unpopularity to take the spotlight away from his own corruption, his deals with the GOP leadership, and, most of all, his breathtaking incompetence.

Looking to contain the damage, Democrats are pumping money into liberal congressional districts that were long thought to be safely in their column. Over the last several days, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has directed resources to maintain seats in Hawaii and Nevada, both of which broke sharply for the president in 2012-- an indication of just how much the terrain has shifted against the party over the past two years.

Other unexpected races are suddenly in play. Some Democrats, for example, have begun to worry about the prospects of California Rep. Lois Capps, an eight-term congresswoman who is typically a lock for reelection but who now finds herself in a competitive race against Republican Chris Mitchum, a perennial candidate and the son of the late actor Robert Mitchum. In a sign of how seriously national Democrats are taking the threat, the DCCC is making a last-minute purchase of $99,000 worth of radio advertising in the Santa Barbara area to boost Capps, according to a committee aide.

...Capps isn’t the only incumbent Democratic officials are scrambling at the last minute to defend. DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) recently coordinated a fundraising event for Rep. Dave Loebsack, a fourth-term Iowa incumbent who has recently come under barrage from GOP groups, and reached out to donors on his behalf.

On Tuesday afternoon, Israel and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will hold a hastily-planned conference call for members to provide them with an update on the political terrain and to press them to contribute to the party’s coffers.

...In many instances, Republicans are spending money to put races in play that had long been considered safe for Democrats. American Action Network, a national group with ties to House Speaker John Boehner, has begun airing TV commercials in blue districts in Hawaii and eastern Iowa.

The maneuvering has prompted Democratic groups to yank money from districts they’re trying to seize from Republicans in order to protect seats they already control. Over the past several weeks, the DCCC has pulled funds from top recruits in Colorado and Virginia and begun running TV ads in two eastern Iowa districts, both of which Obama won in 2012.

The Wall Street Journal had a similar report yesterday-- Republicans advancing, Israel leading Democrats into retreat after retreat. "The last-minute maneuvering has the potential, if races break their way, to bring Republicans closer to the 12-seat gain needed to match the party’s post-World War II record of holding 246 House seats. Democrats, aware of the headwind against them, have withdrawn money recently from some GOP-held districts and redirected it largely to endangered incumbents in an effort to limit GOP gains."

The Republican entrance into additional districts-- in Iowa, Nevada and elsewhere-- adds to evidence that voters are making a late turn away from the Democratic party. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Annenberg survey released Sunday found Republicans with a four-point lead among registered voters on which party should control Congress, with 46% favoring the GOP and 42% preferring Democratic control.

Had Pelosi chosen a more competent, less corrupt DCCC chair after Israel wrecked the Democrats' hopes to win back the House in 2012, would the situation be different today? Undoubtably... and we'll be exploring the specifics of that, race by race, over the next two weeks.

Steve Israel Cutting More Of His Terrible Recruits Loose-- Jerry Cannon (MI-01)

Steve Israel picks candidates who disagree with these wild ideas-- and they lose

Back in May, the DCCC announced they had reserved $43.5 million in TV time for endangered incumbents like Blue Dogs John Barrow, Nick Rahall and Collin Peterson and for Steve Israel's mostly wretched, conservative, doomed recruits. One of his worst recruits, Michigan reactionary and anti-Choice nut Jerry Cannon-- the former commandante of the Guantánamo gulag-- was promised two big runs of negative ads against Republican incumbent Dan Benishek: $450,000 on Traverse City broadcast from Sept. 2 to Sept. 22, and $490,000 on Traverse City broadcast from Oct. 14 to Nov. 4. On top of that the ironically-named House Majority PAC controlled by Pelosi reserved another $375,306 for the weeks the DCCC wasn't up on the air (like now), $225,245 in Traverse City and $150,061 in Marquette.

So far the DCCC ran most of the ads from the first flight-- $417,662 worth to be precise, all of it in a negative attack ad against Benishek-- which prompted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to dump $500,572 into the campaign opposing Cannon and bolstering Benishek. And last week the NRCC spent $162,836 on TV time attacking Cannon.

As of July 16, Benishek had raised $1,497,655 and Cannon had raised $647,734. At that time Benishek had $830,703 cash-on-hand to Cannon's $336,663. Cannon was counting on that second DCCC flight of ads-- $490,000-- plus the $375,306 from the House Majority PAC to make him competitive in the final weeks of the campaign. But there were no House Majority PAC ads running this week.

One of Israel's worst and most conservative recruits of the cycle, Cannon hasn't been able to get any traction outside of partisan Democrats. Without motivating independents in this R+5 district, Cannon isn't going anywhere. Roll Call reports that neither Cannon himself, the DCCC nor the House Majority PAC have bought or reserved airtime for the week of Sept. 30.

Cannon plans to be back on the air on Oct. 6, and the DCCC reserved another weeks-long window beginning Oct. 14.

The cancellation occurred several weeks ago, according to a Democratic insider. On Sept. 16, the National Republican Congressional Committee reserved $1 million in the Traverse City market.

Cannon was touted by Democrats as a top recruit. While he built a large war chest for his campaign, he was not among the top tier of his recruitment class’ fundraisers.

The DCCC is flush with cash but is realizing its recruitment was a bust and they're stuck with miserable candidates who can't win and aren't worth spending any money on. Last week they pulled the plug on Aaron Woolf in upstate New York's 21st CD, where right-wing New Dem Bill Owens decided to retire rather than be humiliated at the polls. Israel has given up on this one entirely and is allowing Elise Stefanik to walk into Congress in a district Obama won with 52% against McCain and 52% against Romney. Earlier, Israel told some of his other especially bad recruits-- like, CIA agents Kevin Strouse (PA-08) and Bobby McKenzie (MI-11), John Lewis (MT-AL), Bill Hughes (NJ-02) and Jennifer Garrison (OH-06), who he was rumored to be inappropriately intimate with-- that they are on their own and to expect no DCCC financial help. There have been rumors, unconfirmed, that Israel is also getting squirrelly about Ann Callis (IL-13), Pam Byrnes (MI-07), Amanda Renteria (CA-21) and, predictably, Sean Eldridge (NY-19). EXpect clarification over the next couple of weeks. Many congressional observers feel that Israel will see so many of his recruits underperforming and with virtually zero chance to win, that he'll hold onto the money or spend it on vulnerable incumbents. The House Majority PAC has been shifting significant money to protect unpopular incumbents like New Dem Ami Bera (CA), Blue Dog Nick Rahall (WV), Blue Dog John Barrow (GA), New Dem Elizabeth Esty (CT), and Raul Ruiz (CA)-- as well as large sums into CA-31, a D+5 district that would be a gimme except for the atrocious recruit, Pete Aguilar, one of Israel's biggest blunders.

The House Majority PAC just committed to spend $363,274 there, a district that they had hoped would have been all wrapped up by now. Last week, one of the sleaziest and most corrupt lobbying operations in the country had their PAC, the Credit Union National Association (which is, quite predictably, close with Israel) dump another $149,653 into an I.E. for Aguilar. The DCCC has already wasted $515,278 and so far the House Majority PAC has tossed in $86,823. Neither the NRCC nor any GOP-oriented outside groups have put in any money to help Aguilar's hapless opponent, Paul Chabot. By June 30, Israel had helped Aguilar raise $1,327,366, while Chabot only managed to bring in a meager $164,912. He had $26,342 cash-on-hand to Aguilar's $325,729. But even with an overwhelming registration advantage for the Democrats-- Obama won the district 57-41% in 2008 and the same in 2012 and the latest registration report shows 123,42 registered Dems (40.08%) to 104,673 registered Republicans (33.97%)-- Israel is so nervous that his pitiful recruit will blow the race again that he's likely to waste a million dollars in what would have been a freebie had progressive Eloise Reyes been the candidate, which she would have been without Israel's meddling on behalf of Aguilar. This is Aguilar; would you vote for him?

Steve Israel candidate

Can Anyone Trust Pete Aguilar?

Substance abuser and New Dem Petey-Pie lets his hair down

I don't think even someone as astoundingly incompetent as Steve Israel could lose CA-31-- the Inland Empire congressional district-- for the Democrats again this year, despite having maneuvered to get an ethics-free, corrupt ex-lobbyist,  Pete Aguilar, the nomination. After all, the district has a PVI of D+5, Obama won it both times with 57% and the Republican incumbent Israel allowed to slip in in 2012, Gary Miller, is retiring. Almost nothing short of a coke bust-- always possible considering the photo above-- or a rape will keep Aguilar from beating GOP outsider Paul Cabot, despite Chabot coming in first in the primary with 14,163 votes (26.6%) to Aguilar's 9,242 (17.4%). And a Republican came in in 3rd place as well, Lesli Gooch, with 9,033 votes (17.0%). Aguilar is counting on the 19,074 votes (35.8%) 3 other Democrats-- Eloise Reyes, Joe Baca and Danny Tillman-- got in the race. And I'm sure he'll get some of them, although Baca hates him with a passion and is telling people to not vote for him; Tillman told him to go screw himself when he asked for his support; and Reyes isn't much of a fan either, despite giving him a polite pro forma endorsement. Baca and Tillman point right to Steve Israel's heavy-handed bumbling for why they won't back Aguilar now. Even Gregg Walden, the GOP version of Israel admits that it would be next to impossible for the Republicans to hold the district.

As of the June 30 FEC filings, Aguilar had raised $1,327,366, spent $1,021,285 and was sitting with $325,729 cash on hand. Chabot had only raised $164,912 and was sitting on a pitiful $26,342. Southern California Republicans Kevin McCarthy, Ken Calvert, Duncan Hunter and Darrell Issa have promised to raise him enough cash to stay competitive with Aguilar.

There has been no outside interest from independent right-wing groups in helping Chabot so far and the DCCC and its House Majority PAC have spent $162,753 on Aguilar already and plan to spend a lot more (in a district that should be a gimme). Robert Conaway won the Democratic nomination to run in the 8th district, due north and east of the 31st. It's one of California's reddest districts (PVI is R+10) and Obama lost to McCain and to Romney with 42% each year. In 2012, the two highest vote-getters in the open primary were Cook and a deranged teabagger, Gregg Imus, andRobert Conaway's wife, Jackie came 4th after 3 Republicans with 14.3%. This time her husband avoided that came fate, coming in second with 18.7%, behind Cook with 58.1% and ahead of the second-ranking Republican, Paul Hannosh who got 13.1%. Friday, Conaway penned an OpEd in one of the local newspapers, Why I Can't Trust Pete Aguilar. Aguilar, who was never really a Democrat until he decided to front for the Chamber of Commerce as "their" appointed Hispanic on the City Council and then as their appointed mayor, is extremely tight with the Republican Machine. His conservative views mesh nicely with them as well.

On February 8, 2014, while winning the California Democratic Party’s pre-endorsement at a caucus in the Antelope Valley, I was personaly promised by Pete Aguilar that he would work with me and looked forward to working with me in Washington.

After both Pete and I earned the full party’s nomination at the California Democratic Party’s state convention on March 9, 2014 and thereafter helped each other by honoring the State Party endorsement to only support each other (despite the pressures from other democrats running against us both in each of our Districts), we both advanced in June as one of the top two finishers (Aguilar is up against Chabot and I against Paul Cook)-- with Aguilar’s supporters spending a reported $1.9 million and well my spending, well less than $5,000 (but I won by more votes and by a bigger margin-- hmm).

On July 17, 2014, long after the primary victories, Candidate Pete Aguilar shows his loyalty and trustworthiness in an interview with the Washington Post’s Jeff Simon where he says in response to “Who is your favorite republican politician?” Aguilar replies:

“You know what, I am going to say Congress Paul Cook from our area. He is a Great guy. A decorated war veteran. I’ve worked with Paul in the local government world when he was a local mayor as well and just a fantastic individual. We will disagree on a lot of issues, but if I am going to sit a plane with someone from our region, I would love to sit next to Paul Cook and pick his brain and talk about the region”

When I asked the Aguilar campaign to take the link to Facebook and campaign website link down to the Washington Post website-based interview, the campaign manager [Boris] on July 24, 2014 after a San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee meeting wanted to talk with me and after agreeing it “was an attack” and he “was present at the interview,” conditioned removal of the links on not making a formal protest of what anyone could logically consider to be an endorsement of the opposition candidate.

That the Cook campaign or one of its surrogates will run an ad or send a flyer with Pete Aguilar’s face on it and the text of his praise for Paul Cook is the next problem, as it will be a flyer that will target Democratic voters that last time had the choice between Imus (a Tea Party Republican) and Cook due to the quirk of an open primary.

Politics are dirty in the Inland Empire and while Aguilar may be new to Congressional politics, to me, he is the same ole’ sack of shit and makes me think, just maybe Aguilar thought he was answering the Yankee Stadium fans’ question, “Who’s your daddy?”

And here I always thought Aguilar's daddy was Jerry Lewis… and Steve Israel. Oh, and Herman Aguilar who he told the media had died as an excuse for losing in 2012. Herman is back from the dead and campaigning for him again this year.

Corrupt Inland Empire conservatives rally around their boy Pete Aguilar, including his pal Jerry Lewis,  Bill Emmerson,  Mike Morrell  and, of course, Gary Miller 

Steve Israel Digs Up Another Batch Of Losers To Waste DCCC Money On

There were a lot of Democrats who won tough primaries last Tuesday, but there was only one that caused an orgy of twitter ecstasy from the DCCC: Petey Pie, Steve Israel's flawed New Dem who would like to get into Congress so he can help the Republicans cut Social Security benefits for retirees while increasing his perceived value as a lobbyist, when he goes back to his original profession. The DCCC celebrated that Aguilar and the Credit Union PAC were able to effectively smear progressive labor lawyer Eloise Reyes so that he was able to eke out a weak second-place victory in the Inland Empire (CA-31) jungle primary. Israel immediately stuck him into the Red-to-Blue program, indicating the DCCC is likely to spend whatever it takes to elect another drugged-up mess to Congress.

But Aguilar wasn't the only pathetic loser Israel put into the program. Almost all the candidates he put on the list will fail in November. And, as expected, only the barest minimum of progressives were put on the list-- Pat Murphy of Iowa (in a D+5 already blue district) and Michael Eggman of California (in an R+1 district). Today one of California's most astute political observers said she'd bet me that Aguilar loses in November. I told her it seemed demographically impossible. She said if any Democrat could lose two cycles in a row in a D+5/minority-majority district it is Pete Aguilar. "I bet he blunders into an embarrassing loss," she told me. I doubt she's right… but I didn't doubt it enough to take the bet. Under severe pressure from some big donors, Israel added poor little rich boy/carpetbagger Sean Eldridge (NY-19) to Red to Blue last week. He'll lose for sure.

Yesterday's additions were almost all in unwinnable districts. The PVIs and the Rothenberg/Roll Call projections are next to the names:

• AR-04- Blue Dog James Lee Witt- R+15 (safe Republican)
• CA-10- Michael Eggman- R+1 (favored Republican)
• CA-31- New Dem Pete Aguilar- D+5 (leans Democrat)
• IA-01- Pat Murphy- D+5 (safe Democrat)
• IA-04- Jim Mowrer- R+5 (safe Republican)
• NE-02- Brad Ashford- R+4 (favored Republican)
• PA-06- New Dem Manan Trivedi- R+2 (leans Republican)
• PA-08- Kevin Strouse- R+1 (favored Republican)
• WV-02- Nick Casey- R+11 (leans Republican)

Murphy and Aguilar are the only likely winners, although if Israel is serious about helping Eggman (which I'll believe when I see), he could take out Denham. The rest of these seats are hopeless. Israel also announced 6 new additions to the utterly meaningless Emerging Races List, basically a signal to big donors that the DCCC isn't supporting the candidates. There's only one likely winner on the list, Mike Obermueller, a progressive who belongs on the Red-to-Blue list itself. Israel left off Clay Aiken Friday when the new additions were announced but his name suddenly showed up a couple of hours later. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation.

• IN-02- Joe Bock- R+6 (favored Republican)
• KY-06- Elisabeth Jensen- R+9 (safe Republican)
• MN-02- Mike Obermueller- R+2 (leans Republican)
• NC-02 Clay Aiken- R+10 (safe Republican)
• ND-AL- George Sinner- R+10 (safe Republican)
• WV-01- Glen Gainer- R+14 (safe Republican)

Israel (and Wasserman Schultz), having already made sure that their pal Ilean Ros Lehtinen will face no opposition this cycle (in a blue district ripe for change), persists in ignoring the most vulnerable district in Michigan, MI-06, a district with an R+1 PVI and a viable challenger, Paul Clements who Israel is working furiously to bury and make invisible to the Beltway media. Sierra Club, though, has already endorsed, as has Blue America. Hopefully the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the PCCC, DFA and MoveOn will catch on to what Israel is trying to do. Meanwhile, if you'd like to help an actual progressive win a House seat, you can contribute to Clements' campaign here

What Happened In California Last Night?

Israel, Aguilar-- a victory for the Republican wing of the Democratic Party

There were, at least in theory, 53 congressional seats up for grabs in California last night. Almost all of them, however, were't really up for grabs, at least not last night. Four, however, were: 3 open seats-- retirements of Republican Buck McKeon (CA-25), Republican Gary Miller (CA-31) and Democrat Henry Waxman (CA-33)-- and a heavily financed insurgency by a ConservaDem, Ro Khanna, against progressive icon Mike Honda (CA-17).

Two of the districts are natural Red-to-Blue targets: CA-25 and CA-31. CA-31 is a D+5 district and Democrats should have captured it in 2012-- and would have had DCCC chairman Steve Israel not interfered on behalf of corrupt conservative Pete Aguilar. Israel did the same thing again this cycle, even though a far more electable candidate, Eloise Reyes, was in the race. He helped Aguilar with fundraising, helped poison the well for Reyes and spent $172,269 attacking Republican Lesli Gooch and hated Democrat Joe Baca. The results were nearly a replay of last cycle's catastrophe:

• Paul Chabot ®- 11,329 (27%)
• Pete Aguilar (D)- 7,368 (17%)
• Lesli Gooch ®- 6,978 (17%)
• Eloise Reyes (D)- 6,746 (16%)
• Joe Baca (D)- 4,799 (11%)
• Danny Tillman (D)- 3,648 (9%)
• Ryan Downing ®- 1,421 (3%)

Aguilar managed to slip into second place by a mere 390 votes, avoiding Republican vs Republican general election like the one Israel presided over in 2012. But that is exactly what did happen in CA-25, where Israel's heinous posture was even worse. Cook reports that the district has a PVI of R+2. That's old news. SantaClarita.com; shows the way the district has changed and clearly predicts that by November, CA-25 will have an even PVI.

While all eyes have been fixed on the very loud and expensive primary campaign that's pitted Republican hopefuls Tony Strickland and Steve Knight against one another in hopes of facing Democrat Lee Rogers in November, a strange thing has been happening within the district: Democrats have been closing in on Republicans rapidly this year.

The five-point spread in party registration that the GOP enjoyed two years ago is now just a one-point spread today. In fact, the Democrats have narrowed the gap by 2.6% since December 31.

The reason for this appears to be a significant push by Democrats in the 36th Assembly District (Antelope Valley and some parts of northern SCV)… [T]he City of Santa Clarita has a 6.7% GOP advantage, down from 9% in 2012 (ten years ago, it was 17%).

Last cycle, one of the biggest Democratic donors was trying to get me to join the board iof a music-related company she was forming. I had no interest. She was persistent but I really had no interest. And then she figured out a way to get me to change my mind. She offered to through an even for CA-25 candidate Lee Rogers at her mansion and guarantee she would raise a minimum of $50,000 for him. Sign me up! We agreed to meet at some watering hole where people like me avoid like the plague. I think I may have even changed out of my hoodie. I shouldn't have. She swept into the room and informed me that, "Darling, Steve told me your candidate isn't serious and isn't even going to really run. He knows about these things." Undermining progressive candidates like this is something I've watched Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, Debbie Wasserman Schulz and Steve Israel do for years. She didn't do the event for Lee and I didn't join her board. He was serious of course and he did run-- and came closer to beating Buck McKeon than anyone else ever had. He came so close, in fact, that McKeon decided to avoid a rematch by becoming a lobbyist.

This cycle, Israel did his worst to prevent Lee Rogers from winning a very winnable open seat. He'd rather spend DCCC money on Blue Dogs and New Dems running in much, much redder and much less winnable districts. AR-02, for example, is an Israel fave. He's already reserved $625,000 in broadcast time between October 21 and November 4, even though the Democrat in the race is a conservative who has signaled he'll be regularly voting with the GOP and even though the district has a PVI of R+8. Rogers, who hwas endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is in a district with a rapidly narrowing 1% registration gap was left to fend for himself. The DCCC spent no money in CA-25 the way they did in CA-31. The result: a Republican vs Republican general election in November:

• Tony Strickland ®- 14,573 (29%)
• Steve Knight ®- 14,016 (28%)
• Lee Rogers (D)- 11,107 (22%)
• Ivan Thomas (D)- 4,868 (10%)
• Troy Castagna ®- 2,905 (6%)
• David Bruce (L)- 907 (2%)
• Michael Mussack (NPD)- 700 (1%)
• Navraj Singh ®- 534 (1%)

CA-33 was the most-watched race in the state, with 18 candidates on the ballot. 17.7% of registered voters bothered casting ballots. The DCCC played no role, although the California Democratic Party worked on behalf of Ted Lieu, who will face off against Republican Elan Carr in November and, hopefully, ending the political career of carpetbagger Wendy Greuel. The results among the 8 candidates who got more than 1% of the vote (along with the amount each campaign spent):

• Elan Carr ®- 17,904 (21.49%)- $402,594
• Ted Lieu (D)- 15,870 (19.05%)- $448,551
• Wendy Greuel (D)- 13,976 (16.77%)- $864,173
• Marianne Williamson (NDP)- 10,789 (12.95%)- $1,340,720
• Matt Miller (D)- 9,973 (11.97%)- $353,595
• Lily Gilani ®- 5,831 (7%)
• Barbara Mulvaney (D)- 1,945 (2.33%)- $142,096
• Kevin Mottus ®- 1,935 (2.32%) $64,373

Vanity candidate David Kanuth raised $912,945 and spent $609,153, and garnered 1,177 voted (1%) for his efforts. The only outside spending in the race was EMILY's List's $158,519 on behalf of Greuel and Blue America's $20,923 on behalf of Williamson. The tenor of Greuel's highly negative campaign turned off women voters she was depending on, acerbated her poor image with the voters and cost her a spot in the general. She has $185,960 left in her campaign treasury.

Up in the Silicon Valley area (CA-17), Mike Honda unleashed a can of whoop-ass on plutocrat-backed Ro Khanna, beating him decisively. The results, again, with amounts spent:

• Mike Honda (D)- 28,136 (49%)- $1,122,500
• Ro Khanna (D)- 15,691 (27%)- $2,615,519
• Vanila Singh ®- 9,783 (17%)- $216,771
• Joel Vanlandingham ®- 4,248 (7%)

Honda and Khanna will face off in November.

Last night Blue America challengers Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12) and Pat Murphy (IA-01) won their primaries and, like Ted Lieu (CA-33), advance to the general election. If you'd like to give them a boost, you can do that here on the Blue America ActBlue page. Next week's key primaries are opportunities for Patrick Hope (VA-08) and Jay Stamper in the South Carolina Senate race.

Next Batch Of Key Primaries-- A Week From Today

L.A.'s dirtiest politician, Wendy Greuel, learned her political skills while she was still openly admitting she was a Republican. Vicious, negative campaigning is all she's ever known

A week from today there are important primaries in Iowa-- where progressive champion Pat Murphy is leading comfortably in his crowded House race-- in New Jersey and in California (as well as in some other states without significant Democratic contests). Here is California-- the land of the idiotic jungle primary-- there are 3 crucial races.

Will enough Democrats turn out in CA-25 so that Democrat Lee Rogers winds up in the final two rather than both Republicans, corrupt Establishment hack Tony Strickland and crazed teabagger Steve Knight? The most recent polling shows Rogers narrowly ahead of both Strickland and Knight but turnout next Tuesday is all that matters, not how people respond to theoretical questions from a pollster. Presumably, Strickland's gun mania on top of the mass murders in his old district, has mainstream and independent voters thinking long and hard if that's the kind of candidate they want representing them in Congress.

And due south, on the other side of L.A., CA-31 has a classic example of the two wings of the Democratic Party facing off against each other. Backed by the DCCC, the corrupt New Dems, Wall Street shysters and the local transpartisan Chamber of Commerce types, we have last cycle's pathetic loser, Pete Aguilar, from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. He's working day and night to smear Eloise Gomez Reyes, a labor lawyer from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, who has been endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and by progressive leaders like Xavier Becerra, Hilda Solis, Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Janice Hahn, Lucille Roybal-Allard, as well as by the SEIU and the National Organization of Women (NOW) and the San Bernardino Sun. The most predatory Wall Street interests are spending hand over fist to cover the district with ugly, negative messages about Eloise, a selfless and inspirational figure, on behalf of Aguilar, who has served them well as a frontman in the past and who they want to see in Washington.

Although this is a D+5 district-- the bluest district in America (by far) with a Republican incumbent-- the Aguilar/Israel brain trust lost it in 2012 and are on the road to seeing if they can lose it again in 2014. The latest polling shows a Republican in the top position, another Republican with a humongous war chest hovering for the second spot, and Aguilar, Reyes and the pathetic Joe Baca all bunched up together. If Eloise wins the primary a week from today, she'll be the next congresswoman from CA-31. If Aguilar wins the primary, Wall Street gets another sure vote-- either his or a Republican's. It doesn't matter to them.

The third California district with an important primary is CA-33, where Henry Waxman is retiring. Blue America has done a first-ever dual endorsement for the official Democratic Party candidate, progressive state Senator Ted Lieu, and the inspiration independent in the race-- think Bernie Sanders-- Marianne Williamson. There are 18 candidates, although some have withdrawn (Brent Roske, endorsing Marianne on the way out), and Ted and Marianne are far from the only good ones. I've been tremendously impressed by Barbara Mulvaney, for example, who, like Ted and Marianne, would single-handedly raise the calibre of Congress if elected. The 3 open Republicans in the race are dreadful, but just as bad is the "former" Republican who switched her party registration after the Reagan elections and after she realized Los Angeles political expediency demanded it. That, of course, is Valley carpetbagger Wendy Greuel, the worst candidate of all. Nearly as bad, is the other suspect Democrat in the race, proud-- and foolish-- centrist Matt Miller, eager to cut granny's Social Security and Medicare benefits. He's the candidate of the DC/Wall Street bureaucracy. Lawrence Summers endorsed him. Maybe he plans to role one out from Harold Ford, Jr. this week.

Even though Ted Lieu is the official Democratic Party candidate, Greuel is the Dark Money candidate and she's got the big army of sleazy consultants and dirty players. Daily Breeze airport and airlines reporter Brian Sumers referred to her as "the closest thing to a favorite in the crowded field," although that isn't borne out by polling, which shows her with nearly insurmountable negatives, due primarily to the vicious, hateful race she ran against Eric Garcetti last year.

Please consider GOTV contributions today for Dave Cole and Bonnie Watson Coleman in New Jersey, Pat Murphy in Iowa, and Lee Rogers, Eloise Reyes and Ted Lieu in California.

Pay 2 Play is a stark and revealing new John Ennis film about American politics. Please watch the trailer below. You may recognize American culture heroes in the movie, like Robert Reich, Thom Hartmann, Noam Chomsky, John Nichols, Van Jones and Marianne Williamson. It's the kind of movie you'd expect to find a thought-leader like Marianne Williamson. Wendy Greuel? Ahh… no. Even though she was a bean counter at a film studio, there's never been a spark of creative energy coming from her direction. How about Tony Strickland or Pete Aguilar? Well, maybe… if the filmmakers wanted to give a counterpoint to their powerful critique that politicians reward their donors with even larger sums from the public treasury-- through contracts, jobs, tax cuts, and deregulation. Or a couple of examples.

How The Big Times Media Covers The Local Congressional Races-- L.A. Times/CA-31

No one's even asking Jean Merl to explain this drunken, coked up mess

Jean Merl is the big kahuna among L.A. political journalists. She works at the L.A. Times and her articles are widely considered the most-read political stories in southern California, even though they generally lack context, insight and substance and are suspiciously similar to campaign talking points. If a reader expects to learn something more than superficial truisms, they'd better be prepared to do some investigation.

In today's Times for example, she has a short story about the Inland Empire (CA-31) race, Pete Aguilar's campaign surpasses $1 million in House race. A more useful article might explain who Aguilar's donors are and how his haul compares to that of his opponents. Jean might even mention that Aguilar is a lobbyist and has gotten huge amounts of money from banksters he's done work for as well as a massive $197,189 Independent Expenditure from the Big Money crooks who run the Credit Union National Association. (The only other I.E. they ran this cycle so far was for Mitch McConnell. Not noteworthy?)

Jean ended her story with the half-truth the DCCC and Aguilar has been pushing on credulous media, namely that the Democrats lost CA-31 last cycle because so many Democrats split the vote so many ways that both Republicans managed to slip in. "Two years ago," she wrote, parroting the DCCC line, "Aguilar narrowly missed getting on the fall ballot when he and three other Democrats splintered the vote, allowing two Republicans to advance." This chart shows what actually happened:

The two Republicans who made it through the primary in the D+5 Democratic district has a total of 51.8% of the vote. Even if Aguilar got every single vote that Justin Kim, Renea Wickman and Rita Ramirez-Dean "took away from him," he still wouldn't have made it into the general election. What the DCCC doesn't want the media looking at is what a weak and unacceptable candidate Aguilar was in 2012 and what a weak and unacceptable candidate he is in 2014. Maybe Jean could mention that the conservative New Dems endorsed Aguilar this week and that the Congressional Progressive Caucus endorsed Reyes. It wouldn't even require a lengthy explanation to get the point across-- though it isn't one that's being pushed by the press department at the DCCC.

There are a lot of interesting stories that the L.A. Times could run about this race and about who Pete Aguilar is… but they don't get wrapped neatly in a package with a big red bow and handed to Jean Merl. And, apparently, investigative journalism is not her thing. Pointless Gossip 101 is.