Today Is Election Day In Massachusetts

Whoever wins the Democratic primary in MA-05 today will be Congress' next member-- and they walk right into the dysfunctional mess in DC. Only one candidate is prepared to walk into that mess and take a significant role and that's Carl Sciortino. No way to be sure who's going to win today. The EMILY's List candidate, Katherine Clark wrote herself a check for a quarter million dollars to buy the seat and EMILY's List continues to pour massive amounts of money into the race-- another $58,666 just last week from their shady Women Vote SuperPAC that ran the misleading ads suggesting that Elizabeth Warren endorsed their horribly flawed pro-domestic spying candidate. Warren, of course, refused to do any such thing. In fact, all the congressional progressives who have endorsed in this race-- Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Mark Takano, Jared Polis and Keith Ellison-- have endorsed Sciortino. Sunday night Grayson sent out a finally message to his Massachusetts supporters urging them to get out and vote for Carl.

I always thought that defending Social Security and Medicare was a good thing. But apparently, the corporate media doesn't agree with me. So the corporate media has dumped all over Congressional candidate Carl Sciortino-- for defending Social Security and Medicare.



Earlier this year, as you may recall, there was a lot of nattering about cutting Social Security benefits by messing with the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). I didn't like that. My philosophy is simple: If it ain't broke, don't break it. So I authored the Grayson-Takano letter, pledging to vote against any and every cut in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Almost 50 of my House colleagues joined me. We posted the same pledge at No-Cuts.com, and that helped us to deliver almost 3,000,000 petition signatures to the White House and to the House Speaker against earned benefit cuts.



Call me naïve, but I think that it's very important to let the voters know where every candidate stands. So I have encouraged Congressional candidates across the country to take the pledge, and promise to vote against earned benefit cuts.

Carl Sciortino is running to replace now-Senator Ed Markey in the U.S. House of Representatives. He did just that. Carl Sciortino promised to protect Social Security and Medicare from benefit cuts.


That pledge should have earned Sciortino applause. Instead, it earned him a nasty smack from the Boston Globe. By way of background, the Boston Globe is now owned by a Wall Street commodities and futures trader (but then again, what isn't?). Needless to say, Wall Street wants to privatize Social Security, and voucherize Medicare. So this week, the Boston Globe condemned Sciortino's staunch support for Social Security and Medicare, citing it as evidence that Sciortino lacks "maturity." (Excuse me, but isn't it precisely the "mature" ones among us who are most dependent on Social Security and Medicare?)

The Boston Globe chose to endorse a different candidate in Carl's race, on the theory that her stated willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare supposedly marked her as the "mature" candidate, even though this might be "disappointing to liberals." (Irony alert: the other candidate actually had pledged to a liberal group that she would not cut Social Security and Medicare, just before pledging to the Boston Globe that she would. So it appears that pandering and prevarication are the best marks of "maturity.")

The good voters of Massachusetts are about to choose between Carl Sciortino, a fierce defender of Social Security and Medicare, and another candidate who stands for I-don't-know-what. Shortly, one of these two candidates will be serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, and voting on our Social Security and our Medicare.



I think that we had better support Carl Sciortino. Right now. Because our future is at stake.



Last call. Tuesday is Election Day in Carl's district.


 The race is all about turn-out now, of course, and Carl has an outstanding field team. Blue America's giant electronic billboard is now flashing a "Vote today" message, along with messages about being a proud liberal, a proponent of equal pay for women and someone willing to stand up to the NRA. We'll update this post tonight when the votes are counted.

The Home Stretch In Massachusetts Brings Out The Worst In EMILY's List-- As Usual

Of course Elizabeth Warren refused to endorse conservative shill Katherine Clark, but that didn't keep EMILY's List from printing up these fliers

Last April, Digby exposed the EMILY's List strategy for beating progressive L.A. mayoral contender-- and now progressive L.A. Mayor-- Eric Garcetti on behalf of their Republican-"turned"-Democrat conservative candidate with a sleazy campaign mailer you can see here. The obvious intention was to portray Garcetti, a happily married man and a naval officer, as a sleaze bag. L.A. voters know him too well, and the EMILY's List slimy tactics failed miserably and their pathetic candidate lost badly. EMILY's List sent out the shady mailer under another of the many names they use to mislead people: "California Women's Vote." Keep that in the back of your mind for a second.

A few years before that, EMILY's List financed a very corrupt conservative-- the Harold Ford Machine candidate-- against progressive Congressman Steve Cohen. EMILY's List didn't just finance a race-baiting sociopath against Tennessee's only good congressman, they financed a virulently anti-Semitic campaign against him-- so virulently anti-Semitic that when wealthy Jewish EMILY's List donors had a mass conniption, EMILY's List was forced to withdraw their endorsement… the day of the election! The EMILY's List executive who made the decision to go with Nikki Tinker was soon eased out. But EMILY's List disgusting and sleazy tactics-- like the ones used against Eric Garcetti-- are still the heart and soul of what they do when they take over a candidate's campaign. Five years ago, the day before the pressure got too intense on EMILY's List to keep backing Tinker, their anti-Semitic and homophobic candidate, I wrote this:

Tennessee holds its primary tomorrow and all eyes are on Memphis, where progressive freshman Steve Cohen, who is white and Jewish, is being challenged by a vicious anti-Semitic, racist pawn of ex-Congressman Harold Ford. It's been a very ugly race-- and the ugliness is all on one side, Nikki Tinker's. Steve Cohen was first elected in 2006 with the help of Blue America and we have enthusiastically endorsed him again. If you know anyone in Memphis, please call them and talk to them about this race. Cohen has been a real leader for working families and he is the only progressive congressman from Tennessee. Tinker is a complete corporate shill and far more conservative across a wide array of issues. Rahm Emanuel, a longtime ally of Ford's, has encouraged institutional support for Tinker and has prevented his DCCC pawn, Chris Van Hollen, from coming to the aid of Cohen, the way the DCCC and Nancy Pelosi backed other challenged incumbents like Kilpatrick yesterday and Al Wynn a few months ago. One of the most corrupt members of the Democratic Party, Gregory Meeks (NY) has been supporting Tinker, as has Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio). More progressive and respectable members of the Congressional Black Caucus like John Conyers and Jesse Jackson, Jr. have been campaigning for Cohen.

So why rehash all that EMILY's List crap again now? Well, of course, they're up to it again-- this time in the crucial Massachusetts House race next Tuesday. They're raising campaign money for the worst of the 5 contenders, state Senator Kathleen Clark, the very wealthy wiretapping enthusiast. And that ad up top-- that was a flat-out misleading attempt to get voters to think that Elizabeth Warren endorsed Clark. Of course, she hasn't. Progressive members of Congress like Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Mark Takano and Jared Polis have loudly and unambiguously endorsed Carl Sciortino. Elizabeth, whose views are in sync with Sciortino's, has insisted on staying neutral in the primary battle in her own state. EMILY's List tried to get her to endorse their horrible candidate and she turned them down. So they printed up thousands of those fliers and send them out all over the district to mislead voters. That's EMILY's List-- and that's Katherine Clark.

A brand new PPP survey shows that 57% of voters are less likely to vote for Clark once they learn that she sponsored a bill, S. 654, to give police more power to listen in on private conversations of people not suspected of breaking the law. Randy Borntrager of People for the American Way explains that the "polling shows once again that Massachusetts voters want a real progressive in the United States House. Carl Sciortino is the only reliable progressive in this race. He has a strong record of standing up for civil rights and civil liberties in Massachusetts, and will bring those values to Washington.”

EMILY's List has morphed into an anti-progressive operation whose sole function is helping to enrich themselves through campaigns backing wealthy women. They take over the campaigns and funnel as much money into their own operations as they can get away with. So they don't care about that. In fact, none of Clark's anti-progressive positions worries them at all, especially since she has a marked tendency to tell whomever she's talking to whatever it is she thinks they want to hear. At the PCCC-sponsored online forum on April 10, where she assumed she was talking to progressives, she said, “I just want to be crystal clear-- that I am taking a pledge never to cut benefits to our seniors through Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid... I will not be part of a ‘grand bargain’ that leaves our seniors behind and breaks our promises to them.” She was trying her best to sound like Carl Sciortino.

But when she talked to the far more conservative editors of the Boston Globe she told them about "her willingness to support a 'grand bargain' to trim the long-term federal deficit, even if it includes some provisions that are disappointing to liberals, is a sign of maturity." If Katherine Clark is elected Tuesday, she'll be Massachusetts' worst Member of Congress… by far. Hopefully the 5th district will opt to elect Massachusetts' best instead.

Carl Sciortino commented on the discrepancy this morning. “It’s appalling to me that Katherine Clark would be open to cutting Social Security and Medicare. We’re Democrats. We’re the ones that stand up for seniors-- not cave to the Tea Party on the most important social safetynet in the last century. I’m proud to stand with Ed Markey in my pledge never to cut these vital American programs. I call on Katherine Clark to clarify her position on Social Security today. The voters of the 5th District deserve to know whether she stands with Ed Markey against cuts in Social Security, or if she would cave to the Tea Party and vote for cuts in a ‘grand bargain’ as she told the Boston Globe.”

One Week From Today-- Crucial Massachusetts Election

There are no teabaggers we have to worry about in the race to replace Ed Markey in the deep blue Massachusetts House seat that will be decided a week from today. Most of the candidates are garden variety Democrats looking to advance their careers. True to form, EMILY's List has backed the most conservative woman running, Katherine Clark, best known for her efforts to pass domestic spying legislation in Massachusetts-- yes a bill that allows people to be spied on without a warrant. Another badly flawed candidate, Will Brownsberger, backs Citizens United and the Keystone XL Pipeline. It's no wonder that a wide coalition of progressive groups have been working hard to elect state Rep. Carl Sciortino and it's no wonder that he's been endorsed by Congressmen Alan Grayson (D-FL), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Mark Takano (D-CA) and Jared Polis (D-CO). ALl of them have met with Carl and understand why he would be much, much more than just someone who votes right. Carl is a natural progressive leader who has proven himself in the state legislature. It's why Blue America endorsed him 8 months ago.

See that ad up top? Every time it gets played, Carl's ranking goes up. It's essential we keep it up on very expensive broadcast TV. Can you chip in? If the ad runs all week, Carl will win. If you want to help out, you can do it at this link.

Carl's been working tirelessly 7 days a week for this-- though he did take off one day last week, Saturday… to get married! Forget the wedding gift… let's just help him keep that ad running. Along with fighting for an economy that works for everyone, not giving up on an assault weapons ban, and protecting a woman's right to choose, Carl will never stop fighting for everyone's right to share the moment he had with his family and friends this weekend-- no matter who you love, and no matter what state you live in.


UPDATE: Not Too Late

I asked Erin Hill, who runs ActBlue, if it's too late to get money that will be used effectively to Carl today. It certainly isn't too late and that's part of the genius of ActBlue. "The Sciortino campaign," she told me, "uses ActBlue for all their online fundraising, specifically to take advantage of our wiring program.  Because of our large economy of scale, ActBlue is able to clear credit cards 'overnight' and wire the funds to the Sciortino campaign the next day.  So, every contribution they get into ActBlue by midnight tonight, the Sciortino campaign can spend as cash tomorrow."

Once again, you can do it here.

Can An Ad Win An Election?

Politics as a bloodsport even predates Ted Cruz immigrating to the United States. Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr weren't dueling over a damsel. That video above may win a congressional seat for Carl Sciortino because people like the message. No, not especially the messages on the Blue America billboards based on the video, although those are popular messages in MA-05. But it is the message of comity between an unabashed progressive and a Tea Party member that makes it so compelling. The moment I saw it, I sent it to Norman Lear, creator of All In The Family. Norman loved it, of course.

DWT and then Blue America endorsed Carl last February. Since then, there was a slow build as other progressives joined the fight on his behalf: Alan Grayson, People for the American Way, a plethora of Massachusetts progressive groups, Congressmen Mark Takano, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Jared Polis... And then the ad came out. Suddenly the campaign was on everyone's radar. Several hundred thousand people viewed it online. It was played over and over on national and local news shows, Carl's contribution rate skyrocketed and his polling numbers started moving, especially among people who had seen the ad.

In their new book, Predisposed-- Liberals, Conservatives, And The Biology Of Political Differences, academics John Hibbing, Kevin Smith and John Alford, cite a definition of American's two political parties from Clinton Rossiter's classic work on political science, Parties and Politics in America:

Democrats: Sweaty, disorderly, offhand, imaginative, tolerant, skillful at give-and-take.
Republicans: Respectable, sober, purposeful, self-righteous, cut-and-dried, boring.

OK, this is before the advent of the Tea Party and before the Beltway Democratic Establishment transformed into "your father's Republican Party" in response to the Republicans transforming into a neo-fascist, anti-democracy operation. But travel back to 1968 for a second when ABC-TV hired conservative movement founder William F. Buckley and author Gore Vidal to serve as analysts-- and sparring partners-- at the Republican and Democratic national conventions. The country was torn apart over Vietnam a the time and the debate was nothing like the lovable back-and-forth between Carl Sciortino and his father in the ad up top. Here's an infamous minute of it:



Predisposed characterized Buckley and Vidal as "smart and hyper-articulate, and their plummy, East Coast establishment tones made them seem so, well, civilized. Perhaps they could demonstrate a more mature way to deal with political differences. Or not.

In their most famous exchange, on April 27, 1978, Buckley asserted that Vidal was unqualified to say anything at all about politics, calling him "nothing more than a literary producer of perverted Hollywood-minded prose." Vidal retorted that Buckley "was always to the right, and always in the wrong," and accused him of imposing his "rather bloodthirsty neuroses on a political campaign."

After that the gloves came off.

"Shut up a minute," said Vidal. Buckley did not shut up. Vidal called him a "proto- or crypto-Nazi." Buckley was not happy with that. "Now listen you queer," he said. "Stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddam face." Buckley went home in a huff and sued Vidal for libel. Vidal went home in a huff and, perhaps miffed that he didn't think of it first, counter-sued Buckley for libel.

So much for a civilized exchange of views.

Quite the contrast with the Sciortino ad and the follow-up appearances all over television with his father!



If you'd like to help Carl keep the ad running on TV, you can contribute to his campaign here... even if you're in the Tea Party.

Batten Down The Hatches-- It's The End Of The Quarter

Maybe you already started getting the desperate and pathetic e-mails from multimillionaire congressmen, like Scott Peters, begging for your money to finance his career-- which is all about supporting Wall Street corporate special interests. Or maybe you got one of those ridiculous Steve Israel e-mails telling you that [fill in the blank] is the most important race of the cycle and please give more money. My own personal favorite DCCC e-mails are about how they need money to fight the evil Republicans trying to defund Obamacare which never mention that the money goes straight into the campaign coffers of Blue Dogs Mike McIntyre (NC) and Jim Matheson (UT), both of whom voted with the evil Republicans to defund Obamacare.

Those races are over a year away and, take my word for it, the pace will only increase as we get closer. Giving the DCCC or any of their cardboard candidates anything will just encourage them to ask for more and more and more. And in any case there's a race coming that's a lot sooner-- October 15, in fact. This isn't just another race to elect another run-of-the-mill Democrat. The MA-05 congressional race will determine if Congress gets a new young progressive leader to stand with principled visionaries like Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, Keith Ellison and... there must be a few more.

There are 7 Democratic candidates in the race-- but only one is a proven progressive champion: state Rep. Carl Sciortino. Most of them are just garden variety Democrats, though the worst of the lot, Katherine Clark, is the principle sponsor of a Massachusetts state Senate bill to allow warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. She's dangerous and the ACLU is fighting her big tooth and nail. EMILY's List is pouring money into her campaign, even though there's a far less objectionable woman in the race.

Over 5,000 individual donors have contributed to Carl's campaign and Blue America is helping. You can contribute here at this link if you'd like to. He needs the contributions for his field operation and to keep the Tea Party Dad ad on television. (The ad is up top; it's so compelling that it's given him the most momentum of anyone running.) Since the release of the ad 3,600 individuals donated to the campaign-- a total of $178,000 in just over a week! Here's how Carl's campaign put it in a press release yesterday:

Just today, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) released a poll conducted by Public Policy Polling that showed Carl leading in the race at 29% among voters who have seen his ad. This comes on the heels of a Karen Spilka poll that shows Carl is the only candidate gaining ground while all other candidates in this race remain stagnant.

Sciortino’s growing momentum shows that voters in Massachusetts are hungry for a progressive leader that can get things done. As a legislator, Sciortino has been a leader on important progressive issues including; preserving marriage equality, passing legislation extending equal rights to transgender residents, and establishing a buffer zone around reproductive health care facilities.

Below are the three new billboards Blue America has up as of this week-- in addition to the anti-bombing billboard-- all with quotes from Carl's TV spot. If you'd like to help us expand the billboard campaign, you can do that here-- and on this one, there is no maximum contribution (nor a minimum, of course). If everyone just gave one dollar to Carl's campaign every time they get an e-mail from the DCCC or one of the DCCC shill candidates, we'd see Carl in Congress this year.

Carl Sciortino-- Fighting For America's Future

If you're a regular DWT reader, you already know that Blue America endorsed Carl Sciortino for Ed Markey's old congressional seat (MA-05). The election is less than a month away and there are 6 garden variety Democrats running against Carl, including an EMILY's List candidate who wrote the bill to allow warrentless wiretaps of ordinary Massachusetts citizens and a state senator, Will Brownberger, who's campaign consists of backing Citizens United and the Keystone XL Pipeline!

We're running a billboard campaign for Carl and we teamed up with People For the American Way and the Congressional Progressive Caucus to raise him some money to keep his phenomenal TV ad running. We're giving one random contributor a rare and beautiful RIAA 10 times platinum Eric Clapton Unplugged award plaque (which you can see here; you can also enter to win at that link). This is how People For the American Way's Voter's Alliance framed the effort:

I-93, Stoneham

Carl Sciortino is running in a competitive Democratic primary to replace U.S. Rep. Ed Markey in Massachusetts. He’s the best progressive in the race. We’ve endorsed him. He’s awesome.

Carl’s the best for a number of reasons. He’s a member of our affiliate PFAW Foundation’s Young Elected Officials Network and has been simply amazing carrying the progressive flag on so many issues in the Mass. state legislature.

He just released an incredible campaign ad that is getting tons of attention, standing out for its tone, for the way Carl unabashedly takes pride in his liberal credentials and just because it’s a really, really good ad.

I want you to watch the ad and share it, but more importantly, I urge you to support Carl’s campaign with a donation.

Please click here to do both now.

Oh yeah, and here’s the other new reason to throw YOUR support behind Carl right now: your donation of any amount will enter you in a chance to win a unique piece of Eric Clapton memorabilia.

When I say the piece is unique, I mean really unique. Remember Eric Clapton’s Unplugged album, featuring his iconic retake on his classic Laila as well as Tears in Heaven and more? That album didn’t just go Gold… or Platinum… it went Diamond-- one of the only albums to ever receive such a distinction. The president of the record company that released that album is also a huge fan of Carl, so he donated his special award plaque for it-- one of only a handful made.

So, if you’re a rocker, a Clapton fan or just want to own a cool piece of history, there’s one more reason for you to support Carl Sciortino today.

This contest is a collaborative effort by our affiliated federal PAC, the PFAW Voters Alliance, Progressive Action PAC and Blue America PAC. Of course, when you give, feel free to chip in for the Voters Alliance and/or our great partners. But please give what you can to support Carl.

I can assure you that this will be an investment you will be very happy and proud you made… and Carl will make you proud fighting for your values in Congress.

Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, two music fans, as well as the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, sent letters to their supports with a more Clapton-centric perspective, although their backing for Sciortino is very serious.

Hey Hey!

Campaigns aren’t won Runnin’ on Faith. You need a whole lot of folks knocking on doors and a whole lot of friends Rollin’ and Tumblin’ for you to cross the finish line.

That’s why we’ve endorsed Carl Sciortino for Congress.

Now Before You Accuse Me (us) of just another pitch to contribute, you should know we have a special gift for one lucky contributor. Our friends over at Blue America have generously donated an extremely rare Recording Industry Artists of America Award presented to Eric Clapton for one of our favorite albums of all time: Unplugged.

DONATE TO CARL SCIORTINO’S CAMPAIGN TO CHANGE CONGRESS TODAY

Don’t be a Lonely Stranger. Thousands of people across the country are donating to Carl because he is a real progressive committed to fight for you in Washington.

  Even his tea-party father thinks so (click to see the TV ad).  That’s why the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, People for the American Way Voters Alliance, Blue America and our colleagues Mark Takano, Jared Polis and Alan Grayson endorse him.

So don’t just Layla there. Give some Old Love to Carl Sciortino. It’s the only way you can enter to win the Eric Clapton Diamond Award, but more importantly it’s a chance to support a great candidate for Congress.

Help Carl become the next solid progressive from Massachusetts’ 5th Congressional District and enter for your shot to win this extraordinary piece of Clapton history! Contribute $5, $25, $50 or $500 today!

Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) gets the last word:

Here's a funny thing: before someone actually is elected to Congress or the White House, he or she never actually has to make a decision on whether to go to war. The most experienced state representative, county commissioner, school board member, lawyer, businessman, doctor or even general never has to make that call. So it's a conundrum: how do you know whether a candidate for Congress will be pro-peace, when they've never had to vote on it?

All we've got to go on is what they say. But sometimes, that's enough.

There will be a special election soon in Massachusetts to replace Rep. Ed Markey, who has taken a seat in the U.S. Senate. There are seven candidates. During the recent debate over U.S. military intervention in Syria, six of those candidates decided that the safe thing was to avoid taking any position on the issue, apparently concluding that the shortest route to immense popularity is to stand for nothing. (This "logic" is all-too-common in public life, unfortunately.)

There was one exception: State Rep. Carl Sciortino. Carl Sciortino held a news conference, with me, to announce his opposition to U.S. military intervention in Syria. That news conference received very wide coverage, including a prominent story in the Boston Globe.

Some people wear their hearts on their sleeves. In Carl's case, that sleeve is embroidered with a peace sign.

Here's another funny thing: after Carl Sciortino held that news conference, the other candidates in the race announced that they, too, were against U.S. military intervention in Syria. Maybe they did that to try to demonstrate that they are right on the issue. But what they actually demonstrated is that Carl Sciortino is a leader-- a leader on war and peace.

I hope that that is enough to motivate you to support Carl Sciortino's campaign. But in case it is not, there is something more: a chance to receive the custom plaque for Eric Clapton's diamond album, Unplugged.

Dana Rohrabacher Was Not Elected Homecoming Queen Friday

Dana Rohrabacher's congressional district, CA-48, stretches along the Pacific Ocean from Seal Beach, where L.A. County and Long Beach end and Orange County begins, down through Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Laguna Niguel right to the edge of San Juan Capistrano. It's easternmost points are just beyond Fountain Valley and Aliso Viejo. It's one of southern California's redder districts with a PVI of R+7. Obama scored 46% against McCain and 43% against Romney. The district is wealthy (medium household income is $76,077, compared to $57,287 for the whole state) and white (69%). In his younger days, Rohrabacher was not just a pot head, a rocker-- still pals with Red Rocker Sammy Hager-- and a surfer, but also a bit of a gay blade... or, "bisexual." I guess if you're in Congress and you get outed as a closet case and quickly marry a campaign staffer, as in the case of Rohrabacher, you're bisexual at least in Republicanville. (Yesterday, one partially-closeted Republican Member of Congress-- who for some reason insisted on anonymity-- told me that he always found Rohrabacher "strange" and tittered that "that woman he married looks like a diesel dyke.")

I don't care if Rohrabacher is gay or bi or closeted or whatever. I do care that he's a raging homophobe who votes against every equality bill that gets before Congress. Rohrabacher's district is changing faster than he is. The spiritual heart of the district, Huntington Beach just saw a high school elected a transgendered girl homecoming queen.

A transgender student at Marina High School in Huntington Beach made history Friday evening by becoming the school’s Homecoming Queen.

Cassidy Lynn Campbell, who was among five finalists, was selected for the coveted title. The announcement was made during halftime of Friday night’s game.

Earlier in the day, students reportedly erupted in cheers when it was announced that Campbell was among the finalists.

“I think it’s really awesome ’cause a lot of people wouldn’t be able to do what she does. I mean … I would be so scared and she’s accepting everything that everyone is saying. She’s taking it all in … in a good way,” Janet Tran, a student, told CBS2?s Joy Benedict.

After capturing the crown, Campbell told KCAL9's Cristy Fajardo that she finally feels accepted after years of feeling that she didn’t fit in.

“Knowing that it was only my school and only my student body makes it even more special because they voted for me,” said Campbell. “They all wanted me, and the majority wanted me to win.”

She added, “Whether I won tonight or not, I was a winner from the beginning and I knew it. I put my message out there. If this can help one child or more or hundreds or thousands or millions, then it was more than worth it,” said Campbell.

Outside of the Old Confederacy, it's not all that hard for politicians to back equality for gay men and women. All they have to do is follow their constituents. Most Americans are finished with the divisiveness and bigotry that targeted gay people. Most Americans even support same sex marriage now-- even if extreme right-wingers and the GOP politicians who fear them do not. In the latest Gallup survey on the topic only 43% of Americans say they would vote against gay marriage in a referendum. 52% say they would vote in favor. The South is the only region of the country where support flags.

Gallup used two separate approaches to measure public support for gay marriage this month, and they produced similar results: 52% would vote for a federal law legalizing same-sex marriages in all 50 states, and 54% think gay marriages should be recognized as valid, with the same rights as marriages between men and women. This adds to the body of evidence in Gallup trends that public opinion on gay marriage has reached a tipping point, whereby the majority now clearly supports it. Nevertheless, the issue remains highly divisive, as large majorities of left-leaning, nonreligious, and younger Americans endorse it, while right-leaning, religious, and older Americans still oppose it.

• East- 62% favor
• West- 57% favor
• Midwest- 51% favor
• South- 51% oppose

Much tougher for politicians is anything revolving around transgender people. That's a far off frontier for most Americans-- many fear the whole idea of it-- and it takes the bravest of the brave politicians-- the polar opposite of the closeted hypocrites like Rohrabacher-- to get anywhere near it. Transgender rights isn't an issue we ask candidates about at Blue America. Strength of character is though and I was floored when Carl Sciortino told me how he had fought an uphill-- but ultimately winning-- battle for transgender equality in the Massachusetts state legislature. It helped persuade us what kind of a political leader he would be. And I noticed that a group calling itself Trans United For Progress-- for Carl Sciortino started an ActBlue page to back his campaign.

Democrats Use The NRA in Their Campaign Ads

Yesterday I heard some "brilliant" Beltway pundit on MSNBC babbling incoherently that there won't be any progress on gun control unless pro-gun control forces can beat an NRA shill at the polls. Being from the Beltway, one wouldn't expect her to know anything about America... and a states like California and Illinois are so, so far away. But last year-- that's soooooo long ago too-- NRA whore Joe Baca was defeated on exactly one issue: gun control. And isn't that why former Congresswoman and NRA shill Debbie Halvorson (D-IL) still a former congresswoman?



Then you have the polar opposite-- a putative "Democrat," Blue Dog NRA shill John Barrow, who makes the NRA look "bipartisan." Last year they contributed $884,687 to Republicans and $126,650 to Democrats. And the Democrat who got the most from them... John Barrow. In fact, Barrow was the only Democrat to get more than $9,000 from the NRA last year. All the rest of their top recipients were Republicans. And the only other Dems who got significant contributions, Mark Critz (PA) and Kathy Hochul (NY) and Larry Kissell (NC) were defeated. Here's the infamous "John Barrow loves the NRA ad."



Yesterday we debuted Carl Sciortino's new campaign ad. Take a look at it below. He wove the NRA into it to make a point-- he's a proud Massachusetts liberal. In the ad, his Tea Party father, who sounds like an Archie Bunker kind of character, complains Carl is taking on the NRA. Carl responds: "I won't give up on an assault weapons ban."

Father: Or universal background checks or banning high capacity magazines...
Carl: There are some things you don't stop fighting for

That's how Democrats should use the NRA in their ads. If you agree, think about chipping in to Carl's campaign. Election day is a month from yesterday, October 15.

Unplugged... For Carl Sciortino

We've been talking about the race in MA-05 to replace Ed Markey for some time now. It's just a month away and there are 7 Democrats running. Six of them are garden variety Dems and one, state Rep. Carl Sciortino, is a proven, dedicated progressive leader, which is why we endorsed him-- and why progressive organizations from People for the American Way, Progressive Mass and Mass Equality to the Human Rights Campaign and Grey2kUSA have also endorsed him. This week-- starting today-- we're launching a fundraising drive to help Carl pay to run his amazing TV ad (up top). We're being joined in this effort by Congressmen Alan Grayson, Jared Polis, Raúl Grijalva and Keith Ellison and by the People for the American Way Voters Alliance and the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Progressive Action PAC. And one lucky, random donor is going to get an incredible Eric Clapton platinum award as a "thank you." (Photo below.)

Here's how that works. Contribute any amount-- no amount is too small-- to Carl's campaign here and you will become eligible to win. You probably know what a gold record is-- an award for 500,000 RIAA certified sales in the U.S. For a platinum award, the number is a million. In recent years, the music industry created a new category: diamond, to mark 10,000,000 domestic sales. Eric Clapton's Unplugged album was one of the first-- and only-- albums to achieve that status. What we're giving away is one of the original award plaques for 10,000,000 sales of Unplugged, which was made for the president of Eric Clapton's record company, who is a big fan not just of Eric Clapton, but also of Carl Sciortino. This stunning 30" x 30" custom plaque isn't something you can buy in a store, no matter how much money you have. Only a small handful were ever made and they were never sold.

Whether you contribute $5, $50 or $500 you will have one chance to become the owner of the plaque. (In fact, if you can't afford to make a contribution but you want the plaque, you can just send a post card to Blue America, PO Box 27201, Los Angeles, CA 90027 and you'll be eligible as well!)

And if rock'n'roll memorabilia isn't your thing, remember this: Carl Sciortino has been fighting for progressive values-- and winning-- in the Massachusetts legislature. Alan Grayson, Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Mark Takano and Jared Polis would like to see him in the U.S. Congress helping lead the charge. Sciortino wasn't afraid to speak right out against bombing Syria and he wasn't afraid to say NO WAY to the Beltway scheme to cut Social Security through a Chained CPI.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Join Progressive Mass In Endorsing Carl Sciortino

We've been talking about Carl Sciortino's race for the Massachusetts House seat that Ed Markey gave up when he won the open Senate seat. Blue America is raising money for him directly here and raising money for a billboard campaign here. As you probably know, Alan Grayson endorsed Carl last month. Yesterday, the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), did the same. They cited his leadership and consistency on progressive issues as a Massachusetts state legislator as reasons why they got involved in the race.

"Carl Sciortino is the real thing," Grijalva and Ellison said in a joint statement. “He is the consistent progressive in the race, having led the fight for the issues we progressives care about for almost 10 years in the state legislature-- a higher minimum wage, closing corporate tax-loopholes, protecting a woman’s right to choose, the list goes on and on. Carl Sciortino’s ability to take on these tough fights, and win them, will be an incredible asset to the Progressive Caucus in Congress."

Sciortino responded that these two guys "are courageously fighting for progressive policies in Washington and I am thrilled to have their endorsement. I am the only one in this race who has a consistent progressive record on privacy rights, workers rights, immigration rights and protecting the environment. This election for me isn’t about climbing the political ladder, it’s about strengthening the national progressive movement."

Sound like your kind of candidate? The primary-- which in this deep blue district is tantamount to winning the seat-- is a month from Tuesday: October 15. There are 6 garden variety Democrats running as well as Carl, some tragically flawed (count on EMILY's List to always find some conservative corporate shill to run against a progressive) and others, just looking for a cool job in DC. If you'd like to help make sure Massachusetts gets another leader who thinks and performs like Elizabeth Warren, please consider helping Carl at this link. Leaders like Grayson, Grijalva, Ellison and Warren need partner like Sciortino, not mealy-mouthed order takers like most of the other candidates. Just yesterday Senator Warren, fresh from her inspiring keynote address to the AFL-CIO, spoke at George Washington Law School’s Center for Law, Economics, and Finance in a speech on the five year anniversary of the financial crisis about one of the key platform's in Carl's campaign: ending "Too Big to Fail" and the effectiveness of regulatory agencies’ oversight.

"There are many who say, 'Sure, Too Big to Fail isn’t over yet, but Congress should wait to act further because the agencies still have to issue a bunch of Dodd-Frank’s required rules,'" said Senator Warren. "True, there are rules left to be written, but that’s because the agencies have missed more than 60 percent of Dodd-Frank’s rulemaking deadlines. I don’t understand the logic. Since when does Congress set deadlines, watch regulators miss most of them, and then take that failure as a reason not to act? I thought that if the regulators failed, it was time for Congress to step in. That’s what oversight means. And that’s certainly a principle that would have served our country well prior to the crisis... We should not accept a financial system that allows the biggest banks to emerge from a crisis in record-setting shape while ordinary Americans continue to struggle. And we should not accept a regulatory system that is so besieged by lobbyists for the big banks that it takes years to deliver rules and then the rules that are delivered are often watered-down and ineffective. I am confident David can beat Goliath on Too Big to Fail. We just have to pick up the slingshot again."

She can't do it on her own... we need dedicated, effective progressives in Congress-- like Carl Sciortino. That's why Grayson endorsed him. That's why Grijalva and Ellison endorsed him. That's why People for the American Way endorsed him. And, of course, that's why Blue America endorsed him.


UPDATE: Single Payer Anyone?

Today MassCare, an organization whose mission is to establish a single payer health care system in Massachusetts, enthusiastically endorsed Carl Sciortino for Congress. In a statement from their executive director, they cited Sciortino’s leadership on single payer issues over his career in the State House.

“We are proud to announce our support of this great candidate, Carl Sciortino,” said MassCare’s Executive Director Ture Richard Turnbull. “Our organization has been grateful to have Carl as a strong advocate for single payer health care in Massachusetts. Carl has taken a leadership role in the efforts for passage of legislation to institute a single payer system in Massachusetts. If single payer is your issue, Carl Sciortino is the clear choice in this race.”

Carl: “Single payer health care is the most cost-effective way to deliver health care to all Americans. I fully support MassCare’s mission to institute single payer health care in Massachusetts, and I have been proud work with them. I am the only one in this race who has been a consistent supporter of single payer health care, and I’m running for Congress to be a consistent progressive voice in Washington.”

Carl Sciortino And Alan Grayson Make The Case Against War

October 15 is the date of the special election primary for MA-05, Ed Markey's former House seat. EMILY's List is pushing hard to elect a conservative Democratic woman, as always, this one best known as the chief sponsor of a bill to allow more warrantless domestic spying in Massachusetts. Aside from hiding from that, Katherine Clark is hiding from taking a stand on Syria. And so all all the candidates for the seat but one: progressive state Rep. Carl Sciortino. In the simple and unambivalent words of the Boston Globe, "Sciortino said last week if he were in Congress he would vote against authorizing President Obama to use military force in Syria... He pushed instead for a 'political solution through forceful diplomacy.'"

Sciortino: "I am challenging all of my opponents in the Fifth to join me in calling for a no vote on military intervention in Syria. I’m asking all of them to stop waffling." Carl's a leader and he belongs in Congress. The rest of the pack are a bunch of careerist followers:

In the hours after the call, three of the other Democratic candidates who, as recently as Friday, had not staked out a firm position on the issue released statements saying they oppose the congressional resolution that would authorize the president to use military force in Syria.

Middlesex Sheriff Peter J. Koutoujian said he does “not support the resolution before Congress at this time.” He cited reservations about the United States’ acting without more international support, as well as the potential for “unforeseen consequences of a strike in that region.”

State Senator Katherine Clark said she does not “think the case has been made that US military action is the best way to move forward, and if the vote were held today, I would vote no.”

State Senator Will Brownsberger said: “I have concluded that, were I already seated in Congress, I would vote against the present resolution authorizing bombing of Syria.”

Sciortino, who has vigorously attempted to position himself to the left of his opponents, was joined on the call by US Representative Alan Grayson, Democrat of Florida, who has endorsed Sciortino and is a vocal opponent of striking Syria.

Even Senator Markey, who originally waffled by voting "present," yesterday came out against bombing Syria. Shira Schoenberg, reporting for The Republican, covered Alan Grayson's backing for Sciortino in the primary campaign.

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat and member of the U.S. House Foreign Relations Committee, joined Massachusetts Democratic congressional candidate Carl Sciortino in a conference call on Monday to argue against U.S. military intervention in Syria.

Grayson, who endorsed Sciortino last month, has been a leader in the U.S. House in opposing U.S. military intervention in Syria. Sciortino, a state representative, was the first among five Democratic elected officials running for Congress in Massachusetts’ 5th District to say he would oppose the use of military force in Syria. However, by Monday, all five Democrats had come out against the use of force.

“I question what message a military strike will send if followed by additional bloodshed,” Sciortino told reporters Monday. Sciortino said the U.S. needs to seek a political solution through diplomacy and a negotiated ceasefire.

He said the U.S. must exhaust every diplomatic option before turning to the military. “I fear if we begin with a military option, it will lead to an escalation of war, not peace,” Sciortino said. Sciortino called on the other Democrats in his race to oppose the use of military force.

Grayson praised Sciortino for his willingness to take a stance. “The people of Massachusetts are privileged to know one of the candidates for Congress in the race now is someone willing to take a stand, who can actually make up his mind, not always put a finger in the wind to see which way the breeze is blowing,” Grayson said.

The Boston Globe reported last Tuesday that Sciortino was the only one of the candidates to come out against military action. The other Democratic elected officials said they needed more information.

...Sciortino and Grayson indicated that their views were colored by the U.S.’s decade-long involvement in the Iraq war. “Over the past decade, my generation has fought in two wars,” Sciortino said. “One based on lies, both of which dragged on well beyond expectations.”

Sciortino said after Iraq-- when Republican President George W. Bush’s administration argued that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which were not found after the U.S. went to war-- the burden of proof is high for the government to show the facts of what happened in Syria. He said the U.S. must also make sure whatever steps are taken are effective in preventing bloodshed or future attacks.

Blue America was the first national organization to endorse Carl for Congress. Now we're preparing to buy billboards in his district emphasizing his leadership and his opposition to another pointless Middle East war. If you'd like to help Carl directly, you can contribute to his campaign here. If you'd like to help us buy more billboards, you can contribute here. Either way-- Massachusetts and America win. People thinking of contributing often ask me if a candidate will join the Congressional Progressive Caucus if they win. In Carl's case... well, he was one of the founders of the Massachusetts legislature's progressive caucus.

A Nexus Between The DCCC And Miss McConnell-- Here's What's Wrong With Inside The Beltway Politics

The DCCC has been howling for 3 days about how Staten Island Gambino crime family congressman, Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm was first for war and then anti-war. "He changed his mind, he changed his mind" has been the constant, annoying refrain, although they haven't said anything about Ami Bera (D-CA) doing exactly the same thing. Even more interesting, when I called the DCCC candidate for Grimm's seat, Dominic Recchia, they said he has no position on Syria "yet." I found that consistent with nearly all the DCCC-manufactured candidates. None of them have positions; all of them are trying to figure out what to say. One of them told me she's antiwar in her heart but that she doesn't want to offend Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz or, most important, vicious warmonger Steve Israel who controls the flow of DCCC campaign cash. Did Israel threaten her, I asked. "No, but he sent me a memo that confused me about what to say." I coaxed it out of her.

Basically the memo comes from a mirror image place of fear that has kept Mitch McConnell (R-KY) from taking a stand on bombing Syria, something his Tea Party opponent, Matt Bevin, is taking him to task for (though, not his far more cautious Democratic opponent Alison Lundergan Grimes; she's as incomprehensible and afraid to stand for anything as McConnell). Bevin says he's "offended by all these guys that have been sitting around that place gathering dust and moss for decades who are utterly unwilling to lead on and be thoughtful on things that are of this magnitude and this importance... These old fuddy-duddy moss-covered relics are just hiding behind their inactivity in the hopes of getting six more years on our dime. And I think the people of Kentucky, certainly, are fed up with it." Sounding not unlike Alan Grayson (D-FL)-- at least on this issue-- Bevin makes a lot of sense on Syria: "The reason I am opposed to it [U.S. military involvement in Syria] is we have absolutely no business whatsoever being in Syria. There is no military reason for us to be involved. There is no security risk to the United States. There is nobody on either side who is or has the potential to be a true ally of ours because they don’t even remotely believe in what we believe as it relates to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, human rights, basic human dignity. We have no business in being there."

Bevin criticized the administration for even considering getting involved in the Syrian civil war. He claimed it is McConnell’s role to step up and do something about the issue.

“The idea that we have an administration and we have silent ‘leaders’ like Mitch McConnell who are just spineless and refuse to come out and state what they believe, who when they do come out in the case of the administration they say, ‘Well we don’t intend to have any kind of a regime change,’ then what the flying flip are we even going in there for?” Bevin said.

“Really and truly, what is the point if we don’t have an end goal, if we don’t have a purpose, if we don’t have a mission, why would we be sending our weapons, which could potentially lead to our people being involved in this, destroying infrastructure and destroying people in another nation when we don’t have any knowledge of why we’re doing it?" he asked. "Because of some arbitrary line that the president drew in the sand and is now trying to pretend that the world drew in the sand? Really? What a cop out.”

...“One of the greatest reasons we hear in Kentucky for why we need six more years of Mitch McConnell is that he’s so influential,” Bevin said. “He’s so powerful. He’s a leader. And it’s so good for those of us in Kentucky."

"But the reality is when asked if they can name any one thing that that leadership and influence has done for Kentucky, any one thing that power has done for Kentucky, nobody can think of anything because the answer is nothing," Bevin claimed. "The only person who has been served by that influence and power is Mitch McConnell. He is a spineless person and he is unwilling to lead."

"It isn’t specific to any party. There is amazing dearth of leadership on both sides of the aisle. These are people whose primary mission is to keep getting re-elected," Bevin suggested. "When it’s hard and when it’s tough, and when someone truly needs to stand up and lead, they’re silent. They’re missing in action.”

"Spineless person, unwilling to lead" is also an apt description for 6 Democrats running for Ed Markey's old congressional seat (MA-05) in the suburbs around Boston, from Revere and Winthrop in the east, up to Malden, Medford, Woburn and Lexington in the north and then out to Watertown, Waltham, Sudbury and Framingham in the west. The one exception, as we've pointed out: state Rep. Carl Sciortino, a courageous progressive leader who has come out against the bombing. That election is October 15 and voters will be able to send a message to DC about how serious they are in their opposition to more wars of choice.

Now, back to the secret DCCC memo to its candidates, all of whom have been revoltingly mum on the number one issue that voters in every single district are talking about. You looking for leadership on the Syria crisis? Don't expect any from any of the DCCC cardboard candidates. So while you have independent progressives like Nick Ruiz (D-FL), Carl Sciortino (D-MA) and Tom Guild (D-OK) speaking out clearly and in a principled way against war, the DCCC is encouraging mealy-mouthed candidates to hold their fire and keep their heads down. "In short," their wishy-washy memo to candidates begins, "President Obama wants Congressional approval to strike with precision-guided missiles. This action would be a response to a targets in Syria August 2013 chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian military during the course of Syria’s civil war. The Obama Administration asserts that it must uphold international norms against the use of chemical weapons to reduce future use."

Then comes the facts and figure for candidates who don't know the difference between Syria, Tanzania and Honduras: "Syria is about the size of North Dakota with roughly 22 million inhabitants. The majority of them are Sunni Muslim. Syria is a predominantly Arab country." No, really... that's an exact quote from the memo. Then comes all the propaganda about how Assad used sarin gas on his own people and killed all those children, no less a bold-faced lie than the manufactured "evidence" the Bush regime offered to justify their predetermined attack against Iraq. The "evidence" is anything but clear about who used the chemical weapons and it seems to point to agents provocateurs dead set on persuading Obama to attack Syria. But reflexive warmongers like Steve Israel insist on twisting the facts for hapless candidates, sending them out like lambs to be slaughtered. (And, yes, Steve Israel helped push through Bush's authorization for the use of force against Iraq, even though a big majority of House Democrats opposed him on it. He shouldn't be allowed to use the DCCC for his personal agenda of war.) After pages of worthless propaganda, the DCCC memo end with the arguments, pro and con, for its candidates to consider:

For giving authority for an attack:

• "The U.S. has to attack to uphold the longstanding international norm against the use of chemical weapons so that they aren’t used in future wars."
• U.S. credibility is now on the line: The U.S. President declared the use of chemical weapons to be a red line, and has also asked Congress publicly for support. To deny the Commander in Chief the authority undermines our nation. (Also stated as: U.S. failure to follow-through questions American willingness to engage and gives an appearance of weakness.)
• "The U.S. should stand against the use of chemical weapons generally on humanitarian grounds. Related argument: the U.S. has a history of moral authority we risk losing if we do not act in Syria."
• "The U.S. will intimidate Iran by attacking, which helps Israel (and the U.S.) primarily by reducing the confidence and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) manufacturing intentions of Iran, Israel’s most powerful declared enemy."
• "If we don’t attack, Assad may use these weapons again. Consequences include that more Syrians die from chemical weapons as opposed to traditional weapons, and that the use of chemical weapons could trigger a refugee crisis that is greater than would otherwise occur if the war continued only with traditional weapons. The refugee crisis threatens to destabilize our allies in the region, including Jordan and Turkey, a partner in the NATO alliance that we are also part of."

Against giving authority for an attack:

• "Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States and an attack is not in our interest from a national security or a financial perspective; our excessive debt has already cut funding for the military and domestic programs significantly, and the U.S. experience in limiting costs for Middle East interventions shows we tend to underestimate."
• "There are other ways to put pressure on Assad other than a direct missile strike. This is a premature decision until additional diplomatic options have been pursued." Also stated as: We should go through the U.N. since we are not directly impacted.
• "An attack could create more instability in the region and makes regional American military reinvestment (troops on the ground) more likely. U.S. Secretary of Defense Kerry has not ruled out ‘boots on the ground’ in a long-term scenario resulting from this action."
• "The U.S. lacks a clearly defined and obtainable objective, and the plan lacks any element of surprise."
• "The U.S. did not intervene when chemical weapons were used by Iraq against Iran, or when Iraq used them domestically against the Kurds. A precedent is not created if we do not attack."
• "This threatens American personnel in the region: Iran ordered militants in Iraq to attack US interests (our embassy primarily) in Baghdad should the US carry out military strikes in Syria."
• Potential negative consequences: Our strikes could result in: heavy civilian casualties, Assad killing more civilians with chemical weapons, Syrian army sympathizers attack Americans somewhere else in the world, Assad falls and the chemical weapons end up in the wrong hands, escalation across the board. In addition, the chances that the attacks are so slight that Assad survives them easily and appears strengthened before the world.

And then a warning for any candidates who understand the insidious role AIPAC-- the Israeli lobbying arm in DC-- plays in U.S. politics: "Israel’s Prime Minister has not commented publicly on American involvement other than to say that Israel is prepared in the event that Syria decides to attack Israel as retaliation for an American strike on Syria. The American Pro-Israel community has shown support for an American campaign against Syria, with AIPAC specifically saying 'AIPAC urges Congress to grant the president the authority he has requested to protect America’s national security interests and dissuade the Syrian regime’s further use of unconventional weapons. The civilized world cannot tolerate the use of these barbaric weapons, particularly against an innocent civilian population including hundreds of children.'" How often does the DCCC send out memos from Beltway lobbyists to candidates? They ended their missive with a dismissive sneer to the UN: "Incidentally, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon opposes further military action without Security Council approval, which is not unexpected."



Please watch the video above of Grayson questioning Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry. This back and forth between Hagel and Grayson was pretty shocking, especially to anyone who recalls the fraudulent "evidence" manufactured by the Bush Regime to persuade Congress into authorizing an attack on Iraq.

GRAYSON: Secretary Hagel, there’s been a report in the media that the administration has mischaracterized post-attack Syrian military communications, and that these communications actually express surprise about the attack. This is a very serious charge. Can you please release the original transcripts so that the American people can make their own judgment about that important issue?

HAGEL: What transcripts are you referring to?

GRAYSON: The transcripts that were reported that took place after the attack in which the government has suggested that they confirm the existence of an attack, but actually it’s been reported that Syrian commanders expressed surprise about the attack having taken place, not confirmed it.

HAGEL: Well, that’s probably classified. Congressman, I’d have to go back and review exactly what you’re referring to.

GRAYSON: Well, you will agree that it’s important that the administration not mislead the public in any way about these reports, won’t you?

Grayson kept pushing and Hagel kept dancing and finally said "I have no idea what exactly you’re talking about..." and was probably delighted when teabaggy warmonger Tom Cotten (R) of Arkansas replaced Grayson as the questioner. And what Grayson was referring to was Obama's statement last week that “Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place.” Many intelligence experts have dismissed this as the exact same kind of chicanery that the Bush regime used.