New Election After Republicans Were Caught Trying To Steal A House Seat In North Carolina?

2 GOP crooks-- Mark Harris and Trumpanzee

By the end of last month, it was already obvious that North Carolina Trumpist, Mark Harris, had stolen both the GOP primary that ousted Robert Pittenger and then the general election in which he-- against all odds-- beat Blue Dog Dan McCready. The final 538.com forecast omg November 6, showed Harris with just a 12.1% chance to win (1 in 8).

Harris has been in DC pretending that he's the legitimately-elected congressman from North Carolina's 9th district, the state's southern tier, from Charlotte through Monroe, Wadesboro and Lumberton and up to Fayetteville. Everyone knows he tampered with the ballots and wasn't really elected. According to the election tallies that no one believes to be legitimate, Harris beat McCready 138,338 (49.4%) to 136,478 (48.8%). There are 8 counties in the district. McCready won 6, including the biggest (Mecklenburg). But it appears that the absentee ballot scheme that Harris almost pulled off, gave him wins in Bladen and Union counties. Congress-- meaning the Democratic majority-- will decide whether or not to seat Harris. I don't see Speaker Pelosi swearing him in. In all but Bladen County, McCready won among mail-in absentee ballot voters by at least 16 points. In Bladen County, he lost by 24. A Harris capo, notorious crook Leslie McCrae Dowless, Jr., led a crew of thugs who went door-to-door in Bladen County collecting blank or partially-completed absentee ballots, promising to finish and submit the ballots on the voters' behalf. This is an old Republican trick that they do all over the country. Harris was paying Dowless in untraceable cash-- and Dowless passed the cash on to his team for, in effect, buying the absentee ballots.

Yesterday, the district's biggest newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, urged the state to hold a new election from scratch, although it makes no sense to allow Harris to participate in one.

In the week since the state Board of Elections declined to certify the results of North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District election, journalists and others have begun to fill in the details of a troubling case of apparent ballot fraud. In Bladen County-- and perhaps other counties-- individuals have interfered with the voting process by gaining access to others’ absentee ballots, according to witnesses and records. Investigators also are looking into the burgeoning scandal.

There may be no way, however, to know how widespread the fraud was, or whether it involved enough ballots to potentially change the outcome of the election-- a 905-vote victory for Republican Mark Harris over Democrat Dan McCready. But we do know enough. Unless new evidence somehow clears the clouds hanging over this election, the Board of Elections should toss out the 9th District results.

Calling for a new election would be an enormously significant decision for the board. It should be done with the support of N.C. statutes and without a whiff of partisan politics. Republicans from Raleigh to Washington would surely howl; already, they’ve noted that the number of absentee ballots cast in Bladen County falls short of the overall margin of victory in the 9th.

This is true. But witnesses have said that their ballots, which were collected by individuals apparently working for ringleader McCrae Dowless, were never submitted to the county or state. There’s little certainty about how many ballots were wrongly tossed or destroyed in Bladen County (there were more than 1,500 that were requested but unreturned) or how much Dowless and his workers may have done the same in neighboring Robeson County, as reports suggest. It might have been enough to change the outcome of the race. It might not have been.


That possibility, however, triggers a statutory threshold for holding a new election. North Carolina General Statute 163A-1180 authorizes the Board of Elections to intervene and “take any other action necessary to assure that an election is determined without taint of fraud or corruption and without irregularities that may have changed the result of an election.” The board should call for a new NC-09 general election. The U.S. House can and should order a new primary, given that results show Harris winning a startling 96 percent of the Bladen absentee vote in his narrow 2018 primary victory over then incumbent Robert Pittenger.

Questions remain about how much Harris knew about the work being done on his behalf. Both he and his chief consultant, Andy Yates, contend they weren’t aware of any election fraud in the 9th District, but Dowless was well-known as a dicey figure in N.C. political circles. He’s a convicted felon who had been investigated for similar fraud in 2016, and he even was featured nationally in a This American Life episode. Harris, at the least, should have seen the smoke.

Voters in the 9th District deserve the confidence that their election was free from fraud. North Carolina statute supports it. The evidence already demands it. The Board of Elections should start the election over.

Yesterday, Gerry Connolly (D-VA), who will be second in command on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in a few weeks, wants the committee to call an emergency hearing immediately to look into Republican vote tampering in NC-09, calling it "real election fraud... Votes have been stolen by preying on senior and minority voters, and now a cloud of doubt and suspicion hangs over this election result. It is incumbent on Chairman Gowdy to hold an emergency hearing before the end of this congressional session so that we can shed light and understand what happened in this race."

The Hill reported last night that "Over a thousand absentee ballots from likely Democratic voters may have been destroyed... as allegations of fraud on behalf of the Republican candidate mount. 'You’re looking at several thousand, possibly 2,000 absentee ballot requests from this most recent election. About 40 percent of those, it appears, at this point may not have been returned,' Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman told CNN... Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the next House majority leader, said Tuesday that Democrats will not seat Harris until the allegations are resolved."

What's at stake? I mean really at stake? Believe me, it's way more than just another North Carolina House seat. Here's Bernie talking about chutzpah to the Real News Network at Berniepalooza last week:




UPDATE: McCready Just Withdrew His Concession

In an exclusive interview, McCready told Joe Bruno that he thinks Harris not only knew what McCrae Dowless was doing but that he was bankrolling "criminal activity."

CNN interviewed Bruno (below). Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, was also on CNN where he hinted that the state party might support a new election if allegations of fraud are proven true and if it impacted the outcome of the race. If allegations of fraud are proven true, the perps shouldn't be allowed to participate in a new election unless it's from a prison cell. Woodhouse: "This has shaken us to the core. We are not ready to call for a new election yet. I think we have to let the board of elections come show their hand if they can show that this conceivably could have flipped the race in that neighborhood, we will absolutely support a new election."

Cowardly Blue Dog Types Tripping Over Themselves To Cross The Aisle On Key Issues

Yesterday we looked at some responses from Democratic incumbents and challengers to the upset in Massachusetts Tuesday. I was especially bolstered to see how progressives like Marcy Winograd (CA) and Doug Tudor (FL) realized that tapping into the anger and frustration many voters feel about the status quo is an opportunity to stand up for powerful values that resonate with voters rather than something to cower from in fear. Needless to say, the cowering in fear crowd was out in force as well, even beyond the TV camera whores like Bayh and Lieberman.

Two serial aisle crossers, Gerry Connolly (D-VA) and Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)-- the Democrat who voted most with the GOP since Obama was elected who doesn't come from a former slave-holding state-- tripped over their own feet in an attempt to run to the media and demand more tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush's tax cuts for the rich are supposed to expire at the end of the year and somehow Emanuel and Summers haven't persuaded Obama to extend them yet. So Connolly, Mitchell and other cowardly, craven kiss-ass Blue Dogs (and fellow travelers) are giving it a shot.

Obama during the campaign and in last year's budget plan proposed extending Bush tax cuts affecting the poor and middle class. He proposed letting the top two tax rates, now 33% and 35%, return to 36% and 39.6% respectively, in 2011.

This year, the top rate will apply to income above $373,650 for individuals and married couples. Under Obama's plan, the 36%, second-highest rate would kick in at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples.

Obama also proposed bumping the 15% rate on capital gains and dividends up to 20% for those with income in excess of $200,000, or $250,000 for married couples.

"The president's always said that tax cuts just for those people making more than a quarter million dollars a year-- something like 2% of people-- that those ought to expire when they were scheduled to expire, but... he has called for extending all the rest of the tax cuts," Austan Goolsbee, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said Monday on PBS.

However, some Democratic strategists looking toward midterm elections see peril in heading into November with looming tax increases on the horizon. Tax increases may be a potent issue for Republican opponents as Democrats defend majorities in the House and Senate.

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D., Ariz.), a second-term congressman who held on to his seat in 2008 with 53% of the vote, wrote Obama last week asking him to extend the lower capital gains and dividend rate, and estate tax rates.

"Given the unique economic difficulties we face as a nation, this is the wrong time to raise these taxes. We need to retain these tax cuts that encourage investment that stimulates growth and job creation," Mitchell wrote.

Connolly said the decision on whether or not to extend the tax cuts should be weighed against the impact of doing so on the deficit. But "re-instilling confidence in the economy" should be paramount, he said.

Their view, while gaining clout, remains in the minority among congressional Democrats. Rep. Jim McDermott (D., Wash.), a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, dismissed the argument that allowing taxes on investment to rise now would slow the recovery.

"There's no proof that the Bush tax cuts had anything but a negative effect," said McDermott.

Meanwhile, the most right-wing Democrat in the Senate, Nebraska reactionary Ben Nelson-- the only Democrat to have voted with the GOP this year on substantive matters more than with his own party (about twice as bad as Lieberman)-- practically declared himself a teabagger.

"Clearly, the vote showed that people are frustrated with Washington...and I am too," Nelson said in a statement. "That frustration will likely register across the board for all incumbents. The overriding message from yesterday is that people are upset because Washington is dysfunctional and not working together for them." ... Nelson did not say where he stood on the healthcare reform bill, only that bipartisanship is needed to "fix a national health care system that 70 percent of Nebraskans want fixed."

And Reid and Obama say to forget changing the filibuster rules; n-o-t i-n t-h-e c-a-r-d-s. And, if you don't approve of this approach, there is a way of sending the Democrats a nice, strong message.


A Sensible Suggestion From Eric Massa

Eric Massa (D-NY), a more progressive Democrat-- and a devoted partisan of single-payer universal health care reform who voted against the bill in the House-- released a sensible statement today calling for a restart of the process in an attempt to get it right this time.

"I have asked that the thousands of pages of legislation so far developed be scrapped because it is my belief that we should focus primarily on reforming the largely unregulated health insurance sector. I believe that the virtual monopoly that private for-profit health insurance corporations have across our nation is the biggest reason why we are facing out of control healthcare costs.

"I look to the results of the Senate race in Massachusetts as an opportunity to refocus our efforts to get it right. I will continue to work aggressively to create healthcare reform which reflects the concerns that I have heard at the 74 townhall meetings we've held in the 29th Congressional District. Specifically I want to see legislation that lowers costs, creates interstate portability, protects small businesses, increases access to Medicare, establishes true medical malpractice insurance reform based on access to care, closes the Medicare Part D donuthole, eliminates rejections based on pre-existing conditions, and delivers badly needed regulations to the monopolistic health insurance industry. Quite, frankly it might be a lot more feasible if we do this one piece at a time rather than with broad sweeping legislation."

Conventional Wisdom Inside The Beltway Wants To Blame Black Voters For The Coming Blue Dog Losses

It was like when I was in high school and Ken and I would be on the phone late into the night on election day, comparing notes on obscure races no one else either of us knew were even aware of. On May 3, 2008 Ken and I had long since graduated from high school but we were still following obscure races. This one was in Louisiana's 6th CD, where a special election was being held to replace lobbyist Richard Baker. I live-blogged it, and watched with some sense of excitement as Easy Baton Rouge's predominantly African-American precincts came rolling in late in the evening-- rolling in and wiping out, then swamping, the KKK/GOP candidate, Woody Jenkins. Jenkins had been ahead all night. Here were my updates that night:

UPDATE ONE: KKK CANDIDATE PULLS AHEAD IN BATON ROUGE

With 20% of the parishes reporting it's Jenkins with 13,237 (52.7%) and Cazayoux with 10,936 (43.6%).


UPDATE TWO: THERE'S GONNA BE SOME HAPPY KLAN DRAGONS TONIGHT

With about half the precincts counted, Jenkins has 27,457 votes (51.6%) and Cazayoux has 23,308 (43.8%) but... the biggest Democratic precincts of East Baton Rouge haven't reported yet.


UPDATE TROIS: AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRECINCTS OF EAST BATON ROUGE ARE REPORTING NOW

The race is tightening as Jackson's primary supporters come in big for Cazayoux. With 121 of East Baton Rouge's 314 precincts now in, it's Jenkins with 29,841 (48.9%) and Cazayoux with 28,350 (46.4%)


UPDATE FOUR: IT'S ALL UP TO EAST BATON ROUGE NOW

Virtually all votes are counted in the KKK-heavy areas and all that's left to count are the Democratic strongholds of East Baton Rouge. Any Klansmen who were breaking out the rum and coke or Pabst Blue Ribbon, hold off. Only 156 of East Baton Rouge's 314 precincts are in and Jenkins can still lose this. Right now it's Jenkins with 34,428 (49.1%) and Cazayoux with 32,400 (46.2%).

UPDATE FIVE: CAZAYOUX PULLS AHEAD

The East Baton Rouge precincts are flooding in now and Cazayoux has pulled ahead of Klansman Woody Jenkins.-- 49,312 (49.2%) to 46,282 (46.2%) It is OVER!


UPDATE: FINAL VOTE

Don Cazayoux- 49,702 (49.20%)

Woody Jenkins- 46,741 (46.27%)

One would have to guess that I wasn't the only person watching that Saturday night. I mean at least Don Cazayoux must have been paying attention, no? But maybe not. He went to Congress and immediately made a spectacle of himself as the most conservative, anti-family Dixiecrat imaginable, voting with the Republicans again and again... and again. It seemed in those few months he served in Congress he had only one goal: persuade the voters who had cast their ballots for the Klansman, Jenkins, that he was just as... well... horrible as what they had hoped Jenkins would be. One thing he showed without any doubt is that no one would ever be able to accuse him of catering to the working families or African-Americans who had voted for him.

So, he progressively infuriates the voters from the East Baton Rouge precincts-- the only thing you could attach his name and "progressive" to-- while putting all his eggs in the Republican-light basket. It didn't take long before an African American state Senator, Michael Jackson, was pissed off enough to declare his candidacy for the general election. And that was the end of the idiotic congressional career of Don Cazayoux. How could he possibly expect African-American voters to cast their ballots for him again after he had so blatantly disrespected them? They didn't stay home and they didn't vote for the clownish Republican thing Bill Cassidy (who wiped Cazayoux out, 48-40%). Nope, 12% of the votes, almost all in the East Baton Rouge precincts that had elected Cazayoux to being with, and substantially more than Cassidy's margin of victory, were cast for Michael Jackson. It was a year when Republicans were losing everywhere-- and the 6th was Obama's best performing congressional district in Louisiana outside of New Orleans (also taken by a Republican)-- but Cazayoux was conscientiously evaluated by his constituents, found wanting, and left to the tender mercies of the Republicans he had so assiduously courted.

Now, why bring this up today? Yesterday's Hill tried grappling with some Inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that has it how Democrats are in for a shellacking in 2010 because African-American voters, with no Obama on the ticket, are not going to turn out in the big numbers needed to re-elect shaky incumbents. The words "public option" never appear in the story, nor do the words "health care reform." And yet, African-American voters have always shown that they're savvier than the general electorate and more likely to understand their own interests and use the ballot to reward candidates who are fighting for them-- or punish the ones fighting against them and their families.

At the very bottom of the story-- 21 paragraphs down (of a 22 paragraph story)-- Emory University political scientist Merle Black is quoted, regarding the senatorial run-off election last year between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin. Martin lost by 3% points in the general and by 15% in the run-off. Black offered the novel idea that it can depend on how much a candidate has to offer black voters, and that’s what Democrats will have to work on. "There were efforts to turn them out [in the Senate runoff], but the main driving force is whether voters think candidates are going to do something for them. The difference between Obama and Martin was a chasm."

The Hill identifies a half dozen Democrats representing districts with significant black populations who might suffer if black participation falls off precipitously. “If what looks like is going to happen in Virginia plays out on a national level, I do think Democrats will lose the House,” said Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling.

“We really don’t find that many people who voted Democratic in 2008 are switching sides; they’re just becoming complacent,” he added. “And that’s particularly true with black Democrats, which is the party’s most dependable voter bloc.”

...Reps. Tom Perriello and Glenn Nye both rode into Washington in districts that are nearly one-quarter black. Nye won by 5 percent, while Perriello won by fewer than 1,000 votes.

The third freshman Democrat in the state’s delegation, Rep. Gerry Connolly has a 10 percent African-American district. He said he, Nye and Perriello will be watching the results, but that it’s a yearly exercise in the state to re-evaluate the electorate.

He noted that not only are black voters expected to drop significantly, but so is another key Democratic voter group: young adults.

“That’s a huge change in the composition of the electorate. That’s not easily made up on the run,” Connolly said. “So, yeah, we’re watching the electorate, but this is not a new phenomenon in Virginia.”

Many other freshman Democrats come from districts with black populations similar in size to Nye’s and Perriello’s, including Alabama Reps. Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith, North Carolina Rep. Larry Kissell and Ohio Rep. Steve Driehaus. Many of the rest come from districts with about 10 percent black populations, like Connolly’s.

“It’s going to be hard to get African-Americans to vote without Obama, but there’s going to be lower turnout across the board,” said a consultant who works with candidates in the former group.

No distinction between candidates (like Bright, Nye and Griffith) with voting records that no self-respecting working family-- black or white-- would want to see re-elected and members who have been true to the principles and values they ran on, principles and values embraced by most African-American voters. Tom Perriello has been an excellent representative for working families, regardless of color. Many African-American voters, like working people across all demographics, are watching to see which congressmembers oppose meaningful health care legislation. It isn't lack of interest that could wipe out conservative Democrats like Bright, Griffith and Nye but anti-family votes on health care. Arguably, Parker Griffith is the worst Democrat in the House, certainly at least as big a disappointment for working families, for Democrats and for African Americans as Don Cazayoux was. And he is doing exactly what Cazayoux tried-- courting angry, low-info, reactionary whites whose natural home is the GOP. If I had to bet on one Democrat losing in 2010, it would certainly be Parker Griffith and if black turn-out is blamed, it will be something to feel proud of.

Gerry Connolly isn't exactly my idea of a great congressman but he's a moderate, not a reactionary Blue Dog. Watch him fending off a radical right Republican and a laughably biased Fox propagandist while defending the public option for his working class constituents. This-- not Parker's promise to vote with the GOP against Nancy Pelosi-- is what will turn out black voters for Democrats:



Now, speaking of reactionary Blue Dogs who don't deserve any support from African-American voters, Arkansas Congressman Mike Ross is not just egregiously corrupt but has also played an especially destructive role in the health care debate. He's consistently conspired with Republicans to block reform. Now that that has become fodder for the newspapers back home-- as has his corruption scandal-- and now that his chances to win re-election are rapidly dimming, Ross is rethinking his position on health care.

A quarter of Ross' constituents in southern Arkansas are African-Americans. Overwhelmingly they strongly support President Obama's calls for meaningful health care reform. Ross didn't have an opponent in 2004 and he didn't have an opponent in 2008. (In 2006 the Republicans thought they could fool someone by running an architect from El Dorado named... Joe Ross. Joe scraped by with 25% of the vote.) The spokesman for the Blue Dog caucus on health care is now telling reporters that he actually favors... single payer!!!! That's right, one of the most reactionary Democrats in Congress says he wants to open up Medicare to the uninsured. What a joker!

How Big A Let Down Have The Democrats Been?

Well... alas, pretty big. In the new issue of Rolling Stone Tim Dickinson takes on the Democratic Senate leadership. Below I want to talk anecdotally about some Democratic Party letdowns but first take a look at what ex-Democrat/current independent candidate for Congress, Steve Porter has to say and let's look at some of Dickinson's most salient points. He points out what a shill NY reptile Chuck Schumer has been for crooked billionaire Wall Street operators, "championing one of the biggest tax breaks for billionaires in the history of the republic [as] Democrats in the House fought to close a loophole that levies a tax rate of only 15 percent... on hedge-fund managers who make as much as $3.7 billion a year. But when the debate reached the Senate, Schumer broke with his fellow Democrats and sided with Wall Street-- inspiring the hedge-fund industry to hail him as its 'guardian.'"

Another New York member of Congress, seems to be criticizing Schumer and other Insider Democrats who serve the interests of a very generous plutocracy (generous to their career aspirations that is): Rep. Charles Rangel, who led the hedge-fund tax in the House: "America's middle class have been forgotten. It seems that those with the money have the power." And Harry Reid is backing Schumer and the hedge fund crooks up. Why? They are financing the DSCC, the same way other equally corrupt corporate special interests have financed the NRSC and Bush and the GOP. With power-hungry sleazebags like Schumer (or McConnell for that matter, a kind of Schumer doppelganger in many horrifying ways) in charge do you think effective campaign finance regulations-- taking the billions of dollars pumped into our political system by special interests eager for special consideration-- will ever be enacted? There's only one answer and it has two letters and the first is "no."

According to campaign-finance records, seven of the country's 10 richest hedge-fund managers contributed an average of $24,400 to the DSCC last year. "Schumer didn't want to turn the spigot off," says Bob McIntyre, director of the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice. All told, the hedge-fund and private-equity sectors have showered the Democrats with more than $14 million this year-- double what they have given Republicans.

As the hedge-fund fiasco demonstrates, Democrats have turned the Senate into the chamber where good legislation goes to die. Since regaining the majority in 2006, the Democrats have granted the Bush administration and big telephone companies immunity for illegal wiretapping, declared a branch of the Iranian military a terrorist organization and stuffed the recent Foreclosure Prevention Act with far more goodies for big lenders than for struggling homeowners [$25 billion in corporate welfare-- including, outrageously, billions in tax breaks to speculative home builders who helped create the disastrous housing bubble in the first place-- and only $9 billion for struggling homeowners]. They also confirmed Attorney General Michael Mukasey despite his refusal to disavow torture-- a move engineered by Schumer. "You really want to like the Democrats," says Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "Then they go and do shit like this."

...The bitter truth in the Senate is that it's not Republicans who are betraying the Democratic agenda-- it's Democrats themselves. "It's not the Congress that's ineffective," says Rangel. "It's not the promises that Nancy Pelosi made. We have passed the courageous bills — but for what? To be told what's 'acceptable' by the Senate." These days, he adds bitterly, "We don't need no House of Representatives. All we need to do is go over and ask the Senate, 'What have you Democrats and Republicans agreed to?'"

But the problem with the Insider Democrats who think they know better than the grassroots isn't just about Harry Reid and the NY Reptile-- and it isn't even only about Republican-lite Blue Dogs conspiring with the GOP to thwart a progressive agenda. House Democrats are always whining that it's the Blue Dogs who hold them back and there is a modicum of truth in that. But then how do you explain the fact that the House Democrats consistently break their own rules to prevent real Democrats from being nominated by throwing DCCC support behind Blue Dogs? Oh, they stopped doing that when Emanuel moved upstairs, you say? Well, Chris Van Hollen promised they would-- but they haven't.

Just yesterday the DCCC violated it's own rules by following John Boehner, Tom Cole and the NRCC down an old Stalinist model for candidate selection, backing a clueless Insider stooge, Ann Kirkpatrick in AZ-01 over a grassroots progressive, Howard Shanker. This thoroughly anti-democratic, old Communist regime way of doing things is working out really badly, even catastrophically, for the Republicans... so why would Van Hollen blunder into it, just when everything has been going so well?

A disgruntled Democrat from Flagstaff, on the DCCC's own website wants to know too:

Why does the DCCC pick before the people of the democratic party?

First you quietly pad Ann Kirkpatrick’s coffers, and then you call her the candidate to beat and offer public support. And all this before the primary. If you @$$holes would stop trying to force a candidate down our throats then we would have turned CD1 blue years ago.

Your “anointed” candidate (which you always seem to choose before the primaries) has lost in the last four elections.

Ever thought of playing fair with your own people before? It might work. Either wait till after the primary to back someone, or give a little bit to everyone who brings in enough petition signatures when qualifying.
And personally, I would set the bar higher than the measly 2500 signatures Ann K. brought in.

In fact all the comments on the DCCC site oppose Van Hollen's decision to morph into an unpleasant combination of Rahm Emanuel, John Boehner and Stalin. Another Arizona commenter: "This is pretty simple: Kirkpatrick is not the strongest democrat in the race. I wish folks at the DCCC had seen a debate or two between Kirkpatrick and Howard Shanker-- there’s no contest here. People on the ground in CD1 know that, but people out in DC don’t. This race is Shanker’s to lose, and all the top-down pressure from the Governor and the DCCC isn’t going to change much. Except maybe increase democrats’ frustration with the party." And another: "Yet another lame election year where the party decides who we should vote for even before we vote. Rick Renzi must have enjoyed having the DCCC in his corner for all those years. He would have faced some stiff competition if you actually took the time to see what the Democrat voters of DC1 wanted. Nobody likes being told who to vote for. Ann Kirkpatrick would make a T-shirt illegal if she does not like what it says. I guess she fits well in the DCC’s 'we’ll think for you' approach to politics."

Please think about that the next time the DCCC send you an e-mail begging for money to elect more Democrats-- never BETTER Democrats, always more Democrats, more Democrats to vote exactly how their Republican opponents would have voted on the issues that matter most.

And it isn't only the Inside the Beltway insiders who are systematically betraying the grassroots. A couple weeks ago former grassroots hero-- though never someone him trusted for 2 seconds-- Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia endorsed a corrupt reactionary, Gerry Connolly, for Congress, over Leslie Byrne, the grassroots progressive. Only 18% of Kaine's own base, Raising Kaine, agreed with his decision; 65% disapproved. (Fortunately, Jim Webb endorsed Leslie-- as did Blue America.

But I'm not just complaining because Leslie is a Blue America candidate. Out in southern New Mexico's sprawling second CD, Blue America hasn't endorsed any candidate, although we have noted that nearly 800 people have gone to ActBlue to donate to the progressive grassroots candidate, Bill McCamley, while only 2 people have donated to Harry Teague. It doesn't matter to Teague, a multimillionaire oilman, who is self-funding. Teague was just endorsed by Governor Bill Richardson, who everyone loves because he endorsed Obama. Predictably Teague is a huge Hillary supporter and has donated tens of thousands of dollars to politicians-- from both parties-- and immense amounts to... Bill Richardson. In fact, Richardson for President, Inc. owes Harry Teague's company-- Lea King LLC-- $203,850.70 for the use of Harry's private jet during the campaign. This currently comprises 64% of his campaign debt. Since the end of February Governor Richardson's Campaign has paid off $103,354.41 or 24.5% of his debt. Not a single penny had been paid to Lea King. (Under FEC regulations a vendor like Lea King may forgive debts owed by a committee if the debt was incurred in the normal course of business, the committee “undertook all reasonable efforts” to raise the funds, and the vendor made “the same efforts to collect the debt as those made to a non-political debtor." It doesn't mention endorsements.) On top of that, Teague's company, Teaco Energy, and its employees have bundled over $30,000 in campaign contributions for Richardson and some of that money may have been provided to the "donors" from Teague himself like a $4,600 contribution from an office assistant; that's illegal.

Democrats want our political leaders to act like Democrats, not like Republicans-- whether it's Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Chris Van Hollen, Rahm Emanuel, Bill Richardson or Tim Kaine. Grassroots Democrats should stop funding the DSCC and DCCC and donate directly to the candidates who they know they can trust. You can count on the Blue America candidates to support the people's interests, not the special interests and party bosses. Should you decide to donate to Leslie Byrne or Howard Shanker or any other of our progressive, grassroots canddiates today, please remember to add one cent to your donation so it counts as a vote in the Air America contest, which ends Monday morning at 6am, PT.

WHAT ABOUT THE "BETTER" IN "MORE AND BETTER DEMOCRATS?"

Today in the FDL discussion of the victory in Mississippi yesterday, people were wondering about the progressive commitment not just to "more Democrats" but to "more and better Democrats." One might ask, better than what, of course, but one thing liberals know we want are more Democrats like Donna Edwards, genuine and energized progressive leaders. Can reactionary Republicans (basically all of them) and reactionary Democrats be held accountable for the Iraq catastrophe and for the de-funding and the disabling of the federal regulatory agencies?

I was happy to see far right Republicans lose in deep red districts in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi. It is demoralizing and panicking Republicans; great. When grassroots progressives help beat reactionary Republicans, the Democratic Insider Establishment is as happy as we are. When I mentioned Al Wynn to Rahm Emanuel at a chance encounter in a bar a few weeks ago, I thought he was either going to lunge at me or have a heart attack. When Democratic reactionaries fall, you might notice rage in Beltway eyes. Democratic primaries are crucial for holding bad Democrats accountable and for electing better Democrats. Blue America is working hard to help trade in Bush rubber stamps Leonard Boswell (IA) and John Barrow (GA) for Ed Fallon and Regina Thomas. Another one of our favorite candidates this year, Leslie Byrne (VA-11), also has a primary coming up, but not against an incumbent. It's a primary pitting a proven progressive against a stealthy and reactionary puppet of war profiteers.

Long before Republican Tom Davis read the writing on the wall and announced he would not run for re-election, Virginia's 11th district was at the top of every Democrat's wish list. With Northern Virginia trending blue over the last two cycles, it's perfect for a red-to-blue turnover. But first we've got to make sure we don't elect another Blue Dog/DLC-type "corporate Democrat."

Fortunately, we have a great candidate in the field. Leslie Byrne has been a strong, progressive voice for decades in the state legislature, in Congress and as our nation's consumer advocate. She opposed the war in Iraq from the start, will fight to make health care more affordable and more accessible, and has always supported a woman's right to choose. Please check out her live blog session at FDL from last March.

As the Washington Post has pointed out, Leslie's opponent, Gerry Connolly, basically a Zell Miller/Joe Lieberman type Democrat, is trying to trick voters into thinking he's suddenly a progressive, just the way Lieberman persuaded Connecticut voters in 2006 that he had seen the light and had suddenly become anti-war. Let's go over why Connolly is such a terrible choice for grassroots and progressive Democrats.

First off, Connolly's record conforms to the worst stereotypes of the corporate Democrat and threatens to cost the party a long-awaited takeover. Connolly has been mired in questions about his employment with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), one of the worst of the major defense contractors, his cozy relationship with business developers and his general affinity for what most of us would call pay to play politics.

Connolly's most egregious offenses against the progressive agenda are only recently coming to light, largely due to his own hypocrisy on the Iraq war. Connolly, who was a proud "moderate" until the moment he declared for the House, has taken to touting his anti-war credentials by claiming that he's "been against the Iraq war from the beginning" and that he plans to "hold CEOs criminally accountable for wasting tax payer's dollars."

So, why is this a problem? Well, it's an issue because Connolly's employer, SAIC, is one of the most secretive defense contractors in the world. Think about that: Connolly works for a war profiteering company that not only cheer-led for Bush's unjustifiable invasion but that makes much of its money by cheating taxpayers.

The War Profiteering Act that Connolly "claims" to support could devastate SAIC. If convicted under the terms of that act, the company could have to pay up to one million dollars in fines after forfeiting all property gained through the terms of the contract. Company officials involved in fraudulent behavior could have faced 20 years in federal prison. So we've got a congressional candidate claiming that he would vote for a law that could land his co-workers in jail for two decades and devastate his employer's profit margin-- and his stock options.

Gerry Connolly has never commented on any of this. Never uttered a word, never explained to the voters in his district how his public statements can possibly be reconciled with his private employment.

He's never explained how he reconciles his claims that he "opposed to the war from the very beginning" when he was simultaneously employed by a company playing a major role disingenuously convincing Americans that Iraq posed a real threat.

Yep, that's right folks, Gerry Connolly is running for Congress claiming that he plans to "hold CEOs accountable for wasting tax payers dollars" all while working for a company that made the case for the Bush Regime to attack Iraq and that has been accused of cheating taxpayers out of millions of dollars related to defense contracts.

Doesn't even pass the laugh test, does it? It sort of begs the question: Why would SAIC continue to employ someone who claims to support legislation that would have devastating effects to the company? Makes you wonder if maybe SAIC doesn't really believe Connolly plans to follow through, doesn't it?

Well, why shouldn't he be? He has a record of taking money from companies and then doing their bidding. He's already influenced local building projects as the board of supervisors chairman for local real estate developers. Why would one believe he wouldn't continue this influence for the war profiteers?

Right after Connolly was hired at SAIC, he pushed the Board of Supervisors to build a new Metro stop right by their property, raising its value by millions. Connolly talked about how important the new stop would be for SAIC. He didn't disclose the fact that he was now one of their employees.

When the real estate developer WestGroup wanted to build luxury town homes in his district without doing much for the neighborhood, Connolly voted for their proposal. He didn't think it was important to mention that he had been a consultant for WestGroup, making at least $10,000 after he went to them for work.

When Lerner Enterprises wanted to build a residential and office complex in Fairfax County, they wrote Connolly a series of checks for just under the amount at which they would have to publicly disclose. Gerry Connolly got their project approved.

Bad enough that he's trying to convince people that he wants to punish the company that pays his bills. But Gerry Connolly has spent years giving big developers everything they want if they were willing to fill his campaign coffers. Now that he's running for Congress, pay to play is suddenly the root of all evil instead of a fundraising strategy.

Yet, surprise, surprise, the mainstream media's not calling him on it. I suppose it would have taken some really hard-hitting, deep-digging investigative journalism to uncover all this, maybe even a Deep Throat from inside his campaign. Or they could have googled SAIC, Gerry Connolly, like I just did. He's gotten a pass from everyone so far, and he's hoping that it will last right up until Election Day.

Gerry Connolly: "Progressive change (unless it hurts my corporate backers)!" Now there's a bumper sticker I want on my car.

With only 27 days until VA-11's June 10th Democratic Primary, we can help send Leslie to Washington and give her a chance to clean up the mess made by the GOP and the corporate Democrats in power. I know she has the experience, the passion, and the courage to stand up and speak out on the important issues. Please stop by our Blue America ActBlue page and make a contribution of whatever you can afford. The netroots have a great opportunity to make a difference in this race. I hope you will join us.