Republicans Not Even Campaigning For Independent Voters Anymore-- For Them, It's All About Their Crackpot Base Now

GOP base strategy works with hardcore Republican voters, but not with normal people

This morning when Trump tried bragging about his magnificence, the UN General Assembly burst out in sustained, audible laughter. No, Señor T, you're not in Kansas anymore. (Ironically, even Kansas may not be Kansas anymore.)

Ugly monkey: "In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country."

World Leaders: laughter.

Ugly monkey: "It's so true."

World Leaders: more laughter.

Ugly monkey: "I didn't expect that reaction, but that's okay," smirking as though waiting for someone to feed him a banana-- or hand him a submachine gun.

Republican Party strategists have come to realize that appealing to independent voters this year is a rabbit hole for their candidates and they are now doubling down on getting out their own base and virtually ceding the independents-- as much as a third of the vote in many places-- to the Democrats. Our election coverage here at DWT has centered on independents ability to decide the midterms. GOP strategy is to now run such vile negative advertising as to just discourage independents from voting, not to get them to vote for Republican candidates.

At Axios Monday morning, Caitlin Owens outlined a Republican strategy to save hardcore red districts and basically abandon all swing districts. "With the midterm elections fast approaching and Democrats riding a clear advantage on health care, many Republicans are nevertheless doubling down on largely unpopular ideas like repealing the Affordable Care Act and cutting Medicare," she wrote."This strategy may seem counterintuitive on its face. However, it likely reveals that the party has all but abandoned independent voters this year and instead is focused on turning out its base. Republican leaders have recently become more public about the likelihood of trying again on ACA repeal, whereas a few months ago it was largely a private assumption among the party.

• Vice President Mike Pence told reporters in Wisconsin that if the GOP candidate wins the Senate seat there, the effort will be revived, per The Hill. “We made an effort to fully repeal and replace ObamaCare and we'll continue, with Leah Vukmir in the Senate, we'll continue to go back to that," he said.
• “We need to win this election and then get more seats next year" before trying again, GOP Whip Steve Scalise told the AP.

Is that a good idea in Wisconsin, a state where independents decide elections? It may be a good strategy for Mississippi but there isn't a single poll-- including partisan Republican polls that no one takes seriously-- that shows Vukmir with a pathway to victory. FiveThirtyEight gives her a 1 in 40 chance to beat progressive Democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin (in a state Trump won-- albeit narrowly and with Kremlin help-- in 2016.

As Owens explained, "ACA repeal only resonates well with one group of voters: registered Republicans. 'It’s all about the base, because as far as I can tell, they’ve lost the independents, there’s no one left to woo,' said conservative economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former campaign aide to John McCain. 'The Republicans face a very odd problem…when you ask actually registered voters what they want to do with the future of the ACA, no one wants to repeal and replace it except the Republicans, which the majority do,' said Robert Blendon of Harvard's School of Public Health. 'If you are looking at the aggregate, you can't imagine why you’d even mention it. But if you’re trying to encourage your own voters… then they're trying to say that we would come back and try to do something,' Blendon added."

Worse yet for the GOP's election hopes among normal voters, the Trump Regime is now talking about cuts to Social Security and Medicare again. Owens reminds us that Trumpanzee's top economic advisor, drug addict and crackpot TV personality Larry Kudlow, "recently said that the administration will probably look at entitlement cuts next year." She brought up 3 very vulnerable Republican incumbents-- in districts with huge numbers of independent voters-- who are going along with Kudlow and Trump are likely to lose their seats because of it. John Faso, for example, was keeping his seat in play. It is now starting to trend, ever so slightly, towards Anthony Delgado. Faso is making noises that will make independents (and seniors) see him as a threat to Social Security and Medicare. Fine for the GOP base-- but NY-19 is not some backward rural district in Oklahoma or Alabama. The PVI is supposedly a deceptive R+2 but Obama won it both times he ran and it was only Hillary's lousy campaign and flaws as a candidate that gave Trump his win there (50.8% to 44.0%).

Peter Roskam is another one the need to rein in spending on entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. That's a bad idea in Chicagoland. IL-06 gave Obama a win over McCain, Romney a win over Obama and Hillary a 7 point win over Trump (50.2% to 43.2%). The PVI is also a deceptive R+2. The Democratic candidate, Sean Casten, isn't especially strong but it's a neck-and-neck race that Roskam's to lose by talking about cutting Social Security and Medicare.

Very similar story in Texas' 7th district (Houston), where the Democrats nominated a weak candidate, Lizzie Fletcher, but where Hillary narrowly edged Trump (48.5% to 47.1%). Incumbent John Culberson is a poor campaigner. Fletcher has outraised him, $2,312,615 to $2,007,183 and he will be committing political suicide if he embraces-- as he appears to be doing-- an all base strategy. Fletcher isn't capable of winning this race; Culberson is very capable of losing it.

Again, Owens explained the risk to Republicans like Culberson: Although the bet is that the GOP base is concerned with deficits, "as soon as the other side switches to 'you're going to cut back Medicare and Social Security,' you're on the wrong side," Blendon said. "The highest turnout rates are among people above 60." Like clockwork, the DNC blasted out an email criticizing Kudlow's comments, saying that he "admitted that Republicans will try to cut vital programs relied upon by millions of working families."

Private Prisons Want Trump's Zero Tolerance Agenda-- Can You Guess Why?

What a video! MJ Hegar is running for the Texas congressional seat that covers Williamson and Bell counties, TX-31, between Waco and Austin. It runs from Killeen in the north and Round Rock in the south. The PVI is a daunting R+10. Romney won it 59.6% to 38.3% and Trump won it 53.5% to 40.8%. Bell County includes part of Fort Hood, the largest American military base in the world. It's a traditionally Democratic district but Carter, can ultra-conservative Republican, has been in office since 2002. He never deviates from a hardline GOP approach. For example, on Thursday he voted for the extreme anti-immigration bill and for the far right Agriculture bill.

Carter is a backbencher you rarely hear about outside of his own district. He doesn't do anything except for for extreme right-wing proposals. His Trump adhesion score is 98.8%, the second highest in Congress after whip Steve Scalise. He's a member of the Tea Party Caucus. He's also a bit of a crook

On Thursday the Dallas Morning News revealed that Carter, along with John Culberson (R-TX) and Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) have taken massive bribes from GEO and it's executives, the private prison company that stands to gain the most from Trump's "zero tolerance" policy that locks up huge numbers of border crossers and their children. GEO operates the private immigration detention facilities in Karnes City, Laredo, Pearsall and Conroe.

Culberson is facing a tough re-election race against Democrat Lizzie Fletcher. The race has been rated a ‘toss up’ by nonpartisan analyst Cook Political Report.

Culberson received the most funding from GEO out of Texas members of Congress, but GEO is also the top donor this cycle for U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, who received $32,400, and Round Rock Republican Rep. John Carter, who received $31,600.

Both Culberson and Cuellar serve on the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, which funds private immigration detention centers. Culberson is also the chairman of and Carter serves on the House Appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice and science, which oversees funding for private prisons.

Cuellar’s campaign manager Colin Strother said that GEO is one of the largest employers in Cuellar’s district, and that Cuellar has not allowed campaign contributions to influence his decisions.

“If you live in a district in the state of Washington, you get boating money. If you live in a district in Nebraska, you get agriculture money. We have a district with lots of jail facilities that employ lots of people,” Strother said.

Culberson’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Henry Cuéllar and Vicente Gonzalez were 2 of the 3 Democrats-- the other was another Blue Dog, Fireman Vela-- who refused to sign a bipartisan discharge petition to allow a DACA debate, killing it. Now we know why.

Another one of the largest groups that runs private immigration detention centers in the United States is CoreCivic. The company runs facilities in Houston, Laredo, Dilley and Taylor.

CoreCivic PACs have given less money to candidates than GEO, but still contributed to three Texans, according to OpenSecrets.org: Culberson with $11,000, McCaul with $3,500 and Cuellar with $1,500.

Thursday, the Houston Chronicle reported on the fate of the more than 2,400 children who are under 12 years old that the Trump regime separated from their parents and locked up in Texas.

“It’s chaos,” said Michelle Brané, director of migrant rights at the Women’s Refugee Commission, a national advocacy group. “Everything is just moving really fast … I am not convinced they have a plan for reunifying those they have separated.”

...Under Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy, parents usually served just a few days of prison time for illegally crossing the border before going to immigration detention centers run by the Department of Homeland Security. From there, they can be quickly deported without their children. In one case, a Guatemalan father was deported and had no idea where his 18-month-old toddler was for five months until they were reunited in December.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement has said it is not routinely informed about how or when parents and children were separated and where the adults may be.

“You’re talking about 2,000-plus children scattered across America,” said U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Houston Democrat. “What a difficult challenge and our fear is that we lose one child.”

The sudden influx of so many very young children has overwhelmed the federal government, which has put out emergency calls for contractors across the nation to provide more bed space and recruit more foster parents. It has meant some children are not put in a foster home with a family, as has generally been the goal for “tender age” kids, but instead may stay for weeks and even months in a residential shelter intended for older children. Most child advocates believe this is not in the best interests of the children.

“Kids, particularly young kids, should be in a smaller, more community-based setting, as opposed to the larger scale institutional-like settings,” said Kathryn Kuennen, associate director of children's services with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which cares for unaccompanied minors.

I haven't talked to a Democratic congressional candidate who isn't concerned about this. Yesterday Randy Bryce, for one, was majorly pissed off. This is what he told his own supporters:

Yesterday, Melania Trump boarded a plane to visit the US-Mexico border, where over 2300 children have been separated from their parents, wearing a jacket that read on the back, "I really don't care. Do u?"

Yeah Melania, I really freaking care.

I care about everyday Americans. I care about hardworking families in Wisconsin and at the border. And millions of Americans, all across the country, stood up and showed that they care too.

But that isn't enough. While Trump may have signed an executive order, if you read the fine print, it doesn't solve the problem. All this order does is turn family separation into family incarceration. And to make matters worse, Donald Trump is still refusing to reunite the children the US has already separated from their parents under his watch.

We have to keep the pressure up because we have to make sure these families are released and reunited immediately. To do that, we need to demand an end to Trump's zero tolerance immigration policy.

Call your representatives now and demand they support an end to Trump's zero tolerance immigration policy. Dial (202) 224-3121 to reach the Capitol Switchboard and speak with your representative.

...We have to keep up the fight, because when we fight, we win.

The DCCC Is Still Undermining Laura Moser, The Likely Democratic Party Nominee

Tuesday is primary run-off day in Texas. The DCCC is counting on an anti-union middle-of-the-road nothing candidate to win the primary and go on to face dull Republican incumbent John Culberson in a suburban Houston district (TX-07) where Hillary unexpectedly beat Señor Trumpanzee 48.5% to 47.1%. Going into that election the PVI was R+13 and Obama had only managed 39% against Romney. Al Gore had only gotten 31%. Now the PVI is a more manageable R+7. But the corrupt rotgut conservatives who infest the DCCC have lit their hair on fire and run around for months screaming that the progressive in the runoff, Laura Moser, can't win a general election. Then they set out to make sure it will be very hard for her, wave or no wave.

Not long ago Pelosi was in Austin, telling the editors of the Austin American-Statesman if primary voters don't nominate the establishment choices, the DCCC will abandon them. That's been a DCCC tactic for over a decade when Rahm Emanuel was chair-- but no one has ever spoken about it publicly before. And I might add that when Emanuel was doing it he failed over and over again as progressives who won primaries against his conservative candidates, they then won general elections without DCCC assistance. And that brings us back to Laura Moser. The DCCC released an especially vicious hit piece on her, claiming that they had to put it out because if they didn't keep her from winning the primary, Culberson would release it and she would lose the general. The DCCC is using this ugly tactic all over the country to get their corrupt conservatives to win against progressives. what it did in TX-07, though, was guarantee an explosion of contributions for Moser and enough votes to put her into the run-off, while the DCCC-backed candidate came in a distant 4th.

Bridget Bowman, writing for RollCall, a website that usually specializes in reprinting press releases and "inside info" from the Beltway committees, asked this week if the DCCC will pay a price for what they did to Moser. "Tuesday’s result," she wrote, "could signal whether that intervention-- which prompted some backlash among liberal activists-- made a lasting impact on the race. And the runoff could be an early sign of which general election strategy Democratic voters find most viable: firing up the base or reaching across the aisle."

“When it comes to what it takes to beat Culberson in November, what sets me apart is my belief that Democrats need to stand firm for our progressive values,” Moser said in a statement. “To win this district, we must bring new voters into the process. I believe we do that by talking to people about the issues that affect their lives-- like income inequality, the spiraling costs of higher education, and the urgent threat of climate change.”

...“At this point, it’s sort of a two-month-old process story,” said Sonia Van Meter, a Texas Democratic consultant based in Austin. “I think voters are not especially concerned with who the D-trip is interested in.”

But the move did rankle local activists, who were concerned about dampened enthusiasm and the perception that the primary was not a fair fight.

“It poses a challenge to us, as the activist community, to unite the entire base under whoever it is that prevails,” said Jon Rosenthal, a founder of a local Indivisible group that has not endorsed either candidate. “From our perspective as activist leaders … we wish that they would butt the hell out so that we could have a clean win.”

“I was really, really upset with what they did,” said Rufi Natarajan, who lives in a neighboring congressional district but is active in Harris County Democratic politics and the Bayou Blue Democrats. Natarajan originally backed Moser but is now supporting Fletcher.

“In a way, it was done very badly, but I guess they were saying what I’m saying, which is, ‘Hey, she’s not electable,’” Natarajan said.

Rosenthal, who is running for the Texas House, said activist leaders are still irked by the move. But they’re telling their members not to let anger toward the DCCC affect their vote, and to support the candidate they believe could defeat Culberson.

“I am more optimistic now rather than right after it happened,” Rosenthal said of chances for unity despite the intraparty fight. “People have come to terms with the fact that either [candidate] is a huge step up and we all need to be pulling together to actually flip that seat.”

But how exactly to flip the seat is still up for debate-- and it’s a major question in the primary.

Both Moser and Fletcher are in line on most policy issues (aside from health care-- Moser backs a single-payer system). So their style and general election strategies have become stark dividing lines in the runoff.

“I’m going to win because I’m a fighter,” Moser said at a debate earlier this month. “And people in this district, including Republicans, want someone who is going to pop it to John Culberson and who will take it to the mat from Day One.”

Moser said the focus should be on energizing existing supporters and new voters. Fletcher, on the other hand, stressed reaching across the aisle.

...That debate over which strategy is best is something Democrats are talking about every day in the 7th District, Rosenthal said. And it’s a debate happening among Democrats across the country.

For some, the answer is clear.

“I like the idea of appealing to as many people on the political spectrum as possible, but right now, Democrats are pissed,” Van Meter said. “They’re angry, they’re galvanized, they’re motivated. And we just need to give them a reason to turn out.”

Like too many Democratic Party candidates, Lizzie Pannill Fletcher doesn't stand for anything at all but the status quo and her own career trajectory. Electing her is nothing but a waste of a House seat. Moser is a dedicated fighter for working families. Electing her would be meaningful on many levels. Originally, Blue America supported a different candidate who didn't make it to the run-off. Moser is at least as good a candidate and we endorsed her the day after the first round. If you'd like to make sure she goes up against Culberson, please click on the ActBlue Turning Texas Blue thermometer on the right. One thing I can tell you for sure-- she won't owe anything to Pelosi, Hoyer or Lujan... nothing to anyone but the working families who are fueling her grassroots campaign.

Figuring Out What Will Happen In November, But Not 2019

Alexandria Ocasio is such an underdog in her primary challenge to Joe Crowley-- one of the biggest big shots inside the Beltway-- that none of the Inside the Beltway prognosticators ever even mention her race against the Pelosi heir-apparent, one of Congress' most corrupt members. That's not because the media is lazy; it's just that they're stupid and unimaginative... and lazy. Crowley, who lives in Virginia and has virtually no connection whatsoever to a district that has rapidly changed since 1998 when he first wormed his way into the seat, is extremely vulnerable to a primary challenge. We'll discuss this later today. Now I just want to point out that out of touch congressmen are vulnerable. If that wasn't the case young and vigorous California congressmen Ro Khanna and Eric Swalwell wouldn't have beaten, respectively, 18-year incumbent Mike Honda and 40-year incumbent Pete Stark in primaries that shocked a geriatric Democratic establishment. Neither Honda nor Stark were prepared to defend themselves from what hit them. Donna Edwards and Matt Cartwright had managed to pull off the same thing in Maryland and Pennsylvania against entrenched incumbents Al Wynn and Tim Holden, horrifying sclerotic party bosses in DC.

When the 2010 Republican wave hit the Democrats hard, the GOP gained 63 seats, the biggest House swing since 1948. Some of the worn and tired old-timers were smart enough to get out of the way before being swept away. Entrenched senior incumbents like Dave Obey (WI), Marion Berry (AR), Vic Snyder (AR), Brian Baird (WA), Bart Stupak (MI) and Dennis Moore all retired voluntarily, their districts falling to Republicans in November. 52 Democrats who fought for reelection were defeated, including some very senior members who had, basically, lost the skills to fight a competitive race in a bad environment-- John Spratt (SC), Gene Taylor (MS), Jim Marshall (GA), Jim Oberstar (MN), Rick Boucher (VA), Solomon Ortiz (TX), Paul Kanjorski (PA), Baron Hill (IN), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Allen Boyd (FL), Ciro Rodriguez (TX), Bob Etheridge (NC) and Ike Skelton (MO).

Old history? Sure... but, Politico sported an interesting headline yesterday: House leaders’ biggest 2018 fear: The lazy Republican. It could have been a mirror image of 2010: Ryan freaking ou: "GOP members who haven’t had a tough race in years are being warned to start running scared." Quite a few, including Ryan, have been rumored to start running for the exits instead. Rachael Bade happened to begin her report in TX-07: "On paper, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) appears to be a shoo-in for reelection. He‘s served nine terms in what’s been a GOP stronghold for decades, hasn’t had a serious challenger in years and sits on one of the most powerful committees in Congress. But Culberson‘s suburban-Houston district went for Hillary Clinton by 1 percentage point in 2016. And when GOP leaders found out last year that he was being outraised by Democrats and barely had a campaign staff, they were exasperated. Get your act together, they warned Culberson in so many words, according to sources familiar with the dressing-down. Culberson’s slow start to his reelection campaign is what GOP leaders fear most heading into the thick of the midterm elections: incumbents who haven’t seen a real race in years snoozing as a Democratic wave builds. Speaker Paul Ryan and the National Republican Congressional Committee are less concerned about their battle-tested swing-district members-- who face tough races every election cycle-- and more worried about complacent Republicans not prepared for a fight."

What Bade doesn't fit into her narrative it what the NRCC has been always able to count on when they're in a tough spot: the incompetence and corruption of the failed DCCC. There are two Democrats in the May 22 primary runoff-- Laura Moser, a progressive and Lizzie Fletcher, an EMILY's List creation. Fletcher, the establishment candidate, has an anti-union reputation that alienates and deflates a significant portion of the Democratic base. Meanwhile-- and for various reasons that have to do with DCCC staff corruption, anti-progressive mania and arrogance-- the DCCC has worked to make Moser unelectable against Culberson. Ironically, she probably wouldn't have even been in the runoff had the DCCC not attacked her! DCCC support is so toxic among a portion of the base that they are the same kind of kiss of death as Trump is on the GOP side. Immediately after the DCCC smear campaign began, small donors rushed to contribute over $100,000 to her campaign. And TX-07 primary voters decided to send the DCCC a lesson about not interfering in their primary. Back to Bade:

“This is a very tough environment for Republicans. If you’re getting outraised or if you haven’t started your campaign yet, you need to be scared and start today,” said Corry Bliss, executive director of the Ryan-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund. “Saying ‘I’ve never lost before, therefore I can never lose this time’ is not a campaign plan.”

It’s one of the reasons Ryan’s political team and NRCC officials have started holding a series of meetings with lawmakers from traditionally reliable GOP districts. Their message: Get ready for a roller coaster and begin your campaign in earnest now.

It’s too early to tell whether leadership’s message is registering. More than 40 GOP incumbents were outraised by Democratic challengers during the last three months of 2017, a staggering number that senior Republicans said is unacceptable and amounts to nothing short of laziness.

What the 2 establishment DC parties haven't learned from the past is that in wave election cycles money won't save the necks of incumbents. I studied ever single district outcome in the 2006 blue wave and the 2010 red wave. In 2006 Republicans who outspent Democratic challengers by five times were swept away anyone (as long as the challenger had enough money to get out his or her message). And the same thing was true in the 2010 midterms, when Democrats who outspent GOP challengers by massive amounts went down badly. Ryan and his team think 2018 will be all about money. It won't; it will be all about Trump and the congressional enablers.

“Many of our members have not been in Congress during a possible ‘wave’ election cycle, as happened in 2006 and 2010,” added a Republican campaign staffer. “Members in Republican-leaning districts should heed the warnings from House leadership and get ready for a fight.”

Rep. Glenn Grothman’s team is another office that’s received a talking-to. Ryan is personally helping campaign for the Wisconsin Republican, who hasn’t had a competitive race since he was elected in 2014. His sprawling district partly abutting Lake Michigan has been a Republican stronghold since the 1960s. But Grothman now faces a wealthy Democratic challenger who’s planning to spend hundreds of thousands of his own money on the race.

Grothman acknowledged in an interview the battle he’s in for and said he's doing "100 percent" what he can to prepare. The 62-year-old former attorney pulled up his schedule on his phone and read a list of constituent events: a fish fry, a bowl-a-thon, some St. Patrick’s Day parades and Lincoln Day dinners.

“Obviously, that’s a bigger problem than the typical year,” Grothman said of his Democratic challenger, Dan Kohl, the nephew of former Milwaukee Bucks owner and ex-Sen. Herb Kohl. “I’ll raise more money, I think, because there’s more a necessity… My opponent has a lot of money, and he’s telling people he’s going to spend a lot of money… so it’s concerning.”

Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC) also hails from a solid Republican district but is facing a well-funded Democratic opponent who last quarter raked in over $100,000 more than the incumbent. His staff, like Grothman’s, has been warned to be ready-- particularly because Pittenger is still introducing himself to constituents after a recent redistricting changed his district’s borders.

Another North Carolinian on GOP leaders’ radar is freshman Rep. Ted Budd. His well-connected Democratic opponent, philanthropist Kathy Manning, raised $564,000 last quarter, compared to his $183,000 haul.

Budd said he realizes “the environment is tough this year,” and he just hired a campaign manager who will start next month.

Ryan’s political executive director, Kevin Seifert, and deputy executive director, Jake Kastan, are handling many of the reality-check meetings with incumbent Republicans or their staffs. While Ryan’s team often helps incumbents, it's hosting more meetings than usual, and with a greater sense of urgency.

Ryan and NRCC Chairman Steve Stivers (R-OH) have also delivered the same message to lawmakers in conference gatherings in recent weeks: Raise money now, be active in your districts, find legislative issues that resonate with constituents and tout your accomplishments constantly. Also, define yourself and your opponent early, and label Democrats as obstructionists.

“When you have a million dollars spent attacking [GOP lawmakers] for the first time, a lot can change, and quickly,” Bliss said.

The warnings from leadership aides are also expected to extend to a handful of Freedom Caucus members who typically feel safe enough to vote with the far right of the House Republican Conference-- if they haven't already. Three Democratic opponents of caucus member Rep. Tom Garrett (R-Va.) outraised him in the last fundraising quarter, two of them by $100,000.

Garrett's district elected a Democrat to the House in 2008, before a Republican reclaimed the seat two years later. And Garrett’s conservative votes could make him more susceptible in a Democratic wave year, senior Republicans said.

Ditto, they said, for Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), another Freedom Caucus member, who upset former Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 primary.

Brat declined to discuss his campaign with Politico; two Democratic opponents collected more than him in the final three months of 2017-- including one by nearly $150,000.

“Policy, policy, policy,” Brat said when asked about his reelection effort. “All I talk is policy.”

At least one Republican, Culberson, appears to have heeded the warnings from leadership, aides say. He has hired new staff and outraised his Democratic opponents in the last quarter of 2017, though in the first six weeks of this year, his top two competitors collected more money than him, according to campaign filings.

“I’m always ready,” Culberson in a brief interview this week, “and even more so this year.”

Yesterday, at The Atlantic, Ron Brownstein posited that Trump has already sealed the GOP's midterm fate. Brownstein focuses in on one aspect: Ryan and McConnell and their teams are "sending an unmistakable signal to voters: So long as Republicans hold the congressional majority, they will not act to meaningfully constrain, or even oversee" a moron and uncontrollable, self-centered, selfish Trumpanzee with an id run amuck. Brownstein calls it an "epic gamble... Their approach," he wrote, "threatens to persuade less partisan voters that they need a Democratic House (and perhaps Senate) to impose any limits on a president who daily redefines the words 'mercurial,' 'belligerent,' and 'volatile.' ... Some GOP strategists believe the imperative of energizing the GOP base-- which preponderantly supports Trump-- justifies the risk of alienating less partisan voters inclined to restrain him. And in some Republican-leaning places, that calculation may compute. But in almost all swing House districts, 'you can’t get to 50 percent [of the vote] with just base voters,' noted Meredith Kelly, the communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. That threshold requires 'crossover support and independents'-- the sort of voters that may prefer some constraints on Trump, even if they don’t entirely reject his direction."

Every time Donald Trump breaks a window, congressional Republicans obediently sweep up the glass. That’s become one of the most predictable patterns of his turbulent presidency-- and a defining dynamic of the approaching midterm elections. Each time they overtly defend his behavior, or implicitly excuse him by failing to object, they bind themselves to him more tightly.

It happened again last weekend when Trump fired off a volley of tweets that, for the first time, attacked Special Counsel Robert Mueller by name. A handful of GOP senators responded with warnings against dismissing Mueller. More congressional Republicans said nothing. Party leaders, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, tried to downplay the attacks by insisting that Trump would not act on them and fire Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Most important, and regardless of their rhetorical posture, Republicans almost universally locked arms to reject legislative action to protect the special counsel.

That reaction reflected a hardening pattern. Whatever the provocation-- reported payoffs to a porn star, a chaotic security-clearance process in the White House, the public belittling of Attorney General Jeff Sessions-- congressional Republicans have found ways to excuse or simply ignore behavior that would have launched a thousand subpoenas under a Democratic president.

...As American politics has grown more tribal since the 1990s, attitudes toward the president have become a decisive factor in congressional elections. In each midterm since 1994, 82 percent to 86 percent of the voters who disapproved of the incumbent president voted against his party’s House candidates, exit polls found.

That effect may be even more intense under Trump because such a high proportion of those who disapprove of him do so strongly: An Election Day poll in last week’s Pennsylvania special election, for instance, found that fully 93 percent of Trump disapprovers backed Democrat Conor Lamb, the victor. In this week’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 87 percent of Trump disapprovers said they intend to vote Democratic for Congress.

One group has emerged as especially alienated from the president: college-educated white women. The group ordinarily leans Democrat, but only slightly: Since 1992, Democrats have never carried more than 52 percent of their votes in House elections, and Hillary Clinton won 51 percent of them in 2016. However, this week’s NBC/WSJ poll found that 63 percent of them now disapprove of Trump and 62 percent intend to vote Democratic in November.

...For congressional Republicans, the choice to tie themselves to Trump now looks irreversible. The question remains whether they have fashioned a lifeline or a noose.

Jason Westin And The Children’s Health Insurance Program

Last year Blue America looked carefully at the race in the west Houston congressional district held by Paul Ryan rubber stamp John Culberson. The district, which went from a pretty red area with a PVI of R+13 in 2015 voted 48.5% to 47.1% for Clinton (after giving Romney a 59.9-38.6% win over Obama) and now has a more manageable R+7 PVI. There's more than one good candidate running for the nomination to take on Culberson but the best candidate with the best chance of beating Culberson in the general election is award-winning cancer researcher and doctor Jason Westin. Blue America endorsed him. Today we asked him to give us his perspective on the GOP sabotage of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Technically, Paul Ryan and his rubber stamps like Culberson have allowed the funding for the crucial program-- crucial for millions of children and their families-- to expire in September. Now states-- Connecticut and Colorado were the first two-- are starting to inform families there is no more money left for treatment. A new Congressional Budget Office report shows it would be effectively cost-free to fund the program for the next decade and Ryan has still done nothing. By the end of February half the states in the country will have no more money for the program unless Congress acts.

Please take a look at Dr. Westin's guest post below. The Take Back Texas ActBlue thermometer on the right is a simple way you can contribute to Jason's grassroots campaign. You'll find him-- and other progressives-- running in Texas this year. Even $5 and $10 contributions add up and help beat back the corporate flood of money that has kept characters like Culberson in office and serving the interests of the corporations and wealthy families who have subsidized his political career for years. Jason is running a grassroots campaign. Last cycle, Culberson spent $1,193,411 to defeat a conservative oily Democrat, James Cargas, who is running again and who spent just $62,159. This cycle a very different race is shaping up and, besides Culberson, 4 Democrats have already raised over $100,000. Dr. Westin has raised $261,590 compared to Culberson's $640,744. In a wave election, challengers don't need to raise as much as the incumbent but they do need enough money to effectively get out their message. Please consider tapping on that thermometer and doing what you can.




Medicaid Work Requirement And CHIP
-by Dr. Jason Westin

Why are Mr. Trump the GOP allowing states to require a job to receive Medicaid? Because they are "all in" that healthcare is a privilege-- there is no other explanation. They are wrong. I learned in my first days in medical school that Healthcare is a human right.

Almost 20 years ago during medical school, I volunteered at and eventually helped lead the Equal Access Clinic, a student run center to give care to those who had no access. Most were hard working people who knew they were sick, but could not afford care. Those who did not work were unable due to mental or physical illness. There were no people seeing us because they were lazy or trying to "game the system." They came to us for help, because they knew if they didn't get care, eventually they'd get really sick and end up in the ER or worse. They were constantly fearful of what would happen next, and if they'd be able to support their family.

When we helped them with blood pressure or diabetes meds, they were so grateful, I can still see their smiles almost 20 years later. The medications we gave them were helpful, but the true reason for their gratitude was being seen by another human being as worthy, that someone cared. They walked around everyday knowing they were a ticking time bomb and that no one would help them-- and that takes a real toll on how you perceive your own worth. It hardens people-- it makes them withdraw. When we reached out and said "you matter to me," they could barely contain their joy.

The idea that people who need Medicaid are freeloaders is a common misconception. The majority of Medicaid recipients work but don't have healthcare benefits or earn so little that they still qualify.

For the few on Medicaid who aren't working, almost all have a valid reason. Those who don't have a reason listed are only 3%, not of the total, but of the 40% who aren't working. That's right-- we're talking about 1.2% of Medicaid recipients.

This is the target of this rule change, 1.2%. Seriously. If that's all they are targeting, why make a big deal of this? Because the consequences will be widespread. Studies show Medicaid expansion actually reduced the number of unemployed. By making it harder to get access, this will backfire and result in more people falling through the cracks. Their approach is backward, and is clearly aimed at reducing the size of Medicaid not by helping people get to work, but by deeming them ineligible.

How could this play out? An example: A 45 year old mother of three has bad asthma. She needs medication to avoid a crisis and so she can work. If she loses her job, she wouldn't qualify for Medicaid as she would be hard pressed to prove she isn't able bodied, she just had a job! Thus, she and her family would be stuck in a spiral. Too well to be "ill or disabled," but too sick to actually work. This is what "health care is a privilege" can do.

Another example of "health care is a privilege" is the debate over the Children's Health Insurance Plan, or CHIP. I'm running for Congress against the vulnerable John Culberson in TX-07. Mr. Culberson has a lot of dangerous opinions, but it surprised even me to learn that he refuses to support insurance for 9 million poor children. Does he want them to work?

It comes down to this: Does America believe healthcare is a right or a privilege? Are we ok with allowing preventable deaths and kids to go without care? I'm not. I'm running for Congress to fight back for people like my patients.

How can we do that? I believe that a single payer system like Medicare for all is the best way for us to fulfill that healthcare as a human right. The system we have now has been cobbled together with no clear organization, like building a car by designing one part at a time. It’s not a surprise that some parts just don’t work well with the others. When there is no overall strategy, you’re just making the best of a bad situation. The Affordable Care Act tried to improve some of the parts that were most in need of repairs, but it wasn’t able to guarantee coverage, and now without the individual mandate it’s weakened further still. The Gallup poll asked "do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage?" For the past three years, the majority said that it is the responsibility of the government-- and that position keeps gaining strength. In 2017, 56% said yes vs. 42% that said no. This is clear: The American people are increasingly coming to support my core belief: Healthcare is a human right, and that the only way we can fulfill this obligation is with a single payer system like Medicare for all.

These attacks by Trump and his enablers in Congress on earned benefits like Medicaid and on innocent children with CHIP show what they believe: healthcare is a privilege. Candidate Trump said he wouldn’t let people "die on the streets" if elected-- and Ted Cruz mocked him for that position. Sadly but not surprisingly, after the election Mr. Trump has seemingly moved away from this pledge. We can do better than their heartless approach, and by electing people who know these issues first hand, we will.

I’ve gotten so mad about this attack on our care that I’ve decided to do something about it. I’m running for Congress to fight back for people like my patients. I’m in a flappable district running against a Trump Rubber Stamp named John Culberson. I can actually win, and make a real difference for our healthcare system. But many have asked-- don't we need you to fight cancer? Wouldn't we be wasting your talents in DC? I can do so much more for my patients, for healthcare, in Congress than in the clinic. When I take care of a patient, they receive benefit, but it doesn't help anyone else. When I write a clinical trial, if it succeeds I can help thousands of people by developing a new treatment. In Congress, I could help millions.

Paul Ryan Plays The Role Of Albatross Around The Neck Of John Culberson In Houston

A couple weeks ago, John Culberson had some crushing news when he read the results of PPP's survey of several hundred voters in his west Houston district (TX-07). His district's PVI had already slipped from a nice safe R+13 in 2015 to a much shakier R+7 this year. Romney had beaten Obama in TX-07 60-39%. Trump didn't fare as well. Hillary actually beat him 48.5% to 47.1%. The DCCC didn't bother running anyone against Culberson last year. He faced off against a vanity candidate from the oil industry, James Cargas, who only spent $62,159 to Culberson's $1,193,411 and Culberson beat him 143,369 (56.2%) to 111,774 (43.8%). This cycle there are seven candidates vying for the Democratic nomination to challenge Culberson, award-winning cancer doctor Jason Westin, another progressive named Laura Moser, Alex Triantaphyllis, the establishment guy; Cargas again, Joshua Butler, EMILY's List candidate Elizabeth Fletcher and Debra Kerner. Four of them have raised over a quarter million dollars each-- to Culberson's $645,743.

So about that PPP survey. Culberson couldn't have looked at this as anything put a big flashing red light signaling the danger he's in. These aren't national numbers. These are voters living West University Place, Highland Village, Bellaire, Piney Point, Spring Valley, Hunetsr Creek and Bunker Hill villages and out to the Barker Reservoir in the south and the Houston National Golf Club in the north.

The hypothetical matchup between Culberson and "a Democratic opponent" was what made the papers-- 49% for a generic Democrat and just 39% for Culberson-- and that was bad enough. But it got worse-- much worse-- when you dig down into the numbers. Culberson's approval is a puny 31% while his disapproval is 55%. What makes that even worse is that Trump has a higher approval (37%). Culberson can't even hold onto a significant part of the Trump base. He's dead to the district's independent voters. Only 12% of TX-07 voters approve of the job Congress is doing (83% don't) and Paul Ryan is like another anchor for Culberson, with a dismal 29% approval and a crushing 65% disapproval. What makes this even worse is that Culberson is known for being a total Paul Ryan rubber stamp.

Instead of dry polling, Jason Westin used some Bob Dylan lyrics to explain why Culberson's time in Congress is coming to a close. "John Culberson has been the elected representative for TX-07 for the past 17 years, but like Bob Dylan said to the 'congressmen': the times they are a-changing. TX-07 voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016-- a more than 20% swing from the vote in 2012. The vote for TrumpCare earlier this year, which John Culberson 'absolutely supported,' would have kicked more than 50,000 TX-07 voters off their insurance. When Hurricane Harvey hit Houston, no one blamed Culberson for the storm itself, but they did for the lack of planning before or after to protect us from the next storm. These issues, and Culberson's refusal to allow any federal funding to improve Houston's ailing public transportation system, explain why Culberson is so unpopular in the district. Simply put, the voters do not want to give John Culberson a 10th try to finally get it right, and his complete support for Washington DC over Houston will cause TX-07 to say 'the first one now will later be last, cause the times they are a-changing.'"

Prediction: The Trump Impeachment Trial Will Have Much Higher Ratings Than The Apprentice Ever Did

Everyday I find myself saying that another insane thing Trump has said or done will be eventual-- after January, 2019 when the new Congress is seated-- evidence in the impeachment hearings, impeachment trial and, I would imagine, the criminal trial as well. Like the video of the Lester Holt interview in which Trump blithely admits to obstruction of justice when he asserted he had made up his mind to fire Comey because of Putin-Gate.

The Wall Street Journal's Shane Harris and Carol Lee may not be attorneys but they laid out a breathtaking page of evidence against Trump that no needs a law degree to understand. They wrote that in the weeks before Señor Trumpanzee fired Comey, the Bureau's "investigation into potential collusion between Trump associates and the Russian government was heating up," and that Comey had become increasingly occupied with it, had started receiving daily instead of weekly updates and was growing increasingly "concerned by information showing possible evidence of collusion" with the Kremlin.

Trump's desperation-- strong enough for him to have fired Comey-- was heightened because the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena to Mike Flynn, seeking documents, last week and because a federal grand jury in Northern Virginia also issued subpoenas for records tied to Flynn. Trump's not especially intelligent but even he and his imbecile son-in-law could figure out where this was leading.

FBI and Senate investigations into Mr. Flynn, which had been looking into the nature of his contacts with Russia before he joined the White House, expanded in recent weeks to include an examination of Mr. Flynn’s tenure as Mr. Trump’s chief security adviser, people familiar with the probe said.

Investigators are interested in companies that have done business with Mr. Trump or have connections with him, said people familiar with the matter. That could include businesses associated with members of Mr. Trump’s family, such as Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law turned aide who was formerly the CEO of his family’s real-estate business, Kushner Cos., one person said.

...With his concerns mounting, Mr. Comey last week sought more resources to support the bureau’s investigation, which began last July. He requested additional personnel from Rod Rosenstein, who had been recently installed as the deputy attorney general, overseeing the FBI, people familiar with the discussions said.

 ...On Monday, Mr. Comey briefed lawmakers on his request to boost the investigation, people familiar with the discussions said. The lawmakers, who have been running their own probe of alleged meddling in the U.S. election by Russia, and possible Trump campaign links with it, asked Mr. Comey if he could accelerate the FBI investigation, said a person with knowledge of the conversations.

Mr. Comey had been providing updates to top members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has taken the lead on Capitol Hill in the Russia probe, the person with knowledge of the conversations said.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump informed Mr. Comey in writing that he was removing him as the head of the nation’s top law enforcement agency.

Mr. Comey’s dismissal prompted concerns among Democrats and Republicans that Mr. Trump’s White House was interfering with the FBI probe.

“That’s a big investigation the FBI is doing, and they are well into it,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “As you know now, subpoenas are being requested.”

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday he was “troubled by the timing and reasoning of Director Comey’s termination.”...Senate Intelligence Committee investigators have grown alarmed as they reviewed intelligence reports, according to people familiar with the investigation.

...The goal of the financial inquiry is to understand the nature of any financial ties Mr. Trump may have to foreign interests, including Russia, and to determine to what extent, if at all, Mr. Trump or his associates have investments that may be tied to the Russian government, people with knowledge of the inquiry said.

This is all impeachable territory they're digging around in. Trump knows it and he's fighting back in ways likely to trigger a national emergency sooner or later, one that even apologists like Paul Ryan and Miss McConnell will be forced it recognize. Friday, distinguished NYU law professor and former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer penned 2 pieces for the highly regarded LawFare blog about the jeopardy Trump has put himself in. It won't just be Trump's interviews offered as evidence that will hang him-- but his tweets as well. "Trump," he wrote, "appears not to understand that he is drawing a certain picture of himself, which is neither pretty nor  without consequence for his legal position. This self-portrait can be counted on to color unfavorably any assessment of his motives when more formal inquiries into his behavior are considered or take place. While it is certainly true that prosecutors should pursue the crime and not specific individuals, suspicious behavior cannot help but draw attention to itself and push forward an investigation."

The picture that Mr. Trump has managed to create so far consists of the following:

• The admission that he sought repeated assurances about his legal exposure in an ongoing criminal investigation
• The pursuit of those reassurances at a time when he was quite actively holding open the possibility that Mr. Comey might not hold onto his job. (Apparently one of these conversations took place over dinner—as it was being served, was the President making it clear that Mr. Comey might have “to sing for his supper”?)
• The admission that in firing Mr. Comey, he was moved decisively by his frustration over the FBI's handling of the Russia probe investigation.
• The President's repeated very public statements, heard by all, including those charged with investigating the matter, that he views the Russia probe as having no merit. Responsible for the faithful execution of the laws and the integrity of the system of justice, Mr. Trump has chosen to actively dispute the basis for an ongoing FBI investigation that affects his interests.
• The repeated adjustments to the story the White House originally told about the circumstances surrounding the decision to dismiss Mr. Comey. As noted in the earlier posting, it is not advantageous to somebody under suspicion to be altering his story-- or, in this case, changing it in every material detail.

And now Mr. Trump has resorted to Twitter to suggest that he might have information about these conversations with the former FBI Director that the latter should worry about before deciding to disseminate his version of events. The President has drawn attention to the possibility that he has some material-- some evidence-- bearing on those conversations, which will certainly be of interest in any future inquiry into this dismissal.  Mr. Trump’s threat to deploy these “tapes” unless Mr. Comey refrains from giving his side of the story is highly imprudent.

What is most remarkable is that the President has willingly created this self-portrait.  As scandals-in-the-making go, this one may become famous for featuring the President as the principal witness against himself: he seems committed to uncovering any cover-up.

Elected officials who have participated in the cover-up-- especially Devin Nunes (R-CA), McConnell (R-KY), Ryan (R-WI) and Burr (R-NC)-- are unlikely to ever be charged with any crimes around this scandal and their roles in the coverup. It'll be up to the voters to deal with them-- as judge, jury and-- hopefully-- executioners for each. But even third rate backbenchers advocating for Trump's "nothing to see here" position-- like, for example, Texas Republican John Culberson-- are putting themselves in jeopardy. When Trump promised this week at the RNC meeting to campaign for his congressional allies in 2018, the progressive Democratic oncologist in Houston campaigning for Culberson's seat, Jason Westin, immediately told us he's hoping Trump comes to Houstion to try to help out the floundering Culberson.

"In the 2016 election," he explained, "the voters of the 7th congressional district of Texas rejected the Trump agenda, voting for Clinton with a more than 20% point swing from 4 years prior. Our district is rapidly changing-- this is not Trump territory. Many TX-07 residents work in the famous Texas Medical Center, consisting of 54 medicine-related institutions, which will be directly impacted by Mr. Trump's plans to slash research funding. And with John Culberson 'absolutely' supporting the TrumpCare 'healthcare' bill, both he and Mr. Trump will even less popular here in 2018. Another reason Mr. Trump won't receive a warm Texas welcome here is his antagonism of Mexico-- a huge trading partner for the Lone Star State. In 2015, Texas had over $175 Billion in trade with Mexico-- and Mr. Trump's plans to impose a huge tax on this trade would be brutal to our local economy. If Mr. Trump comes to campaign with Mr. Culberson, he'd be greeted with a warm, "oh bless your heart."

A Competent DCCC-- Which Doesn't Exist-- Would Be Having A Field Day Rebuilding The Democratic Party Brand In Texas

Texas has been ignored by the DCCC for too long. I fear 2018 isn't going to change much either, despite rumblings of some early interest. Is the new DCCC regional Vice Chair even paying attention-- or just running for governor of Colorado? There are 10 Republicans worth challenging in Texas in a 2-cycle strategy that could lead to the end of the disgraceful political careers of Pete Sessions, Joe Barton, John Culberson, Mike McCaul, Lamar Smith, Pete Olson, Kenny Marchant, Will Hurd, Roger Williams and John Carter, each of whom-- for example-- just voted to strip 24 million Americans of health insurance.

One of the most obvious targets is TX-07 Rep., John Culberson, whose Harris County district has gone from red to purple without the DCCC having taken note until last year when Hillary-- who didn't campaign there or spend a nickel in the market-- beat Trump 48.5% to 47.1%. As usual, the DCCC had no candidate running against Culberson and he was reelected 143,542 (56.2%) to 111,991 (43.8%) over conservative Democrat James Cargas. Culberson spent $1,193,411, compared to Cargas' $62,159. (The DCCC spent zero.) Cargas is running again, but so are 5 other candidates: Jason Westin, Alex Triantaphyllis, Debra Kerner, Joshua Butler and Laura Moser.

Aside from all the bad policy emanating from Culberson, he's also caught up in an insider trading scandal that has begun rocking Congress and which could land him in prison instead of back on Capitol Hill.

Innate Immunotherapeutics, the tiny but controversial Australian biotech company with ties to Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), has picked up another financial backer in Congress. On January 26, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) purchased Innate stock worth between $1,001-$15,000, making him the fifth current member of Congress to follow Rep. Collins in investing in the company.

The purchase on January 26, 2017 came at the height of scrutiny of trading in the company by former congressman and now-Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, though Rep. Culberson didn’t file the transaction report revealing the purchase with the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives until April 6, 2017.

In March, CREW reported that four other members of Congress – Mike Conaway (R-TX), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Billy Long (R-MO), and Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)-- had purchased Innate stock after Secretary Price’s purchase drew attention following his nomination. One of those members, Rep. Conaway, made an Innate purchase on the same date as Rep. Culberson.

Unlike Rep. Culberson, however, Rep. Conaway quickly disclosed the purchase, notifying the Office of the Clerk of the House within days. It is unknown why Rep. Culberson waited so long to disclose his investment in Innate.

Rep. Culberson did not report the purchase until April 6, well outside the 30-day period in which members are required to inform the Office of the Clerk of the House of stock sales or purchases. The deadline is 45 days if the trade was made through a broker and the member learned of it later.

...Purchases of Innate’s stock have been a point of controversy ever since it was revealed that Secretary Price had purchased between $50,001 and $100,000 of it last August in what has been called a “sweetheart deal.” During his confirmation hearings, several senators questioned if he used non-public information to trade health-related stocks, a potential violation of the STOCK Act if he did. They also questioned Rep. Collins’ role in encouraging him to invest in the company. Initially, Secretary Price said that all of his trades were initiated and executed by a broker, but later admitted he decided to invest in Innate after discussing the company with Rep. Collins.

Rep. Collins, who is Innate’s largest shareholder and sits on the company’s board of directors, was overheard by reporters in January speaking loudly into his cellphone in the House lobby, bragging about how many “millionaires” he had made in his hometown of Buffalo in recent months. In addition, after investing in Innate, Rep. Collins took legislative steps that would help the company, including authoring a clause in the 21st Century Cures Act that would accelerate Food and Drug Administration approval of certain drugs, a provision that could benefit Innate in the future.

Culberson had also voted for the bill. The progressive Democrat likely to face off against Culberson in 2018, Jason Westin, told us that "Culberson needs to play by the same rules as the rest of us. He must explain his Innate Pharmaceuticals stock purchase:

1. Did he receive any insider information that prompted his and his four congressional colleagues purchase of this stock?
2. If no, what public information prompted their buying together?
3. Why did he fail to disclose this purchase by the House required deadline?
4. Has he failed to disclose other similar purchases in the past?"

The race to replace Lamar Smith in the gerrymandered 21st district (the Austin-San Antonio corridor) has an even more crowded primary field than the one to replace Culberson. A district where Berniecrat Tom Wakely beat the conservative Democratic establishment candidate in the 2016 primary and then went on to score better against Smith than any previous Democrat, now has a growing list of candidates, from Wakely (endorsed by Blue America again) on the left to DCCC-favored "ex"-Republican multimillionaire Joseph Kopser on the right. Others include Derrick Crowe, Chris Perri, Chad Kissinger, Elliott McFadden, and Rixi Melton.

Smith has been leading the Republican war against Science and, especially against Climate Science and against the EPA. This week, Austin's Statesman reported that it was Smith who laid the groundwork for Trump that led to the ouster of the EPA's science advisors.

America's worst

What Trump and Smith have in mind is replacing the scientist advisors (the Board of Scientific Counselors) with lobbyists and industry reps. "I really don't know what to say about Lamar Smith anymore," Wakely told us this morning. "He has repeatedly shown he just doesn't care what his constituents or for that matter what anyone says about him. He will be 70 years old this November and he is already telling people in the district he won't be running in 2018. I believe he plans to go out with a big bang, leaving a trail of destruction behind him. Destroy the EPA... who cares. This man has always been a conservative but he never was just plain crazy. But over the last decade or so his policy positions on pretty much everything have increasingly become more extreme, even dangerous. This hardening of policy is not rational. Something else is at play here. Maybe he just wants to cash in and the oil and gas companies would be more than happy to oblige. Or maybe it is as simple as advancing age. Some of us stay alert well into our 90's and beyond, while others start falling apart years earlier, I know, I have a brother who just turned sixty and he has Alzheimer. So, as far as Smith is concerned, there is nothing we can do about him or his policies right now. We have to just wait until he retires or is forced into retirement in 2018." The NY Times reported that an EPA spokesman claimed that the Regime "believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community."

The move-- which has been criticized by government watchdog groups and associations of scientists-- is out of the playbook of U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, who represents parts of Central and South Austin and who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Smith told the American-Statesman that he supported the move by EPA administrator Scott Pruitt for “being proactive in addressing issues related to EPA’s science advisory bodies.”

“This decision increases transparency, reduces conflicts of interest, and ensures balance on expert panels,” he said, adding the EPA’s science advisory boards serve as “echo chambers to rubber stamp costly and burdensome regulations.”

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, which Smith co-sponsored and which passed the House in late March, bars anyone who has an ongoing research grant from the EPA to serve on the Science Advisory Board, another board that helps oversee work at the EPA, and prohibits board members from applying for grants for three years after they step down from the panel.

The upshot is that it would effectively prevent many scientific experts from serving on the oversight board.

“This valuable bill opens the door to increased outside input, wider expert opinions, and more balanced recommendations in EPA’s Science Advisory Board,” Smith said at the time of its passage in the House.

Smith has long vilified the EPA, accusing federal scientists of pushing an “extreme climate agenda.”

The American-Statesman reported in February that Smith has called far fewer scientists to testify before his committee than people associated with the types of industries the EPA is charged with regulating.

In February Smith convened a hearing called “Making EPA Great Again.”

“EPA has long been on a path of regulatory overreach, and the committee will use the tools necessary to put EPA back on track,” Smith said at the time.

Most scientists say emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases help trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, leading to a warming planet. Smith has told the American-Statesman in the past that evidence scientists provide is “wishy-washy.”

“Today, I was Trumped,” Robert Richardson, an ecological economist at Michigan State University, wrote on Twitter on Friday. “I have had the pleasure of serving on the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, and my appointment was terminated today.”

Another Texas district the DCCC isn't looking at this cycle-- which means they're not even going to start a process to win it back in 2020-- is the 25th, represented by crooked Republican Roger Williams, currently being investigated by the House Ethics Committee for trying to pass legislation meant to enrich himself. The district , which Trump won with just 55.1%, begins up in Burleson south of Ft. Worth, and twists south into Travis County and Austin itself. So far the only Democrat in the race is self-described "fiscal conservative" Kathi Thomas, who Williams beat in 2016, 58.4% to 37.7%.