Looking For Candidate Advice-- From The U.S. Senate To State Legislatures

Blue America spends most of its time and energy on House races. As far as the 2016 Senate races go, after Donna Edwards (MD), PG Sittenfeld (OH) and Alan Grayson (FL) were defeated in their primaries by establishment candidates the only Senate endorsements we have left are for Russ Feingold (WI), who looks like he'll probably win a week from tomorrow, and two long-shots who beat their more conservative opponents, Ray Metcalfe (AK) and Misty Kathrine Snow (UT). Still, people are always asking who's worth supporting and who isn't. For anyone interested in my opinion, I have a list below of the 34 states that have Senate races being decided next Tuesday and what I would do in each one. Obviously, there is not a single Republican worthy of voting for, even Republicans running against the worst Schumercrats that the Democrats have put up.

I've rated the candidates from 1-4. A 1 means, they're good enough to contribute money to and badger your friends into voting for. A 2 means they're good enough to vote for. A 3 means bring along a clothespin and vote for the crap candidate. A 4 means don't vote at all in that race because the candidate is so bad that it would be better to see Schemer choke on their loss than see them win a Senate seat where they would be in position to do grievous harm for years if not decades.

• Alabama- Ron Crumpton 2
• Alaska- Ray Metcalfe 1
• Arizona- 4
• Arkansas- Conner Eldridge 3
• California- Kamala Harris 2 or 3
• Colorado- Michael Bennet 3
• Connecticut- Richard Blumenthal 2
• Florida- 4
• Georgia- Jim Barksdale 3
• Hawaii- Brain Schatz 2
• Idaho- Jerry Sturgill 2 or 3
• Illinois- Tammy Duckworth 2 or 3
• Indiana- 4
• Iowa- 4
• Kansas- Patrick Wiesner 2 or 3
• Kentucky- Jim Gray 2
• Louisiana- Foster Campbell 2 or 3
• Maryland- Chris Van Hollen 2
• Missouri- Jason Kander 3
• Nevada- Catherine Cortez Masto 2 or 3
• New Hampshire- Maggie Hassan 3
• New York- 4
• North Carolina- Deborah Ross 2
• North Dakota- Eliot Glasheim 2 or 3
• Ohio- Strickland 3
• Oklahoma- Mike Workman 2 or 3
• Oregon- Ron Wyden 3 (although Gaius, who lives there, says 4)
• Pennsylvania- Katie McGinty- 3
• South Carolina- Thomas Dixon 2 or 3
• South Dakota- Jay Williams 2 or 3
• Utah- Misty Snow 1
• Vermont Patrick Leahy 2
• Washington- Patty Murray 2
• Wisconsin- Russ Feingold 1

On the other end of the power spectrum are the folks running for state legislative seats, another area that Blue America hasn't gotten as involved with as we wish we could. But we have endorsed several of the best candidates who we've gotten to know. There are literally hundreds running. You can see all the ones we endorsed by tapping on the thermometer on the right. Below are a couple of random bits and pieces about the campaigns that have kept in touch. Let's start with our old friend and comrade Darcy Burner up in Washington state. Her race is a twofer-- getting an incredible progressive woman, a born leader, into the legislature and making sure the Democrats maintain their precariously narrow hold on the state House. Darcy is ahead by a fraction but the GOP is throwing a lot of money against her.

Thanks to Trump, Washington state Republicans are on the defensive down-ballot. The polling average has Hilalry up by 13.5 points-- 48.8% to 35.3%-- and the most recent poll, by Elway, just over a week ago, shows Democrats up and down the ticket picking up momentum. Hillary is up over Trump 48-31%, as he continues hemorrhaging support. Democratic Governor Jay Inslee in beating GOP challenger Bill Bryant 51-39%. Democratic Senator Patty Murray is beating GOP challenger Chris Vance 58-34%. Democrats are leading in most of the statewide races-- Lt. Governor, Auditor, Lands Commissioner, Insurance Commissioner, Treasurer and Superindant of Public Instruction. The Republican is leading, narrowly, in the Secretary of State race. Likely to help Democrats next week is the big lead-- 58 to 31%-- for increasing the minimum wage, gradually, to $13.50/hour by 2020.

“I think we have a lot of seats in play,” said Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon of the House Democratic Campaign Committee.

“Our plan all along has been to run as if we were behind, and as if we had a chance to lose the majority of the House. I don't think we're going to lose the majority of the house,” he continued.

Instead, Fitzgibbon believes his Party is in a position to grow its majority, in large part because of Donald Trump.

House Republicans, meanwhile, downplay concerns about a possible Trump effect down ballot, arguing voters will identify local candidates with local issues, not the national presidential race.

“I’m still pretty optimistic,” said Rep. Drew Stokesbary of the House Republican Organizational Committee.

“I know that Trump isn’t the most popular person in Washington State or the United States right now, but the fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton is the most unpopular major party nominee in history among anybody not named Donald Trump, so there’s really an effect on both sides of the ticket,” Stokesbary argued.

But recent polling shows Clinton with a double-digit lead in Washington State, and Democrats believe that will give them the edge.

“A lot of voters who have traditionally considered themselves to be Republican voters feel more alienated from that party right now because of the kind of rhetoric they’re hearing at the state and national level,” Fitzgibbon told KING 5.

“I feel like there’s a realistic shot we’ll be at 52 (seats),” Fitzgibbon predicted.

Stokesbary believes Republicans could take the House 51 to 47.

So, here’s a look at some the most competitive races that both Parties are targeting:

...District 5 , East King County, Carnation, North Bend, Snoqualmie, Issaquah, parts of Renton.

House Position 2—An open seat vacated by Republican Rep. Chad Magandanz who is running for state Senate. Republican Paul Graves led Democrat Darcy Burner in the August primary.

Money raised: Graves, $249,698.20; Burner, $186,240.66

Independent spending: $14,140.91 in support of Graves, none in opposition, as of Thursday.

$1,131.96 in support of Burner, $45,938.91 in opposition.

Helping Darcy close that gap this week is urgent. Please contribute if you can. Another progressive woman, like Darcy, who we first met when she was running for Congress is our old friend Eloise Reyes, in San Bernardino County. She's running against a corrupt Democratic hack, Cheryl Brown, for a state Assembly seat. Brown is being heavily financed by Big Oil, which is running a massive SuperPAC independent expenditure campaign-- over $8 million-- against Eloise. Bernie has stepped in and has been helping Eloise raise money to combat the flood of oil money. This is the most expensive state legislative race anywhere in the country. And Eloise is running against a bribe-happy buffoon who abused her expense account more than any legislator in Sacramento and who solicits personal gifts from lobbyists and others with a legislative agenda. She's infamous for a gold watch she sports that was given to her by Russia when she was on a junket there.

Last week, the L.A. Times reported that the League of Conservation Voters named Brown to a list of what it calls the "most anti-environment" state candidates nationwide. The group's 'Dirty Dozen in the states' list, maintained by state chapters of the League of Conservation Voters, was first compiled in 2010."

Brown is the first Californian to be named to the state-level list, which is modeled after a "Dirty Dozen" list of federal candidates that the national organization has kept for 20 years.

Brown's environmental record in the Legislature has become a central issue in her pitched battle against fellow Democrat Eloise Reyes, who has received endorsements from the California League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups.

Reyes has criticized Brown for helping block a major provision in Gov. Jerry Brown's climate change bill last year, and for the $1.1 million Chevron has contributed to an independent expenditure committee supporting the incumbent. Overall, oil companies have contributed more than $8 million to various committees supporting Brown as well as other candidates this cycle.

Local environmental groups were up in arms earlier this year when Brown supporters sent out mailers calling the assemblywoman an "environmental champion," and some have dubbed her "Chevron Cheryl."

“The Inland Empire has some of the dirtiest air in the country. Yet time and again Cheryl Brown has sided with Chevron and Big Oil, who fuel her campaign, rather than act to protect the health of her constituents,” said CLCV Political Director James Johnson in a statement Tuesday.

This, in short, is LCV's case against Cheryl Brown:

• Chevron is spending a mind-blowing $1 million to help re-elect Cheryl Brown, earning her the moniker “Chevron Cheryl.”
• In addition, Cheryl Brown has accepted huge direct campaign contributions from Big Oil including BP, ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum, Tesero, and Valero.
• Brown voted against a bill that would have prevented oil companies from cheating customers by manipulating the price of a gallon of gas.
• Brown not only opposed expanding California’s landmark climate and clean energy law, but she tried to help Big Oil dodge complying with the law.
• Brown is key player in the “Oil Caucus,” a group of oil-funded Democrats who work against reducing California’s dependence on oil.
• Brown voted for MORE fracking and FEWER regulations on fracking.

Last race-- a third progressive we first met in a congressional campaign-- is Stanley Chang in Hawaii. There's is an especially interesting race because of the potentially historic ramifications. In 1980 the state Senate in Alabama was 100% Democratic. Same in Louisiana-- all Democrats, no Republicans. Today, only 8 of the 35 Alabama state senators are Democrats. And Louisiana has 14 Democrats in it's 39 seat state Senate. Hawaii has 25 state senators-- 24 Democrats and one Republican, Sam Slom. (The state House has 51 members and 7 of them are Republicans.) Our old friend, Stanley, is taking on Slom, who's been the state senator for 20 years. Obama beat Romney with about 66% but the district is wealthy and other Republicans have been elected there. But it's very tough because many people think it's unique to have the only Republican in the state Senate and people feel sorry for the 74 year old Slom, who's been in the seat for 20 years and who is sick and has been rushed to the hospital from the Senate floor several times.

But Trump is playing a role even in this race. His presence on the top of the ticket is so revolting to many Republicans that they've decided to just stay home, although Stanley says he's counting on his record to win, not on Trump's toxicity. Slom is a friendly guy but a big NRA supporter and a total economic reactionary. Stanley describes himself as an Elizabeth Warren Democrat-- and that's how we remember him as well.

Stanley Chang with Alan Grayson

Oh... and speaking of Alan Grayson... yesterday he asked his supporters to lend a hand to Russ Feingold's campaign. Like many of his, he was offended by loathesome right-wing billionaire, Diane Hendricks, shoving $5 million into negative TV commercials to poison Wisconsin voters' minds against Russ Feingold. "Feingold is winning," he wrote. "But some faceless whatsis billionaire has calculated that Ron Johnson might deliver a personal tax cut to her, so she has put her money where her math is.

If Feingold wins, then you can at least make the case that America is a democracy. (“Demos” = people. “Cracy” = form of government. “Crazy” = this year’s election.) Thanks to you and people like you, I was first among Senate candidates this year in percentage of money from small donors. Feingold was second.

But if Ron Johnson wins, then the only debate left is whether America is a plutocracy or an oligarchy. Kind of like Diet Coke vs. Coke Zero. One billionaire swings a Senate election with ten days to go by peeling off 0.1% of her net worth? Fuhgeddaboudit. Democracy R.I.P.

Please contribute $15, $40, $75 or whatever you can give in order to help Russ Feingold win, and help perpetuate government of the people, by the people and for the people.

On the day that the Citizens United decision was rendered, I appeared on MSNBC, and I said “if we do nothing, you can kiss this country goodbye.” This really is one of those crucial moments.

Blue America Endorses Darcy Burner

In February an old friend of this community's, Darcy Burner, let us know that she is running for the Washington state legislature. With Pramila Jayapal likely headed off to Congress, the legislature is going to need a thoughtful can-do, bold progressive. That's Darcy. Washington has long been a leader in progressive change-- and she intends to make sure that tradition stays strong and vibrant. She likes to point out that

• Women in Washington gained the right to vote in 1910, kicking off the campaign that led to the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 giving all American women the right to vote;
• Women in Washington had the right to choose whether to continue or terminate pregnancies in 1970, before Roe v. Wade;
• In 2007 the Washington State Legislature ensured every child would have access to healthcare, pioneering many provisions of the Affordable Care Act;
• Every consenting adult in Washington had the freedom to marry the partner they loved in 2012, before the Supreme Court decision made it legal throughout the nation; and
• The now-national campaign for a $15 minimum wage kicked off in Seatac and Seattle, redefining the boundaries of what is possible and reasonable for workers in this economy.

"Unfortunately," she reminded her supporters, "the role that Washington plays in setting the course for national progressive change is in significant danger." In 2013, Republicans captured the State Senate and brought forward-progress on most issues in Washington to a grinding halt. They are now within two seats of a majority in the State House. Republicans in Washington State in the last few years have made it clear what their agenda is:

• Telling the Supreme Court to "pound sand" when the court ordered them to fund education (Baumgartner, 2014), and, instead, offering a plan to send kids to school four days a week to save money (Becker, 2012);
• Denying LGBT people the right to use the bathroom (Erickson, 2016);
• Banning cities from raising the minimum wage (Baumgartner, 2016); and
• Pushing anti-union so called “right to work” legislation (Shea, 2016).

She told us directly and clearly that she can’t sit on her hands and let them destroy the state that she loves... so she launched a campaign for the open State House seat in the highly swing 5th Legislative District. Blue America instantly endorsed her and added her to our very selective state legislative page.

The 5th has a Democratic State Senator who is the #1 target of the Republicans. Both House members are currently Republicans. Darcy is running for an open seat being vacated by one of those Republicans. The 5th district is in the foothills of the Cascade mountains, a gorgeous mix of agriculture, forest, mountain, and suburban housing-- from traditional old farming towns to brand new bedroom communities. Darcy describes it as "an ethnically diverse, economically diverse place with a shared sense of self-reliance and practical approaches to getting things done." Historically the area has been Republican territory, but a combination of the 2012 redistricting and population changes as more people move in have changed that. In 2012, Obama got 56% of the vote in the 5th; Cantwell got 58%; and Democratic state senator Mark Mullet won with about 52%, the first Democratic legislator in a while to go to Olympia for the 5th. It's winnable but swing. In that same year, Jay Inslee, who won the gubernatorial race, got only 46% of the vote in the district.

Darcy has two opponents in the race. The Republican, Paul Graves, is a lawyer for one of the big Seattle law firms who makes his living defending large corporations when they hurt or kill people so the grieving widows and children don't recover anything-- literally... that's how the man has chosen to live his life. And now he would like to spread his wings and take it to the legislature!

The Democrat she'll be facing is Matt Larson, the current mayor of Snoqualmie. Wednesday, the legislative district's Democrats had their monthly meeting to consider the endorsement Larson had requested. Although they had previously endorsed Darcy, the district has a history of dual endorsements in races. Below is a photocopy of the endorsement committee report:

Click it-- it's worth reading

A little background: In the 5th, there's a recent history of one of the state legislators-- Jay Rodne, who our old friend Jason Ritchie is running against-- making inflammatory anti-Muslim comments. There's also an ongoing federal lawsuit between the Snoqualmie Tribe and Mayor Larson, who decided recently to cut off fire service, water, and sewer to the reservation out of spite for them objecting to him siting a major development on one of their burial grounds. The chair of the 5th is someone whose mother spent time in one of the Japanese internment camps. The endorsement committee includes the aforementioned chair, a woman of Native American descent, an African-American man, and three other women. When they interviewed Larson they specifically asked about whether he believed American Muslims were a security threat to the U.S., based on concerns about a comment he had made earlier at a forum. The entire committee agreed that his answer indicated that he believes Muslim teenagers are a potential threat because they might be recruited by ISIS.

At Wednesday's meeting, Larson openly accused the district's Democratic chair and the endorsements committee chair of lying about his answer-- although every member who was there for that interview is in agreement about what he said. He and his supporters shouted down women who were speaking; they tried shouting down the chair, and they were openly aggressive and hostile. He failed to get the endorsement. Every member of an ethnic or religious minority in the room voted against him, as did 80% of the women. It's electing people like Matt Larson-- as Democrats, no less-- that gets us Japanese internment camps and a soiled brand for the party itself.

So... how does Darcy intend to win? "With shoe leather," she told us. "By running the type of people-powered campaign that I believe in, we can and will beat big corporate money." If you'd like to help Darcy do that, just tap the thermometer:

Saving The Planet From Tawdry Profiteers-- Or Just More Politics As Usual?

I would like to see environmental safety true believers like Paul Clements (D-MI) and Marianne Willimson (I-CA) take on Fred Upton and the rest of the self-satisfied elites in Washington who haven't gotten the urgency of Climate Change into their skulls yet-- and probably never will.

I got very nervous this week after seeing 4 fundraising requests from an outfit I had never heard of, Environmental Majority. They appeared to be trying to raise money to defeat House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Fred Upton, a vulnerable Michigan Republican totally under the protection of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel. Blue America has endorsed progressive environmental activist Paul Clements, the Democrat opposing Upton and the DCCC and their Beltway media lackeys completely ignore the very winnable race. (You can help depose Upton, who the L.A. Times accurately dubbed him the biggest enemy of the earth, by contributing to Clements' campaign here). This was the first of the e-mails, I got from them and is clearly meant to appeal to folks concerned with Climate Change and environmental safety:

The Koch brothers have a very clear and ruthless agenda: build the Keystone XL Pipeline, stop meaningful climate change legislation, and make it easier for large oil companies to drill in our nation's wilderness.



To implement this agenda, they have a man in Congress. His name is Representative Fred Upton. Upton has been on the receiving end of millions from big oil companies and anti-science far-right groups. He is powerful, but we have a chance to beat him this year-- we need your help to do so.



This year marks a critical juncture in the fight for the environment. To beat Fred Upton this year, we need your help before our critical February deadline. Will you click here and chip in so we can hit our goal of another $6,891 before Friday?



The Koch brothers and Fred Upton have been teaming up for years to stop any progress on climate change legislation. Unseating Upton from his powerful chairmanship this year could allow us to finally breakthrough the anti-science firewall that the he has erected, and make progress on this critical issue.



We can stand up to the far-right's big money donors, because we have you. Click here to contribute before our February deadline-- we only have three days left. Our grassroots team, thousands deep, is fighting every day to defend the environment from the Koch brothers and Upton.



Thanks for standing up today for an environmental majority. Please contribute what you can today!

A few days later, this one was in my in-box:

We have a real chance to beat the Koch brothers' main man in Congress this year, Republican Fred Upton. The Koch bros love Upton's ability to push through their anti-environment legislation as the chair of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. That is why we need your help before tomorrow's vital deadline. We need to stop them.



If we are going to unseat Upton, we need your help now. Our crucial February end-of-month deadline is tomorrow, and we still need to raise $3,987 to meet our goal. Can you click here to contribute now?



If we can beat Upton, we can finally start to make progress on climate change legislation and really diminish the Koch brothers' influence in Congress.



Click here to help us take on the Koch brothers and their man in Congress, Fred Upton. We must hit our goal by tomorrow if we are going to have the necessary resources to do this.

Thanks for standing with us

I knew they weren't raising any money for Clements so I wondered if they were planning to run an independent expenditure campaign against Upton. I got in touch with the executive director, Mark Longabaugh, who I remembered from the successful battle to depose Dirty Dick Pombo nearly a decade ago. One environmental activist warned me that the group was connected to the DCCC, which is, at best, neutral on the environment, but frequently recruits anti-environmental candidates like Ohio coal and fracking shill Jennifer Garrison. I was having queasy visions of a DCCC operation to suck contributions from grassroots environmental activists by promising to go after Upton-- a worthy goal the DCCC adamantly refuses too get behind-- while funneling the money into Garrison's vehemently anti-environment campaign. My fears appear to be unfounded and the operation is legit and not connected to the DCCC or other Inside-the-Beltway corporate shills that cater to Big Oil and Big Coal.

How tragic is it that one has to worry that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee could play this disreputable a role? But the certainly that they could sparks this kind of reaction from grassroots and progressive Democrats outside the Beltway, like these tweets from, former Seattle area congressional candidate Darcy Burner yesterday:

And meanwhile, what are our Democratic leaders doing about stopping planetary extinction? Right now, doing what they do best-- fighting a turf war over who will replace Henry Waxman as the ranking Democrat (or Chairman) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The two contenders are New Jersey progressive Frank Pallone (who has the seniority) and California garden variety Democrat and Pelosi ally Anna Eshoo. Pallone has a much better environmental record, though Eshoo's isn't terrible. The internal battle, of course, has ZERO to do with which one is a better fighter for the environment.

The internal drama over who will take the top Democratic slot on the Energy and Commerce Committee next year has spilled into public view, with some lawmakers unhappy with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for taking sides so early-- or at all.

Pelosi stunned colleagues on Thursday with a letter outlining support for her fellow Californian and close friend Anna G. Eshoo against Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, and now some Democrats find themselves in a difficult position. House Democrats put significant stock in years of service when doling out plum committee assignments, and the simple choice of picking the Energy and Commerce Committee’s current No. 3-- Pallone-- now has been complicated by Pelosi’s endorsement of Eshoo, who is No. 5 in seniority.

Many lawmakers and aides told CQ Roll Call they don’t see stark enough differences between the members to justify waiving the seniority precedent and allowing Eshoo to leapfrog over Pallone. Both lawmakers, they have argued, are equally able to do the job, and there is little reason for Pelosi to choose sides so publicly in a move surely aimed at influencing undecideds.

One House Democrat said Pallone has paid his dues.

As leadership’s point person for coordinating the party’s messaging on the House floor, Pallone has been “a loyal lieutenant,” said the lawmaker, who asked to remain anonymous and still hasn’t decided whom to back. “It’s a thankless task, it’s drudgery, and he does it every day. And Pelosi threw him out like yesterday’s trash.”

Eshoo boosters see it differently.

“I think Frank Pallone has done a really good job heading our messaging team, but I think Anna Eshoo is a woman who’s dynamic, who is from the high-tech community out in California, and can bring some real energy to Energy and Commerce,” said New York’s Nita M. Lowey, who became ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee without being the next in line.

But seniority is an especially sensitive issue for the Congressional Black and Hispanic caucuses, whose members believe that giving deference to tenure is the only way to protect minority members from slights, accidental or intentional, in getting promoted on Capitol Hill.

The CBC in particular is poised to benefit from respect for the seniority system: Its members currently hold ranking member slots on five of the 22 House committees, and that number could increase to seven in the 114th Congress. CBC members are inching ahead on a number of other panels, too, painting a viable picture of a day when they could wield unprecedented influence on just under half of all House committees.

Many of them did not take kindly to Pelosi’s public disregard for precedent.

“She officially buried the concept of seniority today,” Charles B. Rangel of New York said Thursday.

“I respect those who respect that system,” Eshoo stressed to reporters in early February. “It’s been around a long time. But I don’t believe it’s sacrosanct.”

Arizona Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, who launched an unsuccessful bid last year against more-senior Oregon Rep. Peter A. DeFazio for ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, believes a transformed caucus has shifted the norms.

“Pallone’s saying, ‘It’s my turn, it’s my seniority,’ and I don’t have a problem with him doing that …  but with almost 50 percent of our caucus members being members of the Democratic Caucus with six years or less under their belts, then maybe for the seniority question, attitudes are changing.”

…[I]n 2008, emboldened by colleagues clamoring for a more progressive legislative agenda on climate issues, Waxman ousted longtime Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell, D-Mich.

An organizing event for Team Eshoo at Sona Creamery and Wine Bar on Capitol Hill was hosted by business-friendly, conservative-leaning Democrats, Jared Polis (New Dem-CO), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA), Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA), Ami Bera (New Dem-CA), Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA), Lois Capps (New Dem-CA), Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT) Joe Courtney (New Dem-CT), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL), Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH) and Adam Smith (New Dem-WA).

Although, like Grijalva, I like the idea of breaking through the constraints of the seniority system, Pallone is a better choice than Eshoo. But, honestly, there something even more important than which one of these two politicians becomes the committee's ranking member. And that's who replaces Waxman in his progressive, highly educated Santa Monica-Beverly Hills district, CA-33. As we've mentioned before, there's an independent progressive running outside of the realm of the two corrupt Beltway parties, Marianne Williamson. She wasn't endorsed by Dennis Kucinich at a rally yesterday because he admires the way she does yoga. Williamson is a far more essential champion of a forward-thinking environmental agenda than Eshoo, Pallone or any of the sleazy New Dems playing their Beltway games. Her website page on Climate Change begins with a quote from Sir Robert Swan, the world's foremost champion of preserving Antarctica: "The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it." Williamson's vision bespeaks a lifetime of work belying the notion of leaving the important stuff to someone else. A highly successful, admired and esteemed teacher and activist, she's running for Congress to get something done and make a real difference-- on the Big Things. This morning she told me that "the sad truth is that there's a limit to what we can do to save the planet, as long as companies who make trillions of dollars in profit from burning fossil fuels-- and billions in government subsidies for doing so-- continue to dominate our environmental policies. The American people have been reduced to the position of begging the aristocracy to make room for a few little people at the bottom; the problem of course there is that in America, there's not supposed to be an aristocracy and there aren't supposed to be any 'little people.' So asking which Democrat will be Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee is like saying, 'So those deck chairs on the Titanic-- do you think we should cover them in rough cotton or in silk?' What we need to do, of course, is to turn the Titanic around. Until our government starts putting the interests of the people of the United States before the interests of their corporate benefactors, such differences as Chairmanship are incremental at best and mere window dressing at worst."

Her public statement on Climate Change isn't focus-group tested or anything that Beltway consultants would ever allow their candidates to say in public. It's the kind of statement that gives DCCC and EMILY's List operatives colitis. If Marianne is elected, this is what CA-33 will be contributing to America:

Too much of America’s energy-- 81%, in fact-- continues to come from fossil fuels that pollute our air and water, causing global warming and weather disruption more intense with each passing year.

This is not just unfortunate, or even critical; it is a clear and present danger to the future not only of our country but to life on earth.

Our reliance on oil makes us dependent on energy supplies from other countries, particularly in the Middle East, drawing us more easily into military actions to defend access to oil. The federal government supports the use of fossil fuels by handing out massive tax breaks and subsidies to energy companies that are among the most profitable corporations in the world. The top five oil companies made $1 trillion in profits from 2001 through 2011, yet they receive $10-52 billion in tax breaks and subsidies every year.

Legalized corruption makes it almost impossible to truly take on the power of Exxon-Mobil and other oil giants that receive massive tax breaks from the government. Once again, until we deal with the issue of money’s undue influence on our political system, none of this will truly change.

Technological innovation has developed increasingly affordable energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, water, biofuels, and geothermal power. The U.S. government should be investing-- and investing massively-- in clean, green energy, that can lower costs for all of our homes and businesses, as well as improve public health.

Transitioning to clean, green energy is one of the great moral challenges of our time. In fact, we can save half the oil we use through improved efficiency and get the other half from renewable energy sources.  Making this fundamental change in how we as a nation use energy is not something that any one set of legislative actions can manage; rather, this shift will take a change in how all of us-- not only government, but also individuals-- treat the earth on which we live.

I see no need whatsoever for the domestic use of nuclear energy. Since the Fukushima disaster, we have seen the tragic consequences of thinking that just because something was made by the likes of General Electric-- the same company that makes our own nuclear generators-- that we need not worry about catastrophes due to human error or natural disasters like tidal waves and earthquakes.  If anyone should stand for that realization, it’s Californians!  And most importantly, we do not need nuclear energy to fulfill our energy needs.  Given that it provides 9% of our energy, that need can be met with the kind of investment in green technology called for above. As an American and as a mother, I strongly reject the notion that the domestic use of nuclear energy is “worth the risk.”

King Of Animal Cruelty

I don't have a dog, which makes me sad. I grew up with dogs, first Princess and then Autumn Haze. Now I travel too much to have one. But I love dogs and every morning I go for a hike and bring a pocketful of the best quality pure dried duck breast strips to give to Gabby, Murphy, Osa, Licorice, Louie and a few who's names I don't know but who live on my route. I usually stop and exchange some good vibes with them. My pals!

There are a lot of reasons to detest Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and there always have been. He's behind almost every rotten thing the GOP has been up to, especially the most mean-spirited stuff, like demanding women who are raped bear the child of the rapist and insisting that if someone can't read English they shouldn't be entitled to vote. Needless to say he's one of the most virulently antigay Members of Congress, absolutely fanatical about it. Most of his colleagues-- not including Michele Bachmann-- consider him a crackpot and an embarrassment. He's so horrible in fact, that we're actually asking people to contribute to Christie Vilsack, his opponent and a moderate Democrat and member of the New Dems-- the only one of that breed we're actually trying to help get elected. As I mentioned yesterday, King is the leader of the pro-cruelty to animals caucus. His record is astoundingly anti-animal, more so than anyone else in Congress. And his latest stunt is to try to legalize dog fighting.

Tuesday is primary day in Washington state and I got an e-mail from the Humane Society urging me to support Darcy Burner. Darcy is a dear friend and someone who has been endorsed by Blue America for many reasons. The Humane Society just gave us another one. Executive Director Sara Amundson: "We are grateful for Darcy’s support of humane issues and for her work to create a more humane society." Steve King was graded a ZERO by the Humane Society. Here's the Washington's House delegation's scores. Opposing cruelty to animals is bipartisan. As you can see, Republican Dave Reichert has a 100% rating, just like 3 of the Democrats, Norman Dicks, Jay Inslee and Jim McDermott. The only Democrat with a really bad and failing rating is New Dem corporate hack Rick Larsen (38%), who is campaigning for Darcy's New Dem opponent, shady multimillionaire Suzan DelBene, who was pointedly not endorsed by the Humane Society.


Here are the 2011 ratings by the Humane Society for the incumbents that the Blue America challengers are running against. If you want to help protect dogs and cats from cruelty, you might want to replace these heartless lugs with candidates who feel the same way you do about it. I asked Rob Zerban, the guy taking on Paul Ryan, what he thinks about Ryan's atrocious record on animalsafety. "My wife and I joke that we treat our two dogs like they're our children. They mean the world to us, and for Congressman Ryan to have such an abysmal record in protecting animals like them is simply unconscionable. Ryan has only a 13% score when it comes to stopping animal cruelty. This F rating is disturbing, and I believe treating animals with compassion is one of many issues that reflects upon someone's character. We can see Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney display selfish tendencies and his lack of compassion explains his cuts to the budget when it comes to the seniors, students, women, and middle class families in his district." These are Rob's 2 pooches, Barley and Hops:


Buck McKeon (CA-0%)- Lee Rogers
Ed Royce (CA-13%)- Jay Chen
Mike Coffman (CO-38%)- Joe Miklosi
Sandy Adams (FL-13%) and John Mica (FL-25%)- Nick Ruiz
Justin Amash (MI-13%)- Trevor Thomas
Charlie Bass (NH-63%)- Ann Kuster
Frank Guinta (NH-13%)- Carol Shea-Porter
Tom Reed (NY-0%)- Nate Shinagawa
Patrick McHenry (NC-25%)- Patsy Keever
Joe Pitts (PA-13%)- Aryanna Strader
Eric Cantor (VA-13%)- Wayne Powell
David McKinely (WV-13%)- Sue Thorn
Paul Ryan (WI-13%)- Rob Zerban

I'll leave you with a one-liner from Lizz Winstead from Hardball on Steve King: "Steve King must look at those SPCA 'dogs-in-crates' ads as porn for him." And here he is (the ugly one on the left):

Will Suzan DelBene's Potential Felony Hand The New WA-01 Seat to Teabagger John Koster?

While Blue America-endorsed progressive Darcy Burner is busy building a grassroots-funded campaign with over 9,000 donors, empty suit New Dem Suzan DelBene and her rich husband are trying to buy the seat, putting over $1.9 million of their own money into the race, dwarfing Burner and the three other Democrats in the race by a 4 to 1 margin. But if the Republican-controlled House Ethics committee has anything to say about it, a DelBene victory in the primary would almost certainly hand the seat over to extreme right-wing Republican John Koster. In 2011, DelBene refused to file the financial disclosure form that all candidates are required to file. Refusing to file the form is a federal felony punishable by up to $50,000 and five years in prison. While no one has filed a complaint against DelBene yet, Republicans will almost certainly go after DelBene in the general election for a seat that many consider to be one of the top Republican pick-up opportunities in the country. When voters are presented with a choice between a Tea Party Republican and a criminal, corporatist Democrat, no one will win.

The big question DelBene's failure to file her disclosure raises is what she might be hiding that would want her not to reveal her finances. Sound familiar? Everyone in America now knows that multimillionaire Mitt Romney is engulfed in a scandal because he didn't release his tax returns and refuses to disclose his assets and finances and DelBene is following that same path. That's not where the comparison to Romney ends, either. DelBene is a serial business failure in every way but one: she made lots of money for herself as she caused nothing but economic devastation around her. Also like Romney, DelBene is a favorite of the Inside-the-Beltway corrupt Establishment and she's gotten the backing of the New Dems and the DCCC has asked donors to keep out of the race, which effectively handed a big fund-raising advantage to DelBene, the only candidate in the race with enough money to self-finance. The comparisons between DelBene and Romney are enough that independent expenditures from Progress for Washington-- a SuperPAC funded by the mother of another Democrat in the race, Laura Ruderman-- repeatedly suggested that there was little difference between the two.


DelBene tries to position herself as a defender of the middle class and as a progressive, but that doesn't even pass a basic laugh test. Progressive groups have lined up to support Burner while the organizations that are supporting DelBene are doing so out of a fear of her massive bankroll and the party establishment's veiled warnings. DelBene lives the life of the quintessential 1-percenter and while she tries to claim that she was poor at one point and had to rely upon financial aid, she spent a lot of time skiing in Vail and attending prestigious private school Choate when her family was supposedly "struggling."

The important concern for November, however, is answering the question of whether or not DelBene is a felon who will be destroyed by the likely massive outside money that will flow into the district to flip the seat to the Republicans. It's hard to see how DelBene can explain away the failure to follow the law. Federal law requires that all candidates file a personal financial disclosure within 30 days of qualifying as a candidate. Qualifying is very specifically defined as having raised or spent $5,000 on campaign expenditures during a calendar year. DelBene passed the $5,000 level in two separate quarters in 2011 and has not, as of yet, filed a disclosure for that year.  

DelBene might argue that she didn't file a disclosure in 2011 because that she wouldn't be required to do so because those funds were leftovers from her unsuccessful 2010 run for Congress. But that would make her spending totals for the year not make a lot of sense:

Q1- $5,138.15
Q2- $857.95
Q3- $1,246.25
Q4- $8,243.38

While you can see the argument that Q1 was the continuation of the 2010 campaign and even Q2, in Q3 the spending starts ramping up again and really ramps up in Q4. Why would it ramp up again in Q4 to pay off 2010 debts? She didn't file to run for 2012 until January and never filed the required 2011 disclosure. Campaigns that are ending have to file a termination report with the Federal Elections Commission and/or a Withdrawal form with the House Clerk's office. DelBene did neither.

So the question is why didn't she submit the disclosure? What is she hiding? How much money will Republicans spend to make this a story if DelBene is the nominee? And just how bad is John Koster, the Republican that will win the seat if DelBene is the nominee?

Koster was endorsed by Ron Paul and agreed with Campaign For Liberty 100% on their 2010 questionnaire, including paranoia over a 'NAFTA Superhighway' and policies pulling the U.S. out of the U.N. and strengthening the gold standard. Koster is a proponent of privatizing Social Security. He wants expanded offshore oil drilling. He rejects the science on human-made global warming. He rejects marriage equality and doesn't even seem to know that there is a federal Defense of Marriage Act. While DelBene certainly shouldn't be a Member of Congress, John Koster really shouldn't be a Member of Congress and supporting DelBene in the primary almost certainly guarantees that Koster will be moving from Washington state to Washington, D.C.

Here's where you can help Darcy Burner win this seat. The polls have tightened up drastically as DelBene has closed in on over a million dollars in self-funded TV advertising. She's running her race like a Republican; she's already joined the corrupt anti-family New Dems and there's no reason to believe that a district like WA-01 should have to chose between two brands of conservatism in November.

Republicans Don't Want Regulations... Not Even On Nuclear Safety

Wednesday we mentioned the GOP's attempt to disable to American federal regulatory system and how the whole dysfunctional effort got bogged down in some crazy typo. Yesterday they were back again and, presumably, someone had proof-read the bill. When the House Rules Committee presented it again, only 3 Democrats went along with the GOP effort to bring it up again-- slimy corporate whores and future lobbyists Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT) and Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC). Two Republicans had second thoughts and crossed the aisle in the opposite direction, Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) and the most currently most vulnerable Republican in Congress, Buck McKeon (R-CA). The procedural resolution passed 235-183.

Frelinghuysen and McKeon were back on the reservation by the time Cantor called for a final vote on the bill itself. But two other ultra-vulnerable Republicans, Charlie Bass (R-NH) and Bob Dold (R-IL) switched their votes from Wednesday and now decided they didn't want to destroy the national regulatory system-- although nothing was changed in the bill except the typo.

13 anti-consumer, anti-worker. anti-family corporate whores among the Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP on this. The ones I've bolded are on the DCCC priority spend list and please be aware that if you contribute any money whatsoever to the DCCC some will be spent on these galoots:

John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog/New Dem-OK)
Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY)
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Larry Kissell (Blue Dog-NC)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC)
Bill Owens (New Dem-NY)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Nick Rahall (WV)
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)

Wednesday we looked at one of the amendments scheduled to be voted on. This one, by Jerry Nadler, sought to exempt nuclear plants, since if they were to go unregulated, there could be a catastrophe of unprecedented consequences. That came up for a vote yesterday too-- and it failed 176-243. Nine Republicans realized the insanity of their party's position and scurried across the aisle to get on the record opposing Boehner and Cantor on this one. On the other hand, 16 Democratic corporate whores voted with the GOP to leave the safety of nuclear facilities to luck. Most of the 13 who voted with the GOP on the overall bill were joined by Blue Dogs Heath Shuler (NC) Tim Holden (PA), and Jason Altmire (PA) and by sleazy corporate shills Steve Israel (NY), Lipinksi, Jr (IL) and Gene Green (TX). Remember, Nadler amendment was meant to ensure that Americans who live in close proximity to nuclear reactors-- like Steve Israel's constituents-- are protected in the event of a catastrophic meltdown. "In the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown in Japan, it is critical to ensure the safe operation of all nuclear reactors." Here's what Nadler had to say-- on the floor of the House-- about why he singled our nuclear safety for an exemption:

"[T]he underlying bill would block any and all major efforts to protect public health, safety, the environment, and so on, until the unemployment rate falls below the arbitrary figure of six percent. This blanket and arbitrary ban on potentially critical rules only would serve to help put profits ahead of people. This bill also would put profits ahead of the environment by mandating construction projects go ahead after a certain period, regardless of the environmental impact. And, the bill would impose needless costs on the government and make protecting public health and welfare that much more difficult by putting impediments to agreeing to consent decrees and settlements.

“What all of this means is that for the most potentially dangerous industries, like nuclear power, the safety of the American public would be put at serious risk by this bill. My amendment would attempt to make this Frankenstein bill slightly less of a horror show by exempting the issue of nuclear power plant safety from these sections of the bill-– Titles I, III, and V.
 
“The dangers of nuclear power are well known. One accident-- which could be caused by the power of nature, the negligence of man, or the evil of terrorism-- could doom millions of people. Because of the almost unimaginable disaster that could happen at a nuclear power plant, regulations to prevent accidents or meltdowns in advance are critically important. The underlying bill would make it harder for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to adopt such rules or policies, thereby putting millions of lives at risk. 

“Nuclear safety is of particular concern to me and the people I represent. Millions of my constituents live near an old nuclear power plant, Indian Point. It sits near two fault lines and, according to the NRC, is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience core damage due to an earthquake. Hampering the ability of the NRC to require safety measures, like preventing a meltdown in the event of an earthquake, could be devastating. My amendment would free the NRC from the burdens of this bill and allow it to help keep us safe."

As the vote was finishing on this yesterday, I just happened to be on the phone with Jim Graves, the Democrat seeking to replace Michele Bachmann in Minnesota's 6th district. We'll be hearing more from Jim next week, but since his background is from the private sector and since he's a successful entrepreneur, I did ask him how he would have voted on this bill. He said he would have opposed it because it wasn't even trying to solve any real problems, just make political points and sound bytes. By Bachmann's own definition Jim is "job creator." He doesn't just talk about small business, he's started quite a few of them himself and he has employed thousands of people throughout his congressional district and across Minnesota. But, unlike Bachmann, he knows that actual job creators are hard working middle class Americans-- and they are the one's suffering most in difficult economic times brought on by a political Establishment too concerned with Wall Street and not concerned enough with Main Street. In reality, the small business person doesn't worry as much about taxes as they do about making sure that costumers are coming in the front door and buying the products and services they sell. Like most Democrats, Jim understands that in order to revive our economy, we need to make sure that ordinary working families have money to spend on those products and services. Jim also understand the role, the value and importance collective bargaining and organized labor play in building and maintaining a vibrant middle class that can afford to purchase things. "It's an essential part of our country's heritage." He refuses to believe that unions and employers have mutually exclusive goals. He told me he knows that from first hand experience as an employer who, at the end of the day, has mutual inclusive goals with his employees and their union. "We want the same thing, success... businesses do best when their employees can work with dignity, respect and good livable wages-- when everyone mutually benefits." Jim was spontaneously endorsed by the union his workers belong to as soon as he announced he was running for Congress.

This morning Darcy Burner reminded us, once again, how good government isn't the enemy of our country. It's a servant of the people, a way to protect us from our real enemies, foreign and domestic. "Government isn't some abstract concept," she wrote, "it's made up of real people who work hard and help us face the challenges that we all worry about. Every time Republicans argue for cutting government to some mythically smaller size, what they are saying is they want less money for:

- Providing our active military and veterans with the income the need to survive and the health care they were promised when they volunteered to protect us,

- The retirement that our seniors earned and paid into for years,

- Regulating the Wall Street bankers who got rich gambling away our homes,

- Making sure that our education system can compete on a global scale,

- Protecting our environment and natural resources from Lake Washington to Mt. Baker so future generations can continue to enjoy them,

- The Food and Drug Administration's ability to make sure that we have safe and healthy food and prescription drugs.

"What we need is for our government to work for working Americans again-- not multimillionaires and corporations. In Congress, I’ll be a champion for fixing our broken Congress, bringing our troops and money back home, and will protect Social Security and Medicare."

We need people like Darcy Burner in government. Please consider helping her win her primary in Washington state against a self-funding corporate shill and tool of the special interests. You can contribute here.

There Are Still 7 Crucial Congressional Primaries Coming Up For Progressives

Progressives have had a mixed year in terms of primaries. We had four big losses-- Norman Solomon in California, Ilya Sheyman in Illinois, Cecil Bothwell in North Carolina and Eric Griego in New Mexico-- and five big wins-- David Gill in Illinois, Patsy Keever in North Carolina, Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania, Beto O'Rourke in Texas, and Nate Shinagawa in New York. Here's the schedule for the key primaries still unfolding that we're watching:

Darcy Burner (WA-1)- August 7
Syed Taj (MI-11)- August 7
Trevor Thomas (MI-3)- August 7
Chris Donovan (CT-5)- August 14
Nick Ruiz (FL-7)- August 14
Matt Heinz (AZ-2)- August 28
Raúl Grijalva (AZ-3)- August 28

The 3 primaries in Washington and Michigan are two weeks from yesterday! And all three look good, though none are in the bag. Darcy Burner's main opponent in a 5-way race for a new district stretching from Seattle's technology-forward suburbs to the agricultural areas up towards the Canadian border, is a quintessential self-entitled one-percenter, Suzan DelBene. DelBene is the Mitt Romney of the Democratic congressional cycle-- a serial business failure in every way but one: she made lots of money for herself as she caused nothing but economic devastation around her. Everyone in America now knows that multimillionaire Mitt Romney is engulfed in a scandal because he didn't release his tax returns and refuses to disclose his assets and finances; multimillionaire Suzan DelBene similarly refused to file her 2011 financial disclosure despite the fact that federal law required it. If she's the nominee, the Republicans will have an easy time beating her because of that alone. Polling against the crazed GOP candidate has consistently shown that DelBene would lose to him and that only Darcy has a chance to keep the seat blue.

But DelBene and (especially) her husband are loaded and they're determined to buy the nomination. DelBene has put more of her own money into the race than any other Democrat anywhere in America... and is running over a million dollars in self-funded TV ads against Darcy right now. She's outspending the other 4 candidates combined 4 to 1! Because of her money she's the favorite of the Inside-the-Beltway corrupt Establishment and has been endorsed by the New Dems (basically, the Blue Dogs without the white KKK sheets). It must be driving her insane that Darcy has been ahead in every single public and private poll of the district's Democratic voters. The DCCC, slimy as always, has asked donors to keep out of the race-- in effect leaving DelBene and her self-funding with the overwhelming money advantage. Daily Kos' Orange to Blue PAC, Blue America, DFA and the PCCC have pitched in for Darcy.

Michigan also has it's primary 2 weeks from tomorrow and we have two hot races, although there are other important ones as well (including in MI-14 where two incumbents face off, progressive and underfunded Hansen Clarke vs right-of-center Gary Peters and in MI-13 where progressive icon John Conyers is battling to save his seat against 3 Democratic state legislators and a school board trustee). Michigan's 3rd district (Grand Rapids/Battle Creek) has a hot primary between a young and super-accomplished activist, Trevor Thomas, and a rich old hack, Steve Pestka, who, as a state legislator consistently voted with the Republicans against Choice and to defund Planned Parenthood. He doesn't even allow for an exception in his anti-Choice mania for women who have been raped or when there is incest involved! He's the worst of what the old-time Democratic Party is still trying to foist on voters. Although he has some corrupt institutional support, 74% of his money ($590,118) comes by way of writing checks to himself. He's heavily invested in Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Occidental Petroleum and Devon Energy which is currently planning a controversial fracking project in Michigan. Pestka has failing grades from the League of Conservation Voters. Trevor pointed out that it doesn't make sense to "say you're concerned about high gas prices, or tax loopholes, or our environment when you're personally holding investments in Exxon." Pestka's campaign stinks to high heaven and Amash would make mincemeat out of him in no time flat.


In terms of contributions from real voters, Thomas is beating him handily and polls show that if there's a big turnout Thomas will win the primary. A big turnout in a summer primary is never easy and we're asking for anyone who can afford it to send Trevor last minute contributions for his get-out-the-vote efforts.

We've also talked a bit about the contest in MI-11 where Thad McCotter's hasty resignation has opened up a Republican-held seat to the Democrats. Under the new boundaries Obama would have beaten McCain in this district 50-48%. Dr. Syed Taj is unlikely to ever get real chummy with Michele Bachmann, but he's a distinguished physician with fantastic ideas for how to improve ObamaCare. Dr. Taj is a strong across-the-board progressive champion and in the primary he's facing a bizarre sociopath, Bill Roberts, who brazenly calls himself a LaRouche activist and is obsessed with impeaching President Obama. (Yes, we're talking about a Democratic primary.) This is the header from his website:


The following week, the action shifts east and south, to Connecticut and Florida. Chris Donovan, Speaker of the Connecticut House is a real threat to the corrupt Beltway Establishment. He's the embodiment of everything they fear-- with a record of achievement to prove it. Donovan defines what it means to be a champion of regular American working families-- and he's running against two self-entitled careerist hacks who are eager to immerse themselves in the sewers of Washington. One is the son of a wealthy lobbyist and the other is a grotesque ConservaDem bolstered by EMILY's List who, thankfully, has never accomplished any of her goals-- all of which were to cut services to working families while giving tax breaks to her wealthy financial supporters.

Also on August 14 there are two big match-ups in FL-7, one between Republicans and one between Democrats. Oddly, both have teabaggers! On the GOP side, old time Republican hack, John Mica-- one of Boehner's stooges-- faces off against the Member of Congress considered the stupidest person on the Hill, teabagger Sandy Adams. On the Democratic side Blue America's first endorsee of the cycle, Nicholas Ruiz, is facing a strange Tea Party Democrat, Jason Kendall. Grassroots Democrats everywhere are looking for elected officials equal to the challenge of today's Republican Party, and, alas, Obama, Hoyer, Reid, Wasserman-Schultz and Israel just aren't going to cut it in this climate. There's a time for magnanimity, timidity and bipartisan statesmanship-- and there's a time for kicking their asses. It's time to kick their asses-- which is why people are so excited about Nick Ruiz. We've been in these circumstances before as a people, when we were faced with the debauchery of the early 20th century and the subsequent implosion, followed by FDR's appearance in the 1930s and that's why FDR and the progressives of that time had such a tremendous impact on our country. After Bush, for whatever reason, Obama and the conservative consensus that rules Congress, didn't rise to the occasion. This is the time when we need more tribunes for working families who won't hesitate in standing up for Americans values and progressive principles and will never sell out to the one percent. Nick Ruiz is the embodiment of that kind of candidate.

The two teabaggers are likely to lose their primaries and then it will be a tough contest in November between Mica, who the district is pretty sick of, and Nick Ruiz, the independent-minded progressive who will get to Congress owing nothing to the corrupt conservative Democratic Beltway hierarchy.

And that brings us to the end of August-- the 28th-- when Arizona moves front and center. Blue America has two candidates, both in the southern part of the state with districts that split Tucson-- incumbent Raúl Grijalva (AZ-3) and challenger (and state Rep) Dr. Matt Heinz (AZ-2). Raúl is the nexus of the progressive movement inside Congress... and the power of the one percent has arrayed against him again. This time-- knowing they probably can't beat him in a general election-- they're throwing their money behind a fake Democrat, a conservative shill Amanda Aguirre who's getting tons of PAC support from health insurance companies, corporate agriculture (BCBS and CropLife America) and Canadian mining operation, Rosemont Copper. And she's got George Braun, a Republican Party operative, running her campaign. Raul spends his time and energy working for us, not working the phones for campaign contributions, the way most incumbents do. If you can, please consider stepping up for him now. He's the only incumbent member of the House endorsed by Blue America this cycle. While stumping for him in Tucson, Jim Hightower reminded voters that "they're not coming after Raúl... they're coming after YOU!"

Corporate interests have been successful in getting conservatives elected as Democrats in Arizona and they certainly succeeded in the other Tuscon district, where Ron Barber got elected and immediately started voting with the GOP, first to gut all the environmental legislation ever passed and then to gut Eric Holder as part of Darrell Issa's deranged anti-Obama witch hunt. This isn't the kind of Democrat anyone needs and, luckily, a progressive state Rep., Matt Heinz, looks like he can beat Barber next month. During an interview with Piers Morgan, Barber said in response to the recent Colorado tragedy that “between now and the election, I really believe that very little is going to be said about major policy issues.” Barber can’t talk the talk or walk the walk. He will not tackle hard issues that require a strong advocate-- issues like gun control, the environment and equality. That's why Democrats and independents are so excited about Matt. All Barber can do is hope people think he's Gabby Giffords.

The NRA-- A Cancer On The Soul Of American Politics

Darcy Burner & Henry-- why she'll never sell out to the NRA thugs

I've had a lot more respect and admiration for former Senator Russ Feingold than for almost anyone elected to the U.S. Senate in my lifetime. I remember when the NRA endorsed the extreme right sociopath running against him in 2010, Ron Johnson-- unquestionably one of the most destructive and least qualified men to have won a Senate seat in my lifetime. At the time I wrote about my biggest disappointment in Feingold-- his adherence to a pro-gun agenda:

No politician is ever perfect-- and that includes even someone as good as Feingold. I don't even begrudge him his support for a bunch of Wisconsin yahoos running around the woods shooting deer with AK47s if that's what most people up there want. But in Washington, DC, the only thing that gets hunted walks upright on two legs and when Feingold favored overturning local ordinances controlling guns-- and was willing to deny Washington residents congressional representation over the issue... well it reinforced my overall feeling about people who chose politics as a career. And it didn't save him from a strange non-endorsement.

Now, keep in mind that the NRA has a practice, "what it calls 'an incumbent-friendly' policy, which holds that if two candidates are equally supportive of gun rights, the incumbent gets the nod." And, in fact, the NRA announced endorsements for 58 Democratic incumbents.

So even though the NRA helped Johnson defeat Feingold, the organization was unable to help dozens of conservative, pro-gun Democrats who it did endorse, stave off defeat. Among those swept away in the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010 were NRA endorsees Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA), Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD), Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA), Ike Skelton (MO), and John Salazar (Blue Dog-CO).

When considering which candidates to endorse, Blue America doesn't take gun policies into consideration. That's gnawed at my innards for years and made me feel partially responsible for the sick political malaise that infects this country in regard to the question. There was never a question in my mind Friday that the real murderers in Aurora were out political elites too cowardly and craven to take on the NRA-- even when their own constituents tell them they want more rational gun control policies.

On Twitter Friday, starting in the morning and never ending, we were treated to a parade of hypocrites from both parties offering their prayers for the victims and their families. President Obama's statement sounded like he was commemorating the deaths of people who died in a natural disaster rather than at the hands of a demented gunman. Maybe it was what he "had to say" but it made me sick, like the rest of the responses from our political elite, although moderate Democrat, Ed Perlmutter, who represents Aurora, did pledge to work to renew the ban on assault rifles. CNN, ever the fount of conventional wisdom, immediately reported that gun politics are bad politics for Democrats.

After the 1999 Columbine shooting, Democratic Vice President Al Gore played a central role in trying to pass ill-fated gun control legislation. On the campaign trail during his 2000 presidential run, he argued for "common-sense gun safety measures."

Democratic strategists said they believe Gore and other Democrats lost critical votes in rural America by pushing for stricter gun laws.

So, Democratic Party leaders began to recruit candidates who could win those largely red districts and states, candidates who ran on support for gun rights.

Jim Manley worked in the Senate for more than 20 years as a top aide to Democrats Sen. Ted Kennedy and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He witnessed the change up close.

"Democrats finally figured out that this was an issue that they were getting walloped on in many Western, Southern states and many swing states," Manley said. "So they began a subtle shift to try to coordinate and/or get more pro-gun Democrats to run."

"For many Democrats, it's smart politics not to get into the gun control debate," he said.

So, even though President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban in 1994 with fanfare, it lapsed in 2004 without much of a fight.

Somehow CNN forgot to mention that almost all those pro-gun conservative Democrats Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC recruited subsequently lost their seats because disappointed, betrayed grassroots Democrats and left-leaning independents refused to come out to the polls to vote for them. Early Friday-- at least on twitter-- I saw only two political leaders standing right up and calling for the kinds of more reasonable gun control laws that puts you on the NRA enemies list: NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Washington state congressional candidate Darcy Burner. Darcy-- a Blue America endorsed candidate with a tough primary against a gaggle of more conservative Democrats next month-- followed up with an e-mail to her supports. I'd like to share it.

Earlier today, a gunman walked into a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, where people were watching the midnight showing of the new Batman movie. He fired gas canisters into the crowd, and then opened fire. At least 12 people are dead and 59 people are injured. My heart and prayers go out to all of them.

On the day Gabby Giffords was shot, I was picking up my son Henry from a lesson when I got the text message saying there had been a shooting. I’d campaigned with Gabby in 2006. Henry didn’t understand why I’d stopped getting into the car and started crying.

Walking back from a haircut the other day, I passed Café Racer, where on May 30th a gunman walked in and killed four people.

It's time we had an adult conversation in this country about guns.

On January 17, 1989, a gunman in Stockton, California walked onto a playground and opened fire, killing 5 children and injuring 30 more.

On July 1, 1993, a gunman in San Francisco walked into a law office and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 6.

On April 20, 1999, two gunmen in Columbine, Colorado walked into their high school and opened fire, killing 13 people and injuring 21 others.

On January 16, 2002, a gunman in Virginia walked into a law school and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 3.

On July 8, 2003, a gunman in Mississippi walked into a factory and opened fire, killing 6 and injuring 8.

On March 21, 2005, a gunman in Minnesota walked into a high school and opened fire, killing 7 and injuring 5.

On November 20, 2005, a gunman in Tacoma walked into the mall and opened fire, injuring 6.

On March 25, 2006, a gunman in Seattle walked into a party and opened fire, killing 6 and injuring 2.

On February 12, 2007, a gunman in Utah walked into a mall and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 4.

On April 16, 2007, a gunman in Virginia walked onto the Virginia Tech campus and opened fire, killing 32 people and wounding 17 others.

On December 5, 2007, a gunman in Nebraska walked into a mall and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 4.

On December 9, 2007, a gunman in Colorado Springs walked onto a church parking lot and opened fire, killing 2 and wounding 3.

On February 7, 2008, a gunman in Missouri walked into a city council meeting and opened fire, killing 5 and wounding 2.

On February 14, 2008, a gunman in Illinois walked onto a college campus and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 17.

On June 25, 2008, a gunman in Kentucky walked into a factory and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 1.

On January 24, 2009, a gunman in Portland walked up to a nightclub and opened fire, killing 2 and injuring 7.

On March 29, 2009, a gunman in North Carolina walked into a retirement home and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 2.

On August 4, 2009, a gunman in a suburb of Pittsburgh walked into a fitness club and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 9.

On November 5, 2009, a gunman at Fort Hood in Texas walked into a medical center and opened fire, killing 13 and injuring 29.

On November 29, 2009, a gunman in Lakewood, Washington walked into a coffee shop and killed 4 police officers.

On January 7, 2010, a gunman in St Louis walked into a power plant and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 6.

On January 12, 2010, a gunman in Georgia walked into a truck rental place and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 2.

On February 12, 2010, a gunwoman in Alabama stood up in a college faculty meeting and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 3.

On August 3, 2010, a gunman in Connecticut walked into a warehouse and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 2.

On August 7, 2011, a gunman in Ohio broke into his girlfriend’s house and opened fire, killing 7 and injuring 1.

On September 6, 2011, a gunman in Nevada walked into a pancake restaurant and opened fire, killing 4 and injuring 7.

On October 5, 2011, a gunman in Cupertino, California walked into a quarry where people were working and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 7.

Sadly, I could go on.

But the numbers don’t tell the stories. These were people. Rachel Scott was a 17-year-old aspiring writer and actress who wanted to change the world through small acts of kindness. Dave Sanders was a 47-year-old teacher and girls basketball coach who was shot and killed while trying to evacuate students. Cassie Bernall was hiding under a table praying. Jack Berman was a lawyer who founded a program to help homeless people find housing. John Scully died while shielding his newlywed wife with his own body. Drew Keriakedes and Joe Albanese were musicians with wicked senses of humor. Every one of the hundreds of people shot in the incidents I list above had dreams and aspirations, laughed and cried, had friends and neighbors and parents.

As a country, though, we have not had a real conversation about guns in many, many years. The National Rifle Association (NRA) threatens the career of any politician who so much as opens the conversation. As a consequence, our country has not discussed assault weapons-- which have no use except killing large numbers of people in massacres like the ones I’ve listed. We have not discussed the fact that anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without any background check, even if they have a history of criminal violence. We have not discussed the expiration of the ban on large clips, which allow shooters to kill more people in a shorter time because they don’t have to reload. We have not discussed what a sensible, rational approach to regulating guns in our country might be.

Enough.

It’s time we took steps to stop the mass killings.

It’s time we had an adult conversation about guns in this country. The NRA can go to hell.

In deepest sympathy,

- Darcy

Time to break the NRA stranglehold on American politics? Help Blue America put someone into Congress who isn't afraid to stand up for what we believe in. Please consder making a contribution to Darcy's campaign today.