Embarrassingly, Pelosi And Hoyer Led Most House Democrats Away From Impeachment... Here's How A Cross Section Of House Candidates Responded

In 2018, corrupt conservative, Darren Soto, pretended he was a progressive during his primary battle with Alan Grayson. After he won, he stopped pretending and admitted he's a member of the right-of-center, Wall Street owned and operated New Dems. Yesterday, like virtually all the New Dems, Soto voted against impeaching Trump. It reminded me on one of Grayson's brilliant TV spots which focused on impeachment. Watch closely. The point is simple: "I'll vote for impeachment; Soto won't." And Grayson was... clairvoyant? The other conservative Grayson ran against years ago, Daniel Webster, also voted against impeachment yesterday, but at least he has an excuse-- he's a Republican racist, just like Trump.

Briana Urbina is a progressive Maryland attorney and activist taking on Stony Hoyer who's at the very heart of the problem with congressional Democrats."Steny," she told me right after the vote,"is nothing if not consistent. He has the courage to call out Democrats he disagrees with but won't stand up for his constituents in the 5th district of Maryland and our party by voting for impeachment."

Eva Putzova is running against a Hoyer ally, "ex"-Republican state legislator, now a Blue Dog, Tom O'Halleran, who no one imagined would vote for impeaching Trump. "I would have voted to impeach the most dangerous, unstable president this country has ever seen," Eva told me yesterday. "He has committed impeachable offenses and it's the duty of our Congress to hold him accountable. Today's vote in the House indicates a lack of leadership. My opponent was on the wrong side of history. Again."

Another Hoyer ally, corrupt New Dem Gregory Meeks, is in a Queens district that overwhelmingly favors impeachment. But Meeks voted to kill Al Green's impeachment bill. Shaniyat Chowdhury, just back from captaining a championship rugby team in Australia-- winning the Emerging Nations Rugby League Cup-- told me that "Meeks has been talking about challenging Trump the last three years and concluded it with cowardly voting against impeachment. Our country does not need anymore lip services from false prophets who claim to do one thing and their actions speak for another. Trump is a bully. Congress is supposed to stand up to him. Voting to not impeach a president who is clearly unfit to run a government, undermines our democracy. It sends a message to our kids that bullying is okay. It is not okay! There are consequences to bullying, and we need elected officials who will have the courage to stand up to the face of bigotry without politicizing ethics and the people of this nation."

Mark Gamba is also up against a reactionary Hoyer ally, Oregon Blue Dog, Kurt Schrader, who had no problem in voting to table Al Green's impeachment proposal. Unlike Schrader, Gamba felt Congress has a duty to hold Trump accountable for his perfidy. "Donald Trump," he told us this morning, "is the most dangerous and deranged president in American history. His continued presence in the White House only serves to cause our country to become more divided. More angry. More dysfunctional, and, frankly, weaker. All logical efforts to remove him from office must be explored. Clearly, deep strategy must be considered when both houses of Congress will not engage in this process. However I believe that members of Congress are meant to not only represent their people, they are meant to lead. Leadership sometimes requires bold action, something thin on the ground in Washington DC,  particular amongst the status quo corporate Democrats and almost all of the Republicans."

The more I look at this list of Democrats who voted to let Trump off the hook yesterday, the more I realize that they're all Steny Hoyer allies. Stephen Lynch, another New Dem, is the worst member of Congress from Massachusetts. Brianna Wu is working hard to beat him in a primary. Last night she said, "I wish I could say I'm surprised by Rep. Lynch's vote to table the impeachment resolution today, but I'm not. This is a man who just recently said that bringing impeachment hearings would just be Democrats 'blowing off steam.' Apparently, the rule of law means nothing to him. Trump publicly invited foreign intervention in our elections. Is that not treasonous? The Mueller Report found 10 examples of possible obstruction of justice by this president. What more does the Democratic leadership and Stephen Lynch need to begin to hold Trump accountable? Lynch is worried about the possible political ramifications of bringing impeachment proceedings against Trump. I am concerned with the rule of law in this country and making sure that Trump is held accountable so lawlessness does not become a precedent for the presidency. Politics be damned. The House must begin impeachment proceedings NOW."

As for Democrats taking on Republicans already, Missouri progressive, Kathy Ellis was surprised to see incumbent Jason Smith vote against impeachment. "Smith," she told me, "has shown us time and time again who he really is-- a rubber stamp for Trump’s damaging policies. It comes as no surprise then that he voted against impeachment, as well as the House statement calling his recent comments racist. Our country deserves a leader who is honest, hardworking, and accepting of all. Racism has no place in our country, especially in the White House and in Congress. It is time for President Trump to be held accountable for his actions and his words. Missouri’s 8th District needs a Representative who understands that and is willing to hold our leaders accountable when they fail us.”

Maggie Oliver's primary opponent, Pelosi lap-dog Ben Ray Lujan, voted against impeachment... of course

The last guy who's ever going to vote to impeach Trump is Devin Nunes, more of an accomplice than just an enabler. Dary Rezvani, the progressive Democrat taking him on this cycle: "He voted against impeachment, he voted against condemning his racist statements. Devin is complacent in a time of pure evil. He said on a local news station today that he has heard nothing from his continuents saying that he should have condemned the statements which is an outright lie; multiple groups have called. His complacency enabled one of the most racist things I’ve seen to date, a "send her home" chant at a North Carolina rally. I am embarrassed that Nunes is associated with the Central Valley. I apologize to the rest of the United States that we have failed in getting him out. Devin must be extremely lonely and Trump must be the only person who gives him attention. Impeachment must start immediately."

Kim Williams is another progressive Democrat running in California's Central Valley. Her target isn't a conservative Republican; it's a conservative Democrat-- Blue Dog Jim Costa, the worst Democrat from California. Costa, of course, voted against impeaching Trump and Kim spoke out about that yesterday: "Instead of making political calculations and weighing whether impeachment might impact the reelection prospects of Democrats in Republican-leaning districts, our House majority failed to do its job. Congress has an obligation to hold this president accountable regardless of the political outcome and especially in the face of such extreme and persistent bigotry. It is especially troubling that our representative, Jim Costa, a conservative Democrat from a safe blue district chose inaction over the community he serves. Unlike Costa, I would have denounced Trump’s white supremacist agenda and voted to begin impeachment hearings."

Like all the Trump-friendly Blue Dogs, Dan Lipinski voted against impeachment. His primary rival, Marie Newman, saw it differently: "I find it horrifying that Congressman Lipinski refuses to condemn the president for the inhumane camps at the border and the absolutely racist marks, so I am not at all surprised he refuses to vote for the start of impeachment proceedings. He will continue to protect Trump."

Mike Siegel didn't even bother mentioning the GOP incumbent-- co-architect of the "babies in cages" and family separation policies of the Trump Regime. Michael McCaul would be with Nunes fighting against impeachment 'til the bitter end. Siegel took a different tack: "Thank you to Houston's own, Rep. Al Green, for continuing to push for accountability for the President. We don't have the full caucus on board yet, but this is a strong step forward toward beginning the essential process of an impeachment inquiry."

Remember, as we said earlier-- there were 95 Democrats willing to do the right thing instead of coddling and enabling the modern-day Nero. In 2020, let's get rid of as many of the enabling culprits from both parties as we can and replace them with more patriotic and wholesome new members of a new Congress. If Pelosi and Hoyer want to fund his concentration camps and block impeachment, they both need to be treated the same as Kevin McCarthy and his Confederate Trumpist team. So lets start with the primaries... by replacing Blue Dogs and New Dems with progressives-- the reason I've included the thermometer on the right. Please don't stand by while the neo-fascist in the White House turns our country into something our fathers and grandfathers and millions of American patriots have fought against.

Problem Solvers Caucus Has Never Solved A Problem; They're Paid By Conservative Billionaires To Make Problems For Progressives

Jacobson & Penn: Murdoch pays they to undermine the Democratic Party

You've heard the term "Fox Democrat," right? Mark Penn is the prototype. Politically he's another Bill and Hillary Clinton-Tony Blair fox in the henhouse shitbag always working to pull the Democratic Party rightward-- for which he gets paid-- and handsomely so-- by wealthy conservatives. If anything, his wife, Nancy Jacobson-- a professional fundraiser-- is even worse. They are the couple from hell behind the corporately-funded No Labels cabals. Their web of dark money PACs and SuperPACs finance the Republican wing of the Democratic Party with money from-- for example-- Republican billionaires like the Murdoch family. And they make their living by taking a cut from every penny that comes in. And Penn's poison has spread all over the world-- supporting center-right candidates from Menachem Begin in Israel, Carlos Andrés Pérez (El Gocho) in Venezuela and Belisario Betancur in Colombia to Tony Blair, Ed Koch and, of course, the Clintons.

In the past cycle, Penn and the Mrs. were behind the sewer money-- from charter school fanatics, hedge fund managers and GOP financiers-- that flooded into Democrat primaries against Marie Newman in Chicago, Alan Grayson in Orlando, Deb Haaland in Albuquerque, Matt Heinz in Tucson and Susan Wild in the Philly suburbs. They are behind shady conservative PACs like United for Progress, United Together, Forward Not Back, Progress Tomorrow, Patriotic Americans PAC, Citizens for a Strong America, etc, entirely funded by contributions from 5 and 6-figure right wing donors, such as Rupert Murdoch, his son James Murdoch, Chicago White Sox and Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf, hedge fund manager Louis Bacon, former Major League Baseball Commissioner Allan Selig and Wheels Inc. executive Jim Frank and like-minded sleaze bags trying to turn the Democratic Party into another corporately-owned arm of Wall Street, just like the GOP.

This week, Sam Stein, writing for the Daily Beast, reported that it is the No Labels operation behind the Moulton coup plot against Pelosi. That should come as no surprise to anyone who follows DWT, even if the mainstream media hasn't caught on yet. Unfortunately, Stein's readers will all be confused because he mistakenly refers to the conservative conspiracy as "moderates," which is absolutely NOT what they are. Stein should know better.

Internal communications reviewed by the Daily Beast show that early this year the group No Labels, a centrist [he means right-of-center] advocacy organization, contemplated a plan to kneecap Pelosi’s political standing. In one exchange, a top official with the group even laid out the pros and cons of turning the California Democrat into a “bogeyman.”

That was well before Democrats took back the House of Representatives. In the weeks since they reclaimed congressional power, Pelosi has sought to earn back the Speaker’s gavel. And though the vast majority of her caucus supports her bid, moderate [he means right-of center] Democrats allied with No Labels remain some of the few party members refusing to give her their votes absent concessions from Pelosi and her team.

No Labels has publicly couched its efforts in conciliatory language, posting items on its website that subtly nudge other Democrats towards a Pelosi challenge, or that gently suggest it might be time for a leadership change. The group also wants Pelosi to commit to weakening the power of party leaders and committee chairs, among other measures that it says will empower rank and file members and reduce gridlock.

Behind the scenes, No Labels and its leader, political strategist Nancy Jacobson, have been more skeptical of Pelosi and more willing to try and marginalize her among her members.

Rupert

Emails obtained by the Daily Beast show that No Labels leadership contemplated a campaign to attack Pelosi aggressively after the primary campaign of centrist Rep. Dan Lipinski, who faced a primary challenge this year from Marie Newman, a progressive political neophyte. Lipinski’s pro-life stance had alienated a number of Democrats, but he was a proud member of the No Labels-backed House Problem-Solvers Caucus, and the group worked through a network of allied super PACs to support his reelection bid.

“Nancy, I have been thinking about our using Pelosi as the chief bogeyman in our messaging post-Lipinski,” began one email, subject line: “Pelosi as bogeyman.”

Pelosi had endorsed Lipinski. But No Labels leadership was convinced that her support was a fig leaf. Jacobson, according to a source familiar with the group’s internal deliberations, was convinced that Pelosi had secretly tried to scuttle the congressman’s reelection and proposed publicly attacking the Democratic leader in the run-up to the midterms.

“We were trying to figure out, assuming we got a positive result [in the Lipinski race], which we did, what would be the comms strategy afterwards,” said the source. “Nancy Jacobson’s immediate answer was, ‘I want to make Pelosi the bogeyman.’ She wanted to make it all about Nancy Pelosi and how she was going after incumbent Dems. None of that was true.”

According to the emails, No Labels chief strategist Ryan Clancy appears to have tried to talk Jacobson down. A direct confrontation with Pelosi would blow back on the group’s congressional allies, he explained. It would also be unprecedented; No Labels had never engaged in similar campaigns against congressional leaders of either party. Clancy instead proposed to make Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) the object of the group’s criticism. Unlike Pelosi, Sanders had actually endorsed Newman; had no procedural power to wield against members of the Problem-Solvers Caucus; and wasn’t even a Democrat.

“This is us, in effect, declaring war on Pelosi,” Clancy warned. “No Labels has never identified a party leader as ‘the enemy’ before. We didn’t do it with Obama or Trump. We haven’t done it with Schumer, Ryan, or McConnell. If we do this, we should consider some very real downsides.”

At the end of his memo, Clancy conceded that, “at some point,” No Labels “is probably going to go to war with Pelosi. And it probably should.” But “I don’t know that now is the time to do it, especially when we have a perfectly good villain to use in Bernie.”

No Labels has worked diligently alongside the Republican Party to diminish and demonize both Pelosi and Bernie. That's what they do; that's who they are-- the heart and soul of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. That's why it sickened me to see the DCCC and other Democratic groups spending tens of millions of dollars to recruiting the elect conservative shitbags like Ben McAdams (UT), Abigail Spanberger (VA), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Max Rose (NY), Mikie Sherrill (NJ), Xochitl Small (NM), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Jason Crow (CO), etc.

This year, No Labels spent hundreds of thousands of dollars from GOP contributors who wanted to make sure there was a pliable conservative represneting Orlando, not Alan Grayson. The vicious, non-stop attacks against Grayson that Jacobson orchestrated were meant to help Darren Soto, a conservative backbencher who regularly sells his votes. But, according to leaked internal communications that Edward-Isaac Dovere published at The Atlantic yesterday, Jacobson had soured on him and wanted to destroy him-- and other conservative Democrats who didn't live up to her nefarious expectations.

“So Soto is now asst whip …” Jacobson wrote in an internal email on January 17. Margaret White, a senior adviser, responded: “And he is boycotting the inauguration …”

“Not a promising early development,” Clancy chimed in.

Less than an hour later, Jacobson wrote back, posing a question: “Do we ever take on someone we helped …?”

The conversation appears to have faded after that, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Jacobson on Monday initially responded to questions from The Atlantic by saying the group had never considered challenging Soto. “We supported Darren Soto. Heavily. Both his elections. 2016 and 2018. Over 1.5 million total,” she wrote in an email.

When presented with what she had previously written to her staff about him, she responded, “As a group we support people who are willing to work across the aisle to solve problems and don’t support people who put partisanship above progress. As a consequence-- we consider lots of options and ideas and we always hold true to our central values of promoting bi-partisan solutions to our nation’s problems.”

...No Labels looked into taking out another Democrat almost a year later. In December 2017, Jacobson sent an email to advisers and people in New Hampshire with the subject line “advice asap” in search of how to respond to Annie Kuster, a Democratic congresswoman, with whom she had just had a call asking her to rejoin the Problem Solvers Caucus.

“It did NOT go well. She ended up hanging up on me … She told me our group was offensive … She told me we had accomplished nothing and that she was the true bipartisan,” Jacobson wrote, calling herself “shaken up by her aggressive and hostile actions and speech.” She then asked for help on the ground to mount a campaign against Kuster. In follow-up emails to people in New Hampshire, Jacobson asked about potential primary challengers, including Dick Swett, a former representative and ambassador, and Steve Marchand, who was running in the gubernatorial primary by talking up his 2016 support for Bernie Sanders.

Upon being told they were weak, Jacobson asked about Republicans and asked for contact information for one of the candidates running. “What are the political facts about her district?” Jacobson asked in one email in December 2017. “Why are there no republican challengers?” she asked in another. She also reached out directly to Swett to ask him about running.

On Monday, Jacobson said, “We support members of Congress who truly want to reach across the aisle to solve problems. We have a strong citizen group in New Hampshire that is very disappointed in Congresswoman Kuster and her disdain for our mission.”

At the same time Stein and Dovere were publishing their pieces, Stein's old comrade in arms, Ryan Grim, put up a related blockbuster at The Intercept: Who's The Mystery Man Behind The Latest Pelosi Putsch? It's Mark Penn. Grim's right on target: "a small group of billionaire-backed Democrats, part of the so-called Problem Solvers Caucus in Congress, has launched a last-ditch effort that threatens to derail Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s election as House speaker. They’ve framed their challenge to Pelosi, a California Democrat, in terms of good government and high-minded bipartisanship. Yet the force behind their campaign is one of the most toxic and notorious partisan warriors the Democratic Party has produced in the past three decades: political and corporate consultant Mark Penn." No bullshit about "moderates," especially not when he introduced Penn-protégé and Wall Street whore-- founder of the Problem Makers Caucus-- Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ).

The links between Gottheimer and Penn go back decades. Gottheimer was Penn’s assistant in the Bill Clinton White House in the 1990s. Then in 2006, when Penn was CEO of the consulting firm Burson-Marsteller, he hired Gottheimer as an executive vice president, with Gottheimer reporting directly to him. When Penn became chief strategist of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, he brought on Gottheimer as an adviser. In 2012, Penn set up shop at Microsoft, where he built a guerrilla PR operation to do battle in Washington with rival Google. There, too, he brought on Gottheimer.

Gottheimer had the full-throated support of both Bill and Hillary Clinton when he ran for Congress in 2016, with Hillary Clinton calling him “something of a family member.”

No Labels launched what it called “The Speaker Project” in this past June, proposing a sweeping set of rules changes that lawmakers should demand before agreeing to elect the next speaker, which by then was presumed to be a Democrat. The next month, the Problem Solvers Caucus embraced the plan. In September, Penn went on Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News to talk up the project. “There’s a problem-solvers group that is looking to have some influence if the result is close, in terms of changing the rules and naming the speaker,” Penn said.

A lawsuit this summer by former No Labels contractors who alleged that they were bilked by the group claimed that Penn was was “calling the shots” at the organization. Penn, according to the Washington Post, has denied involvement with the operation of No Labels, and the group rejected the assertion that he was in charge. Neither No Labels nor Penn responded to The Intercept’s questions about Penn’s relationship with the group.

But aside from the claims of the contractors, there are also direct links between groups Penn owns and No Labels’s political activity. Penn is a minority owner of the consulting firm Targeted Victory, which the group contracted with for some of its 2018 campaigns. No Labels uses an affiliate, Victory Passport, for its online fundraising. Penn’s firm Harris Interactive does the group’s polling; SKDKnickerbocker, of which Penn is an owner, produces and places the group’s television ads, as it did in its campaign to support the re-election of Rep. Daniel Lipinski in Illinois, according to the lawsuit. Hilary Rosen, an SKDK partner, said that the firm does not produce ads for No Labels.

The New Center, a think tank launched by No Labels to house its 501c3 nonprofit operation, listed Mark Penn as a contact for inquiries about its invitation-only “ideas summit.” Penn is managing partner and president of the Stagwell Group, the holding company that owns SKDKnickerbocker. Penn regularly talks up the great work of No Labels during his appearances on Fox News.

...Penn is notorious in Washington as the metaphorical devil on the shoulder, whispering toxic advice into the ears of Democratic candidates. Penn and Jacobson were both early players in the Democratic Leadership Council, a faction that emerged within the party in the 1980s to push it to align with corporate money and to move in a more conservative direction. He’s perhaps most well known for urging his client, Hillary Clinton, to attack Barack Obama as un-American during the 2008 presidential primary.

In a now-famous 2007 memo to Clinton, Penn noted that there had been much coverage in the media of Obama’s “boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii… geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light. Save it for 2050.”

In other words, Penn argued, an appeal to diversity wouldn’t work politically for another half-century. “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values,” he wrote.

How Penn planned to isolate Obama’s alleged otherness is a window into how he views the kind of glossy, good government rhetoric now deployed by No Labels-- its meaning is found less in what it says than in what it doesn’t. He advised Clinton that “we give some life to this contrast without turning negative” by elevating the values she grew up with as uniquely American. “Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century.”

That, Penn argued, would make an implicit contrast with Obama, who allegedly lacked those values-- “fairness, compassion, responsibility, giving back”-- due to his lack of American roots. “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t. Make this the new American Century, the American Strategic Energy fund. Let’s use our logo to make some flags we can give out. Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds,” he advised. “We are never going to say anything about his background-- we have to show the value of ours when it comes to making decisions, understanding the needs of most Americans-- the invisible Americans.”

Clinton, clumsy in her rhetoric, would occasionally make the subtext into text. In a 2008 speech in West Virginia after she beat Obama in Indiana, she said, “Senator Obama’s support among working-- hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” (Obama went on to win Indiana in the general election.)

A more effective dog-whistler, in the 2016 campaign, would boil the Penn approach down to just four words: “Make America Great Again.” Donald Trump was named by No Labels in 2016 as an official “Problem Solver.”

A Trump surrogate accepted the award, even though two months earlier, Trump had spoken at a No Labels conference and delivered a speech larded with Trumpisms. (Since his 2017 swearing in, Gottheimer, the Problem Solvers Caucus chair, has voted with Trump more than half the time, according to FiveThirtyEight.)

Here's a real problem that needs solving-- and urgently. Don't be surprised that not one so-called Problem Solver has signed on-- and no one supported by No Labels of course. It wouldn't surprise me if we get a Republican signed on before a "problem solver."

Have You Voted Today?

Hundreds of thousands of dollars-- certainly well over a million by this morning-- have gushed into the FL-09 Democratic primary from conservative billionaires-- primary from the Murdoch family and assorted Wall Street banksters. The money is laundered through a network of slimy SuperPACs controlled by Nancy Jacobson's No Labels and has gone entirely to smear progressive icon Alan Grayson. The goal is to keep conservative New Dem, Darren Soto, in Congress. Why? Watch the video up top? That's the big prize for No Labels and their financiers... phasing out Social Security and Medicare. The other primary today where No Labels is financing attacks against a progressive to bolster a right wing Democrat is in Tucson (AZ-02), where conservatives are trying to get another New Dem, Ann Kirkpatrick, back into Congress. So the smear machine-- operated by both No Labels and EMILY's List-- has been working overtime against progressive Democrat Matt Heinz.

With that much right-wing interest in Democratic primaries, you've got to think those are the two most important congressional races in the country today. And they are:

• FL-09- Alan Grayson
• AZ-02- Matt Heinz

Are there other races important for progressives today? Oh yes. Let's start in Florida and work our way west. The biggest news story in Florida is the gubernatorial race. On the Republican side 2 conservatives are battling it out-- establishment Howdy Doody character, Adam Putnam, who was the front-runner, and a neo-fascist, Trump-backed congressman: Ron DeSantis, the current front-runner after multiple Trump endorsements. DeSantis would probably be a gift for Democrats since he is so far right that independent voters will probably not vote for him in November-- and independents decide who wins in Florida statewide races.

On the Democratic side, we've endorsed Tallahassee mayor Andrew Gillum, the progressive in the race. His two right-of-center opponents, an ex-governor's daughter and failed one-term Blue Dog congresswoman Gwen Graham and wealthy former Miami Beach mayor Philip Levine, are favored by the Democratic establishment. Although insipid Republican-lite candidates like Graham and Levine keep losing in Florida, the hope of the establishment is that the wave would drag either of these worthless candidates to victory. With Jeff Greene all but withdrawn from the race, Gillum is the only candidate representing the Eleanor and Franklin wing of the party-- or what you could call, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Graham and Levine are the kind of careerist characters who define the Republican wing of the party.

Aside from the Grayson-Soto race, progressives should be looking at the open seat in FL-15, where Dennis Ross is retiring. The district includes Tampa suburbs and agricultural parts of Polk County. Trump beat Hillary there by 10 points (53-43%) and the PVI is R+6. There are two Democrats running today, a conservative EMILY's List attorney, Kristen Carlson, a real nothing-burger, and a progressive Navy Vet, Andrew Learned, who backs Medicare-For-All. Carlson is Republican-lite candidate who doesn't.

With Ileana Ros-Lehtinen retiring, FL-27 in Miami is another open seat and a near-certain Democratic pick-up. Hillary trounced Trump by 20 points-- 59-39% and the PVI is listed as D+5 by is effectively D+7 (Cook is slow). Of the 3 top candidates, the front-runner is elderly establishment status quo rich person, Donna Shalala, terrible candidate. There are two progressives, state Rep. David Richardson and former Miami Herald reporter Matt Haggman. Haggman would make the best member if Congress of the three. Yesterday, the Tampa Bay Times reported that "fired-up Democrats flocked to early voting sites over the weekend to give the party an early voting advantage over Republicans and close the gap in turnout between the parties two days before election day." Today, polls in Florida are open from 7am 'til 7pm.

In Oklahoma there's a run-off in the 5th district (Oklahoma City) between a pointless establishment hack, Kendra Horn, and a dedicated progressive and Berniecrat, Tom Guild (endorsed by Blue America). The winner faces far right congressman Steve Russell in November. Electing Republican-lite Horn is the same as handing Russell reelection.

And now Arizona. Republican Doug Ducey is seeking reelection. There are 3 Democrats vying for a chance to defeat him-- former Department of Education official David Garcia, the progressive in the race, plus state Sen. Steve Farley and a YMCA employee named Kelly Fryer. Garcia is polling well and is the only chance the Democrats have to take out Ducey.

The race to replace Jeff Flake in the Senate will be between very right-wing Blue Dog Kyrsten Sinema, a corrupt, pretend Democrat who is ahead in the polls, and one of 3 Republicans, mainstream conservative congresswoman Martha McSally, the establishment pick and two extremist lunatics, Kelli Ward, and controversial ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio. McConnell has persuaded Trump not to endorse either of the two Trumpists and just keep his mouth shut so McSally can win the primary since she's seen as the only chance the GOP will have to defeat Sinema.

There are really no exciting House primaries in Arizona other than the one in Tucson pitting the very conservative carpetbagger Kirkpatrick against local progressive doctor, Matt Heinz. Aside from the GOP billionaires and EMILY's List pumping money into the race smearing Heinz, the DCCC is also backing Kirkpatrick. Polling shows Heinz ahead, in large part because of Kirkpatrick's record as a die-hard NRA supporter, an opponent of Wall Street reform-- she voted with the GOP against Dodd-Frank-- and because of her support, along with the Republicans, to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

If Conservatives Can Buy Both Parties, They Won't Need To Worry Who Wins Those Bothersome Elections

Jacobson- Rabid fox in the hen house

On Sunday we looked at a relatively new phenomenon happening in American politics right now: conservative-- usually Republican-- billionaires investing huge sums of money in Democratic primaries. We spoke specifically about how the web of shady SuperPACs that prop up the Republican-lite organization, No Labels, is pouring hundreds of thousands of last minute dollars into the Orlando-area seat that progressive Alan Grayson is trying to reclaim from right-of-center New Dem Darren Soto.

It's a district too blue for a Republican so big right wing money wants to make sure it's at least represented by a DINO with GOP tendencies-- like Soto. And certainly not by a skilled and effective progressive warrior like Grayson. Last week, for example, James Rupert Murdoch put another half million dollars into the battle through the No Labels web. And he isn't only only right-wing billionaire doing the same thing this cycle-- nor is the Grayson v Soto fight the only one where wealthy Republicans are testing out their ability to take over the Democratic Party with cash.

As I mentioned, No Labels head honcho, Nancy Jacobson, who is widely considered one of the most vicious and destructive players in American politics, runs a dark web of 8 of the most pernicious and sleazy SuperPACs in the country, United for Progress, United Together, Forward Not Back, Progress Tomorrow, Patriotic Americans PAC, Citizens for a Strong America, etc, entirely funded by contributions from 5 and 6-figure right wing donors, such as Rupert Murdoch, his son James Murdoch, Chicago White Sox and Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf, hedge fund manager Louis Bacon, former Major League Baseball Commissioner Allan Selig and Wheels Inc. executive Jim Frank. Jacobson, failed in her bid to insert right-wing faux-Dems John Morgantelli (PA) and Damon Martinez (NM) in their races against progressives Susan Wild and Debra Haaland. But she was very successful in rescuing the failed campaign of right-wing Blue Dog Dan Lipinksi in Chicago.

A young progressive businesswoman, Marie Newman had been steadily gaining on Lipinski-- a Republican-lite fake Dem-- and by the week before the election it looked like she had the win in the bag. Suddenly a Republican SuperPAC in South Carolina that funds No Labels with cash from conservative donors like Jerry Reinsfeld and Dick Duchissois, started pouring money for a wave of false ads into the district. Newman's grassroots campaign was swamped with a flood of cash and she lost the election, albeit closely:

• Dan Lipinski (No Labels Blue Dog)- 48,675 (51.1%)
• Marie Newman (D)- 46,530 (48.9%)

Yesterday I asked her what had happened. "No Labels," she told me, "is widely known as a true PAC-bully for conservatives. To be clear, they are not centrist in any way. No Labels only supports conservatives. During my campaign they made up ridiculous lies-saturated ads and executed horrifying things on the ground to beat me. I am incredibly proud of all of my partner Non-profit PAC supporters. My campaign and supporters were honest, fair and ethical. No Labels was the opposite in every way."

No Labels and its affiliated PACs smeared her with $987,742 worth of ads, primarily with a contribution from United For Progress, Inc ($975,894), which gets it's money from the same kind of right-wing criminal types trying to take down Grayson and bolster Soto in Florida:

• Louis Bacon (Moore Capital Management)- $500,000
• Howard Marks (Oaktree Capital)- $375,000
• Christopher Stadler (CVC Stadler)- $250,000
• Jerry Reinsdorf (Chicago White Sox)- $200,000
• Michael Sonnenfeldt (Tiger 21 LLC)- $125,000
• Carl Ferenbach (High Meadows)- $125,000
• Craig Duchossois (Duchossois Group)- $100,000
• Jim Frank (Wheels)- $100,000

Should these plutocrats, primarily corrupt Wall Street banksters, get away with taking over the Democratic Party nominating process? They've already taken over the GOP but with the rise of Trump, conservative Republicans are looking for an alternative and they see No Labels as exactly that-- a viable alternative and an opportunity to insert more Wall Street-friendly "Democrats" into Congress in blue districts where the GOP would have no chance to win anyway. Please consider helping Alan Grayson stop them in Orlando by clicking on the Blue America 2018 congressional thermometer on the right. Grayson was the most effective member of Congress while he served. Soto is an inept, ineffective, backbencher party boy who votes the way he's told to vote-- a complete waste of a blue seat. His record is anti-Choice, pro-NRA and "neutral" on protecting Social Security from the Republicans and the greedy Wall Street monsters who want to "privatize" it.

Although it isn't the exact same thing, it's worth mentioning that Paul Ryan couldn't bear the idea of being defeated by a union construction worker, Randy Bryce... so he announced an early retirement and fled from the battlefield. Yesterday Mark Leibovich of the New York Times Magazine blamed it all-- somewhat brutally-- on Trump, not Bryce. "Ambitious 48-year-old politicians at the peak of their powers don’t suddenly just decide to quit because they’ve discovered that their teenage children are growing up fast back in Wisconsin. Ryan should, by rights, be riding out of town at the pinnacle of his starlit Washington career. Yet he remains a distinctly awkward match to a moment-- and president-- that seem certain to define much of his legacy." I've seen the same internal polls and focus group results Ryan has. Independent voters are done with him. He knew, Trump or no Trump, he has no chance against Bryce. The GOP isn't prepared to give up the southeast Wisconsin seat without a fight, so they have been pumping large amounts of money into the Democratic primary campaign to defeat Bryce and replace him with a pretend-- or vanity-- candidate that would be incredibly easy for them to defeat. It isn't working but it is forcing Bryce to put some attention into a primary he shouldn't have to think about instead of concentrating all his resources and firepower against the Paul Ryan clone that Ryan chose as the November candidate. So far No Labels hasn't weighed in on this one yet.

Congress Has A Chance To Get Alan Grayson Back Again

The House has 435 seats and there aren't many members who really ever make a positive difference for their constituents. But there are some. Alan Grayson has been one of them.

Darren Soto hasn't been. He's just a bump on a log New Dem who slithered out of the state legislature with an A+ from his pals at the NRA and votes against women's right to Choice. Needless to say, the DCCC loves him; he's their kind of nothing congressman. On hearing that Grayson is running for his old seat, DCCC chair Ben Ray Luján-- notorious for never fighting Republicans and always holding his fire for fellow Democrats-- immediately chimed in with some delusional nonsense about how the little known Soto has "built a robust base of support at home in Central Florida... I’m confident Darren will run a winning campaign and continue to serve the good people of Florida’s 9th District, thanks to his record of supporting hurricane survivors in Florida and Puerto Rico, protecting DREAMers and all hard-working immigrants, and standing up for women’s equality in the workplace and their access to quality, affordable healthcare." Utter Beltway nonsense.

I wish Grayson was running against Luján, a closet case from deep blue New Mexico district (PVI D+8), who has never had an serious opposition and who the NRCC has never challenged. This cycle he has no primary challenger and his Republican "opponent," Steve McFall, hasn't raised the $5,000 that would trigger an FEC report while Luján has already raised $1,077,784.

And speaking of campaign contributions, over in Orlando's FL-09, Soto has raised $570,463 and even before officially announcing Tuesday, Grayson had raised $402,775 and had $694,967 cash-on-hand.

Responding to Luján's negativity, Grayson, in an interview on WFTV, said "I don’t need anyone’s permission to run for office. What I’ve done is ask the people. I can run anywhere in the state." When he was making up his mind about running again, he was approached by a Soto staffer who told him Soto surrogates would open the gates of hell on him and that would you every false attack that Republicans and right-wing Democrats had ever used against Grayson. Yesterday ABC News reported that Soto had told them that he expected Grayson to go negative in the primary campaign but says he'll seek to avoid that kind of race. "We expect him to be negative but I have always and will continue to run a positive campaign about how to improve the lives of our constituents. To quote former first lady Michelle Obama, 'when they go low, we go high.'" And then immediately launched into a typically negative attack: "Grayson has never considered what's wise for Democratic unity when considering his actions. He could have helped build a Democratic majority running in one of several open seats, but chose not to do so," Soto said.

78-year-old Nancy Pelosi stands for eight hours on four-inch heels on the floor of the House, begging Democrats to vote against the Budget Act the next day because it wipes out the last vestiges of hope for the DREAMers. Puerto Rican Congressmembers Gutierrez, Serrano and Velasquez-- and virtually every other member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus-- heed her call, and vote "No." Despite Luján's bullcrap about Soto protecting DREAMers, Darren Soto votes "yes." His excuse is that the bill somehow is good for Puerto Rico, although Gutierrez, Serrano and Velasquez didn’t see it that way.

Soto has accomplished exactly nothing in his one term in Congress. He's the ultimate do-nothing backbencher, the polar opposite of Alan Grayson, who was renowned for working across the aisle to pass the most legislation of any member of Congress-- even when the House was controlled by Republicans! You would think the DCCC would be excited to get him back-- if you knew nothing at all about the DCCC.

This morning, Grayson let his supporters know he's running for the seat in his old district. "I’m running for Congress," he wrote, "because our progressive goals-- justice, equality and peace-- need a champion in Congress. Think about it.  Who can you think of, in the U.S. House of Representatives, whom you would call a champion for progress?  On a good day, one or two or three of them.  On a bad day, none. We need someone in Congress who actually knows how to get things done.  And I passed 121 pieces of legislation-- more than anyone else-- even when the Republicans were in charge."

We need someone in Congress who won’t be cowed by Donald Trump’s Twitter feed.

We need someone in Congress who lays the foundation for future progress. Like my Seniors Deserve a Raise Act, for the first increase in Social Security benefits in 43 years. Like my Seniors Have Eyes, Ears and Teeth Act, to expand Medicare to cover eyeglasses, hearing aids and dental care. Like my Freedom From Fear Act, to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Like my College for All Act, introducing the Bernie Sanders free public college law in the House.

Because it’s not enough just to win. You have to make people’s lives better.

And, ultimately, that's exactly what makes Grayson better than your garden variety bump on a long congressmember-- making people's lives better, not just a career in self-service. That Act Blue congressional thermometer above is a way you can contribute to Grayson's campaign. Please click on it and donate what you can.

Will There Be Races Where A GOP Candidate Is More Progressive On Guns Than A DCCC Candidate?

The video up top is from 2010 and if you didn't know better you might think Ann Kirkpatrick is a Republican, especially when she starts repeating racist GOP talking points about immigration and criticizing Obama. Just before the 4 minute mark she starts her oft-repeated schpiel about the NRA. The DCCC is crushing the campaigns of local progressives Matt Heinz and Mary Matiela for this carpetbagging blood-soaked murderess who bragged about her longtime love affair with the NRA: Like protecting our rights, like our right to bear and keep arms. And that's why I have an A rating with the NRA." After decades of puplicly licking the NRA's ass she's now trying to pretend she isn't responsible for all the children who have been slaughtered in the schools when she could have walked up to each one of them and shot them in the head for how she has voted on gun legislation. Brian Robinson, Matt Heinz' Campaign Manager spoke out yesterday on the DCCC gun nut: "Ann is what everybody hates and distrusts about career politicians. When she ran for Congress in Flagstaff, she bragged about her NRA A rating, vocally opposed reinstating the Assault Weapons ban, and even praised the NRA as 'one of the country's oldest continuously operating civil liberties organizations.' Make no mistake, the gun crisis is a problem of her making... Maybe if she had spent more time living down here, she would know that Southern Arizonans can spot a fraud from a mile away."

Along with Kirkpatrick (AZ), Jeff Van Drew (NJ) and Anthony Brindisi (NY) are two more of the many right-of-center Republican-lite Democrats who generally see as eye-to-eye with the NRA as your garden variety Republican does. But these three were aggressively recruited by Nancy Pelosi and Ben Ray Lujan of the DCCC. And yes, Nancy and Ben were very much aware that Kirkpatrick, Van Drew and Brindisi are all gun nut fanatics with long, bloody records of supporting the NRA and of support from the NRA. All three are on the DCCC "Red to Blue Page" and all three have been endorsed by the Blue Dogs and/or the New Dems, together the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party. There are only 24 candidates on the Red to Blue page, representing the exact number of seats the Democrats have to flip to win back control of the House. Most of them are garbage candidates but few are as overtly conservative as Kirkpatrick, Van Drew and Brindisi. The only one I can confirm being a bona fide progressive in the whole lot of them is Lisa Brown (WA), although we're still trying to figure out Andy Kim in New Jersey.

Most of the DCCC candidates are keeping purposefully mum about on guns. Read through their skimpy campaign websites are you'll be hard-pressed to know if they will or won't support a bill to prevent the sale of assault rifles. There are Republicans with better positions on guns than many of the DCCC candidates! Take Brian Mast (R-FL). Generally speaking, Mast is a hopeless and clueless Republican, as awful as the rest of them. Yesterday, however, he penned an OpEd for the New York Times considerably more progressive than what most of the DCCC have done (or would do): I'm Republican. I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I Support a Ban. He wrote that he supports a ban on the sales of assault or tactical firearms, including the AR-15. Like putative Democrats Kirkpatrick, Van Drew and Brindisi, Mast was elected with the support of the NRA. Unlike the DCCC-Dems, he's breaking with them in a very major way. A decorated and grievously wounded vet from the Afghanistan War, he wrote, "I have fired tens of thousands of rounds through that rifle, many in combat. We used it because it was the most lethal-- the best for killing our enemies. And I know that my community, our schools and public gathering places are not made safer by any person having access to the best killing tool the Army could put in my hands. I cannot support the primary weapon I used to defend our people being used to kill children I swore to defend."

The NRA gave him $4,950 when he ran in 2016 and spent another $26,569 on his behalf to help flip his district from blue to red. He wrote that he doesn't "fear becoming a political casualty" and that although he supports the 2nd Amendment it "does not guarantee that every civilian can bear any and all arms." Many of his positions are sure to drive the NRA folks wild with rage. He wrote that he backs expanding background checks, raising the minimum age for gun purchasers, outlawing bump stocks and that he opposes allowing people barred from flying because of terrorism concerns from purchasing guns. He also backs lifting the ban on federal research into gun violence as a public health threat. Don't be surprised if the NRA seeks revenge by backing New Dem Lauren Baer, whose website says she has a dog named Biscuit but doesn't say how she stands on banning assault weapons, just that she wants to create "a bright future" which includes "enacting common sense gun safety measures that protect our families," something that says nothing and could be a position that any Republican or any Democrat takes.

Last night I reached out to the candidates Blue America has endorsed and asked them if they will vote for an assault weapons ban. Some people have actual lives and it was Friday night so I couldn't reach everyone but everyone I reached seemed quite enthusiastic about an assault weapons ban. The very first response came from Alan Grayson (D-FL) who reminded me that when he was in the House he had already worked on a bill to ban assault weapons. "I introduced a one-sentence bill to accomplish that. I called it the Freedom From Fear Act, HR 5615. The wording was very clear and Grayson's co-sponsor was Barbara Lee (D-CA): "To reinstate the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons." Boom! That's it. Paul Ryan buried it in the House Judiciary Committee and refused to ever allow a vote on it.

The next response was from state Rep. Kaniela Ing from Hawaii. I already knew what his response would be, but of course he'd vote for a ban. "It worked in 1994, and should be reinstated." I love these clear answers with no "ifs," "ands" or "buts." Here are the rest of the responses in the order they came in:

• Randy Bryce (WI)- "I would back it. The .223 round is designed to ricochet once it penetrates the body. I'll never forget being taught that in basic training."

• Ellen Lipton (MI)- "I back an assault weapons ban. I grew up in Alabama, and i understand hunters. Assault weapons are not for hunting."

• Tim Canova (FL)- "Yes, I would back an assault weapons ban. Here’s my two minute statement on the gun crisis and mass shooting."

• Paul Clements (MI)- "Yes certainly."

• DuWayne Gregory (NY)- "I would definitely support a ban on assault weapons!"

• Dan Canon (IN)- "Yeah, I'm not convinced it's the best approach and it's certainly not a panacea, but I'd back anything that had the slightest chance of saving even one kid's life. Anything is better than nothing."

• Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (NM)- "Yes, I unequivocally support an assault weapons ban.  Military weapons have no place on our streets."

• Lillian Salerno (TX)- "Yes, I will back an assault weapons ban."

• Kara Eastman (NE)- "I favor a ban on assault weapon sales. Loudly."

• Tom Guild (OK)- "Yes, I will support and vote for a ban on the sale of assault weapons. Thanks for asking."

Wouldn't it be great if the DCCC was on this list with their name crossed out too? (Don't hold your breath)

UPDATE: Democratic Incumbents Who Also Suck

There are plenty of Democratic incumbents in the NRA's pockets and I didn't address that in this post at all. But Darren Soto in the nice blue district (PVI D+5) Alan Grayson used to represent is a good example. After the Orlando massacre Soto tried painting himself as a leader on gun control. "In fact," wrote Peter Schorsch, "the opposite is true. Throughout his 10-year-career in the Florida Legislature, Soto has consistently sided with the gun lobby-- on everything from “Stand Your Ground” to 'Docs vs. Glocks' and more. Soto even received an 'A' rating from the National Rifle Association as a state representative and as a senator.

[In 2015] Soto voted to strengthen Florida’s infamous “Stand Your Ground” gun law (SB 344), making it harder for prosecutors to try gun cases. Lucy McBath, the mother of Jordan Davis, a black teenager killed in Jacksonville in a 2012 dispute over loud music, urged the Senate Criminal Justice Committee to vote down SB 344. Soto sided with the gun lobby rather than grieving mothers when he voted for the bill, which the NRA deemed a “must-pass priority.”

In 2014, he voted to extend “immunity” to gun owners who brandish their firearms under the “Stand Your Ground” Law (HB 89).

In 2008, Soto voted for a bill to allow employees to bring their guns to work-- even if those employees worked at daycare centers (HB 503). The bill was backed by the gun lobby, including the NRA. Soto also voted to rescind all local gun laws-- including rules against bringing guns into public buildings or city parks. In 2011, he voted for HB 45, a law that prohibits local governments from regulating firearms and ammunition in their communities.

Soto’s pro-gun record is so extreme, he even voted to prohibit doctors from talking to patients about gun safety (HB 155 in 2011). The Florida Pediatric Association opposed the bill (referred to as the “Docs vs. Glocks” bill)-- for asking a patient a question that could save his or her child’s life, a doctor in Florida could lose her medical license or be fined $10,000.

Soto has voted for a number of other bills backed by the gun lobby, including an NRA-backed bailout of gun clubs-- costing taxpayers $1.2 million (HB 33-A) and a 2015 bill (SB 290) that would allow unlicensed gun holders to carry a firearm in an emergency evacuation. His loyalty to the NRA extends even beyond state lines-- he was one of only four Florida Democrats who signed onto a 2009 Supreme Court Amicus Brief opposing a Chicago handgun ban.

Make no mistake-- politicians like Soto have helped create a toxic environment in which the gun lobby reigns supreme in our state.

Does Pelosi Really Care About Gun Safety Laws-- Or Is She Just Playing Games With Voters, While Recruiting NRA Shills For Congress?

So who do the hypocrites at the DCCC support and who do they oppose?

You probably heard how the Republicans are absolutely shoveling dark money into the congressional races to try to salvage their majorities in the Senate and House. It may be too late for the Senate, but McConnell's SuperPAC will be spending over $2 million per day between now and November 8-- money from odious characters and modern day robber barons like the Kochs, Adelsons, Paul Singer and the crackpot Mercers from Long Island. And all that money is being focused on just 6 states: Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, to save Roy Blunt, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr and Pat Toomey-- and to try to drag Todd Young and Joe Heck over the finish line.

And just yesterday the NRCC dumped 16 unimaginative TV attack ads against Jackie Rosen (NV), Joe Garcia (FL), Kim Myers (NY), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Ruben Kihuen (NV), Morgan Carroll (CO), Terri Bonoff (MN), Pete Gallego (TX), Angie Craig (MN), Brad Ashford (NE), Monica Vernon (IA), Colleen Deacon (NY), LuAnn Bennett (VA), Zephyr Teachout (NY), Randy Perkins (FL) and Lon Johnson (MI)-- and that was after dozens of radio ads against Democrats and another batch of TV attack ads in the last week against Steve Santasiero (PA), Ami Bera (CA), Emily Cain (ME), Tom Nelson (WI), and more against Joe Garcia, Morgan Carroll, Monica Vernon, Brad Ashford, Angie Craig, Zephyr Teachout, Lon Johnson, and Martin Babinec (the independent running in the 3-way in NY-22).

Now, true, most of these ads are so juvenile and ineffective that there literally are observers saying that the Democratic candidates and the DCCC should report them to the FEC as in-kind contributions, but the NRCC is counting on spending a load of cash in the next two weeks to brainwash voters with frequency. Even ads this stupid could be effective. (Look at the one they're running against Zephyr Teachout. It's so laughable, it's an insult to the voters in the Hudson Valley and Catskills area of upstate New York.)

Meanwhile, many of the candidates the DCCC is spending most heavily to bolster, particularly Blue Dogs who are far from the Democratic mainstream, are the kinds of candidates progressives and activists are least likely to want to defend. Regardless of how bad the GOP incumbents are-- and they are really a sordid bunch-- who wants to defend Democrats running as NRA heroes against what the vast majority of Americans crave from Congress in terms of gun safety (to pick just one example). The DCCC has dumped a fortune into the campaigns of right-wing NRA-whores Lon Johnson (MI)-- $1,321,129 so far, including $346,634 this week-- and Pete Gallego (TX)-- $2,736,390. Voters-- especially Democrats, but independents and mainstream Republicans as well, want sane gun safety laws. Smart candidates, like Ruben Kihuen (NV) and DuWayne Gregory (NY) are actively campaigning for background checks and passage of a No Fly/No buy law, but the DCCC persists in recruiting and backing right-wing Democrats who stand with the GOP and NRA on their unpopular positions.

And it isn't just the Lon Johnson and Pete Gallego clamoring for NRA love and support. The NRA poster boys for gun-nuttery in California and Florida, respectively Lou Correa and Darren Soto, are also on Pelosi's DCCC's Red to Blue program-- and both in very blue, safe Democratic districts where no one has to pander to the gun nuts if they don't want to. So is the Democratic Party serious about protecting us from gun-crazed lunatics? Or is it just a convenient cudgel to use, opportnistically, against Republicans from time to time? Isn't it time for dishonest career hacks like Pelosi and Hoyer and their leadership team to step down and make way for less jaded Democrats in Congress? The DCCC supports and funds right-wing garbage candidates like Lon Johnson, Darren Soro, Lou Correa and Pete Gallego but disgusting racist slob Steve Israel has prohibited the DCCC from backing DuWayne Gregory who's is in a winnable race in a suburban Long Island district that is all in for Hillary and against Trump. We at Blue America are doing our best... but we don't have the tens of millions of dollars the DCCC and Pelosi are wasting on Blue Dogs and New Dems who are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Please consider chipping in what you can-- directly to the candidates' Get Out the Vote efforts-- by tapping the thermometer on the right.

If We Don't Stop Billionaires From Buying Up The Political System, We Will All Soon Be Their Slaves

I first ran across Houston hedge fund billionaire John Arnold and his wife Laura when I noticed them spending millions of dollars supporting California fake Democrat Ro Khanna, school privatization and charter school advocacy, of the kind John Oliver discusses in the video above. The vile Arnolds have made their fortune through fracking and charter schools and they happily push their greedy agenda by financing right-wing candidates, some Republicans but primarily Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, like, besides Khanna (their biggest candidate investment), corrupt characters Darren Soto (FL), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Ami Bera (CA), and repulsive and power-hungry Rahm Emanuel protégée, Illinois Blue Dog Cheri Bustos.

This cycle they teamed up with a Marco Rubio operative, a dip-shit named Thomas Datwyler, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in FL-09 in order to bolster Darren Soto-- a right-wing NRA-poster boy masquerading as a Democrat and running for Alan Grayson's old congressional seat in the Orlando area. The Common Sense Leadership PAC is running a barrage of independent expenditures against Dena Grayson and in favor of Soto-- over $200,000 so far, but with expenditures accelerating by the day. Ironically, their vicious attacks on Grayson have been augmented by the sleaziest and least trustworthy of all Democratic groups, EMILY's List, which has, over the last decade, become expert at spreading lies and distortions. Hedge fund criminal Donald Sussman has given EMILY's List $2 million to spend against Grayson and Michael Bloomberg gave EMILY's List another million, some of which is being used against Soto and some against Grayson. It's ironic that EMILY's List is spending their donors' money to smear a pro-choice woman doctor in such a way that could well result in the election of a virulently anti-choice, right-wing tool like Soto who has been publicly endorsed by the Wall Street-owned and operated New Dems.

The Arnolds, vampires

Although some of the Arnold's money ($44,917) has gone into pro-Soto efforts, the big money is all being spent tp smear Grayson, smearing being a John and Laura Arnold trademark whenever it comes to progressives. This is how predatory billionaires like the Arnolds seeks to advance their political agenda, by helping elect puppet candidates like Darren Soto who will support their bid to destroy public education, one of the long-term goals of these people. As Jeff Bryant wrote for CommonDreams yesterday, "[John] Oliver focused much of his attention on Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, three states with especially depressing charter track records-- including negligence in the approval process and school executives embezzling funds."

None of Oliver’s critics seriously refuted the crux of his argument that there might be something fundamentally wrong by design, rather than by implementation or intent, with the idea that  a “free market” of privately operated and essentially unregulated schools is a surefire way to improve education opportunities for all students.

Indeed, charter schools are “here to stay” has become a refrain among advocates for these schools, even though there’s no doubt the controversy caused by this new parallel school system is just beginning, and no one can predict what the ongoing conflict will lead to.

The charter industry is currently responsible for educating a small percentage of students-- just 6–7 percent nationally and barely measurable in many communities, especially more well-to-do metropolitan and rural areas. A minority of Americans and relatively few politicians completely understand what charter schools are. And most experts have mixed views on the purpose of the schools.

However, what charter advocates generally won’t admit is that many of the problems these schools cause are reflective of what inevitably seems to happen when an essential public service is privatized.

The charter industry claims its schools are “public” institutions because they get tax dollars, but that’s like saying a defense contractor is a public business because it takes in revenues from the federal government.

Numerous experts point out charter schools blur the line from what it means to be a public institution providing a public good and that, by their very design, they expand opportunities to profiteer from public tax dollars and privatize public assets.

People in communities affected by these schools are just beginning to see the conflicts these institutions cause, and it’s just a matter of time before government officials at all levels are forced to respond to the increasing concerns with these schools.

Just consider recent actions taken by the Department of Justice to curtail the expansion of the private prison industry-- a privatization trend that generally predates the rise of the charter industry.

As Mother Jones reports, after “a damning report on the safety, security, and oversight of private prisons,” DOJ announced it would stop contracting with these institutions.

Donald Cohen, who leads In the Public Interest, an organization that researches problems posed by privatizing public services, writes for Huffington Post, privately operated prisons are fundamentally flawed because the business model they must follow encourages the companies to “actively seek new prisoners to fill facilities they own.”

As ITPI has previously reported, “in an effort to provide the service with fewer resources while also maximizing profits, [private prison] companies often cut corners, reducing the quality, effectiveness, and accessibility of the service.”

“The more contractors can cut costs on running their facilities, the wider their profit margins,” writes Aman Banerji for the Roosevelt Institute. “No wonder … private prisons contracted by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) contain one or more security deficiencies, health service deficiencies, and a greater number of food grievances.”

This clear and obvious conflict of interest-- between serving the public and rewarding private enterprise-- led to a misalignment with DOJ’s mission to hold an essential function of government to the high standards the public demands.

If the charter school industry believes it can avoid this conflict, it’s kidding itself.

More than one attentive blogger has noticed the striking similarities between charter schools and the private prison industry. In one of these posts, Mitchell Robinson notes that charters, like private prisons, differ from the public counterparts by not being locally managed or controlled, not providing the same level of services and programs, and not answering to the same level or degree of regulation and oversight.

Over the years, the US Department of Education has rewarded charter schools with over $3.3 billion in federal funds, and with passage of the most recent federal education law, the every Student Succeeds Act, USDoE will send $333 million more to these schools before the current fiscal year is over.

Remarking on the actions DOJ took to end tax dollars going to the private prison industry, Banerji concludes, “It offers an opportunity to contest the privatization of state services beyond the prison system.”

Let’s hope reexamining the role of charter schools is the next step.