No, Bernie Should Not Drop Out Now-- It's Never Been About HIM, It's Always Been About US

Long-time DWT readers will probably remember David Segal, a super-progressive Rhode Island state legislator who Blue America backed in his 2010 fight for an open congressional seat. Currently he's executive director of Demand Progress. Yesterday, along with Sam Adler-Bell, he penned a persuasive OpEd for Business Insider, Bernie Sanders should stay in the Democratic race. Acknowledging-- basically-- that unless the Daniel Radcliffe and Geraldine Viswanathan characters in the first season of Miracle Workers, "12 Days," decide to save the world, November is going to offer Americans another lesser of two evils choice for president. With conservative Democrats from the Republican wing of the party-- like Claire McCaskill, Neera Tanden-- and all the NeverTrump Republicans who dominate MSNBC, barking loudly for Bernie to drop out, Segal suggests that "would be a mistake, not only for the progressive forces he represents, but for the Democratic Party and the country."

Ending the primary over coronavirus concerns is a mistake

First, let's address what might appear the strongest argument against continuing the primary: that continuing the contest endangers voters amid the present coronavirus crisis.

It is straightforwardly true that holding normal elections right now is a grave threat to public health. Even when proper precautions are taken, polling places-- through which hundreds or thousands of people pass on a single day-- could become concentrated sites of infection.

However, ending the presidential primary will not solve this problem; many states have ballot measures, referenda, and other local contests occurring simultaneously with the presidential primary.

Unless officials are planning to suspend all democratic processes between now and the resolution of the coronavirus pandemic (a terrifying and probably unconstitutional precedent in many states), Sanders's presence in the primary is not the deciding factor as to whether Americans will need to vote during the outbreak. This is a structural problem that must be solved regardless of the Sanders campaign's decisions.

Every state should be concentrating on making voting by mail available and accessible. Rhode Island, for instance, advanced such measures on Monday; its Board of Elections is seeking to move the primary from April to June and will strive to maximize the use of absentee ballots. The moment calls for making voting easier for everyone, not arbitrarily ending one electoral contest.

A joint statement from both campaigns calling for delaying primaries until June, enabling mail voting in every state, and encouraging supporters to vote by mail rather than in person would be powerful and persuasive to the DNC, election officials, and voters.

Sanders staying in would be better for party unity

Second, figures like Jim Clyburn have argued for weeks that Sanders should drop out to allow the party to unify behind Biden and avoid a long, divisive primary like 2016.

To begin with, however, it's not clear that hastening a heightened focus on a contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is in Biden's best interest.

Trump has demonstrated a predisposition to launch vicious attacks on Biden, whether based on mental acuity, potential family conflicts of interest related to a Ukrainian oil company, or as he otherwise sees fit. If Biden can't weather a robust debate about the Democratic Party's platform with his (actual) friend Sanders, that does not bode well in a contest against Trump.

Moreover, it may be better for party unity if Sanders stays in.

Hasty calls from establishment figures for Sanders to drop out are exacerbating polarization within the party. Sanders's base-- of young and disaffected voters-- already distrusts Democratic insiders.

From their perspective, the DNC and various moderate figures have waged an "anyone but Bernie" campaign from the beginning of the 2020 contest. Bridging that divide is the obligation of every Democrat hoping to defeat Trump, including and especially those who disagree with or dislike Bernie Sanders.

To that end, as the likelihood of a Sanders victory declines, Biden and Sanders ought to begin an intentional, de-escalatory, public conversation during which Biden makes explicit policy and personnel assurances to Sanders, while Sanders begins the process of leading his supporters toward Biden. This cooperation would strengthen the resolve of the Sanders base to remain active through November.

How to come together

We suggest guarantees not just of policies but also regarding key personnel decisions because the latter are more enforceable and structural, and one cannot trust that policy promises will be acted upon in good faith unless one trusts the personnel in charge of executing them.

Plutocrats who have been reported as possible senior appointments in a Biden administration like JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, billionaire former mayor Michael Bloomberg, Morgan Stanley executive Tom Nides, and Bank of America executive Anne Finucane should be established as no-goes.

Furthermore, amid this COVID-19 crisis, Sanders is well positioned to demand that top appointments to the Department of Health and Human Services, including those who oversee Medicaid and Medicare, are people with a proven commitment to the public's interest-- and not insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists or executives.

In general, personnel appointees should be conditioned on their willingness and ability to implement a progressive policy agenda.

Only this kind of explicit and orchestrated unification process-- founded on substantive, actionable agreements, rather than mere rhetoric-- can best position Democrats to win in November.

Bringing progressive voices to the convention

For supporters of the Sanders agenda, the argument for his staying in is more straightforward, but no less crucial: Sanders must continue to collect delegates for the convention.

If he were to leave today, Sanders would have around 20% of delegates at the convention. If he continues to garner a sizable minority of the vote-- as recent polling suggests he will-- he'd end up with more like 35% to 40%. (And while his odds are indeed long, the aperture through which he might secure the nomination has not completely closed.)

The convention, in whatever COVID-19-adapted form it takes, makes determinations not just about the Party's nominee, but also about other critical matters like the Party's platform and rules. It's imperative that the progressive wing be duly represented in those processes.

To be sure, many of Biden's rank-and-file voters are pretty progressive too. If exit polls are an indication, many of them support Sanders's more robust agenda, including Medicare for All.

Many Democrats have approached the primary from the perspective of electability alone and become convinced that Biden is a safer bet, but most of these voters also like Sanders. But Biden's convention delegate bloc is likely to be disproportionately composed of party insiders, some with attachments to corporate and ideological foes of the progressive movement. Thus, a convention without Sanders's delegates would not represent the true political priorities of the Democratic base.

Finally, in the unlikely event that the convention was tasked with choosing somebody other than Biden or Sanders as the nominee, it would be all the more important that progressives have proportional representation among convention delegates so that such a process could incorporate the input of an ideological cross-section of the party.

These are strange and terrifying times. An unprecedented public health crisis has become entwined with and amplified by existing deficits in our democratic institutions and our social safety net. Now, more than ever, it's vital that the Democratic nominating contest be one all voters can trust, and whose aim is to arrive at a nominee and platform that represents every Democratic voter.

Under most scenarios, this is an outcome over which the Biden and Sanders camps have substantial control. To achieve it, we believe that Bernie Sanders must stay in this contest. 

Maybe Segal and Adler-Bell know something I don't, but I've been following the detestable Biden closely since the 1970s and he's never going to give up on the plutocrats who backed his campaigning he's never going to embrace anything remotely progressive, especially now that he won a Democratic primary as a status quo candidate, something that he no doubt thinks will be even more attractive in a general election.

He isn't going to give anyone any guarantees and will be happy to tell any Bernie diehards-- as he already has-- to go vote for someone else. Which is precisely what this diehard for the policies Bernie represented plans to do. Segal began his career in elected office as a Green on the Providence City Council. It sounds like he's made his choice to vote for the lesser evil. I'm sure many Americans will but I doubt enough will to defeat Trump. Biden's one chance will be that Trump defeats himself... if the two of them are still alive in November. Do you agree? Vote by clicking on the Blue America Bernie Congress thermometer on the right and giving what you can to Bernie and the congressional candidates running on the issues that propel his campaign.

"Bernie," explained Oklahoma City progressive congressional candidate Tom Guild, "is a true progressive champion. He has changed the collective mind of America and now a majority support many of his ideas such as Medicare for All. We owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. He wants us to pay it forward and that’s exactly what I plan to do. It is very difficult being a candidate, especially one who has the collective opprobrium of those who control the agenda and levers of power in the Democratic Party, the economy of America, and the corrupt political system. It’s such a personal decision and I trust and applaud whatever path he and Jane decide to take. He is worth his weight in gold in so many ways including fighting for our shared progressive goals, like the Green New Deal, that may literally save our planet for future life and habitation. On the one hand, it would break many hearts to lose him as a major presidential contender. On the other hand, he’s more than earned the right to make whatever decision he feels is best for him, his family, and people like us who are his extended family. Peace, love, and justice will conquer all. I think Bernie and I share the same complaint that it sure is taking a helluva long time!"

Chris Armitage, the progressive in the Spokane area running for the congressional seat occupied by Cathy McMorris Rodgers, would rather see Bernie stay in the race. "I imagine this is an incredibly difficult decision for someone who has spent a lifetime fighting for justice. When Bernie came here in 2016, 14,000 people showed up. I think he can do a ton of good work supporting races like ours where he can be a galvanizing source for unbought downballot candidates."

Tomas Ramos, the best of the candidates running in the open Bronx congressional district, is even more adamant about Bernie staying in the race. "Let me be clear-- Bernie Sanders should not drop out of the Democratic race. Back in 2008 it was not until the final day of the primaries (June 3rd) that Obama was declared the presidential candidate. Right now Bernie has amassed 885 delegates to Biden's 1180, the narrative of the corporate media has been, 'Biden has swept the last two weeks at the polls'. This is a half truth, the delegates are disbursed proportionally and not based on a winner takes it all system. Bernie's chances to win the nomination has become increasingly difficult-- not impossible. He has the most important asset, his base of supporters who are forever galvanized. As a community organizer and candidate I understand the hardships of building a movement, however I also know that there are folks that are counting on me to amplify their voices. This is what Bernie has done for so many disenfranchised Americans, he has given them hope that one day their voices will truly matter. In this time of crisis we are experiencing how the lack of social safety nets can ravage not just the economy but more importantly our humanity. Bernie's message throughout the course of his political career has been consistent, to create a movement that is representative of the needs of the poor and working class. Bernie's challenges in his race is representative of the race that I am faced with in my district-- the establishment vs. the insurgent. But neither of us should or will drop out, there is too much at stake."

"Bernie's the candidate," said San Francisco progressive Shahid Buttar, "with far and away the most support among the younger generations whose active participation in the November election will be crucial to a Democratic victory. He should absolutely stay in the race, both to give those generations a reason to stay involved, and to stretch the debate at a time when we need bold policy solutions to our mounting and compounding social crises. Our campaign to replace Pelosi will be strongest in November if Bernie is at the top of the ticket. Having helped his campaign secure a resounding victory in California, we're eager to help him get there. Even if he steps aside, however, Bernie will enable opportunities for our campaign. Already, the national movement he inspired has seized on our campaign as an aligned opportunity to build a new paradigm in the shell of the crumbling consensus on corporate rule. His vision has unleashed the aspirations of a generation, and those genies aren't going back into their bottles."

Besides, as Eric Lach wrote in regard to the Biden campaign yesterday for the New Yorker, "All year, Democrats argued over what 'return to normal' politics really meant. What would a return to normal be for undocumented immigrants, or the uninsured, or people whose lives were being constricted by student loans? But now, with many Americans shut up in their homes, or soon to be, many voters continue to say that a return to normal sounds pretty good."

Gina Raimondo Is Not A Moderate But Frank Bruni Sure Hates Progressives

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is a mainstream Democrat who was reelected in November with 231,477 votes (61.5%) against Republican Robert Flanders, who took 6 of Rhode Island's 39 municipalities. Frank Bruni's distorted puff piece on Rhode Island's right-of-center crooked governor, Gina Raimondo-- The Loneliness Of The Moderate Democrat didn't mention Whitehouse, only that Raimondo had been "reelected by a margin of more than 15 percentage points." She took 196,977 votes, significantly fewer than the normal Democrat won with. But that didn't fit Bruni's dishonest narrative. So why mention it? Bruni's whole twisted piece was deceptive, an attempt to paint the Republican wing of the Democratic Party heroic. Worst of all, he was happy to confuse "corrupt" and "right-of-center" with "moderate, saddened she isn't running for president." He bales that she "won her primary against a progressive rival by more than 20 points, then trounced her Republican opponent in the general election, 52.8% to 37.3%. No mention by Bruni that Obama won it both times he ran with over 62%-- just a little better Gore (61%) and Kerry (59.4%)-- and that even Hillary did better than her with 54.4%. 52.8% for a Democrat in Rhode island is pretty bad. Senator John Reed won his seat last time he was reelected with over 70%.

Also no mention that she spent over $7 million, to Republican Allan Fung's $2.3 million. Independent outside spending for her was at least $5.5 million more, compared to just $1.8 million for Fung. Her primary challenger, Matt Brown, was also swamped by her flood of corporate money. Last year The Intercept's Aída Chávez did a much better job of reporting truthfully than Bruni did for The Times.

Democratic Gov. Gina Raimondo is working to fend off a progressive, albeit underfunded, primary challenge from the left. Matt Brown, a former Rhode Island secretary of state, is running a grassroots campaign against Raimondo, who he describes as “the most extreme corporatist Democrat in the country.”

The Democratic Governors Association has pumped in $1 million to support Raimondo, money that won’t be available for Georgia, Florida, or Maryland. EMILY’s List, which helps elect pro-choice women, jumped in as well, spending $345,000 on pre-primary mailers for the incumbent. Although Raimondo presents herself as pro-choice, she was criticized by reproductive rights advocates for passing what amounted to restrictions on abortion access during her first term in office and is listed as “mixed-choice” by NARAL Pro-Choice America.

A July survey found Raimondo with a 40 percent job approval rating among the general public and 58 percent among Democrats. That dropped to 29 percent among independents, who are legally allowed to vote in Wednesday’s primary.

Raimondo, a former venture capitalist, has raised nearly $7.8 million for her re-election, raking in much of her fundraising from the same corporate players responsible for the state’s fiscal problems. The claim of “most extreme corporatist” may sound like hyperbole, but as state treasurer, Raimondo touched off a scandal by pushing through pension reform legislation that handed a billion dollars of state worker money over to hedge funds with links to the conservative movement, which harvested eye-popping fees.

...Raimondo’s head-to-head polling calls into question the conventional argument that centrist or pro-corporate candidates deserve support because they are more electable. “She’s taken millions in campaign contributions from Wall Street, fossil fuel industry, tobacco industry, lobbyists, corporations, tax breaks, and benefits from the state,” Brown said in an interview. “And she has, I think, raised a total of $7 million dollars now for this race and yet, as you point out, still a large majority of Rhode Islanders are looking for a different candidate with a different vision.”

Throughout her political career, Raimondo has also received thousands of dollars from the family that owns Purdue Pharma, a company widely blamed for fueling the opioid epidemic.

Brown’s campaign has sworn off corporate political action committee money, relying instead on individual contributions. The campaign boasts hundreds of volunteers that knock on doors and hold phone-banking sessions. In the first two months of the campaign, he said, they held over 70 events all across the state, “in people’s living rooms, talking to their friends and neighbors.” As for his policies, he’s running on “Medicare for All,” the creation of a public bank, tuition-free college, undoing Raimondo’s cuts to Medicaid, and a “Green New Deal.”

...Raimondo has refused to participate in even a single debate with her primary opponent. “She has funded her campaign with millions of dollars from Wall Street and corporations in an attempt to buy the election, while doing no debates with me about our records and our visions for the state,” Brown said. “So, it’s really-- the kind of campaign she’s running is not democracy.” Raimondo told the Providence Journal she skipped out on debating because Brown is “not operating in good faith,” accusing him of telling lies.

The only conclusion one can come to when a candidate avoids debate, Brown said, is that the candidate has an indefensible record. “And in her case, it’s a record of always working for Wall Street and corporations at the expense of the people. It’s a record of cutting Medicaid and giving out corporate giveaways, handouts, out to handpicked corporations that are often her campaign donors,” he continued.

“It’s a record of taking money from the executives of a gas company and then turning around and announcing that we’re going to do ‘whatever we have to to make sure we’re successful here at building a fracked gas and diesel oil burning plant in Rhode Island,’ which would be bad for everyone in the state, bad for our future, bad for our children. The only one it’s good for is the corporation. The fracked gas corporation, they’d make a bundle off Rhode Islanders, and Gov. Raimondo gets campaign contributions from them in return.”

Frank Bruni looked at that pile of congealed puke and calls it "moderate" and just could not wait to bash Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in his shameless and misleading propaganda column. "She can't tweet worth a damn," he wrote, "and the same goes for Instagram. She winces at talk of a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent and cringes at the growing use of 'corporatist' as a slur against Democratic politicians deemed too cozy with business interests. She thinks that big companies often need to be prodded forcefully to do right by their employees, but that it’s bad policy and bad politics to paint them as the enemy." No one will ever confuse Gina Raimondo with an enemy of Big Business; no need to worry about that. She's an old style conservative who even hates the idea of a minimum wage for workers.

She recalled an exchange with college students not long ago. One of them said: “I get who you are. You’re one of those spineless centrists.”

“And I was like, ‘Excuse me?’,” she said. “It takes a lot of spine to be a centrist in America today. You get whacked from the left and whacked from the right. That’s my life. I get whacked.”

Moderate Democrats have certainly had their day and their sway. In fact the passions of the left arise in part from how much compromise there has been-- and here we are stuck with Donald Trump. The rage of less moderate Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is earned and righteous. And Raimondo said precisely that to me.

But Ocasio-Cortez is by no means the whole of the Democratic Party. And is the leftward lurch that she personifies the best and safest bet for 2020? I worry, because there’s no political priority higher than limiting Trump to one term. Raimondo also worries-- a lot.

“So many Democrats just assume we’re going to win,” she said. “They underestimate how hard it’s going to be.” And it might be a serious tactical mistake, she added, to nominate any candidate who seems to be at war with capitalism itself or entertains the idea of a guaranteed minimum income.

“We have become the party that is anti-business,” she told me. “We need to be the party of work.”

She acknowledged that “the system we have today is totally broken.” She cited grotesque income inequality. She noted that too many Americans have no economic security and no prospects for achieving it.

“But I fall in the camp of: Let’s fix it,” she said. “Let’s embrace business to come to the table. Someone needs to make the case that it’s in the best interest of businesses and wealthy people to be better corporate citizens. Pay for health care. Help people get their college degree. Pay for job training.”

Along those lines, she recently proposed that companies doing business in Rhode Island be taxed up to $1,500 annually for every employee who is enrolled in Medicaid because he or she can’t get health insurance through a company-sponsored plan. “I hope that they’re embarrassed,” she said.

But, she added, “Where I think we are at risk is if all we do is beat up and crap on businesses.”

Sound like a Republican to you? Even Bruni admits her right-wing bullshit is "an exaggeration of where the party is." But he forgives her instantly for it; "I take her point." He sure does. He goes on the moan that "The media attention to full-throttle progressives among newly elected House Democrats is disproportionate to their numbers, and it sometimes obscures a sizable, practical middle. Besides, their more moderate peers are the ones who wrested seats from Republicans in districts that, like America, aren’t deep red or emphatically blue. 'I don’t think the lefties can win a general election,' Raimondo said. But, she conceded, 'Who knows? I’m not running in 2020. I could have missed the boat.'"

David Segal, a former Green Party city councilman who later joined the Democrats, represented East Providence in the state House and founded Rhode Island's Progressive Caucus, told us that "Decades of neoliberal policies that assume we should outsource political decisions to 'the market' have ruined untold millions of lives and left our democracy strained. Just as a consensus is emerging that we must act to systematically reform our political economy by instituting a new, progressive social contract, implementing state programs that provide for the general welfare, and undermining the power of this generation's robber barons, my governor gains praise in the paper of record by asserting that we should solve of nation's vast problems by begging our corporate overlords for more crumbs. It's appalling, but in the context of Raimondo's record of subservience to Wall Street and the donor class, it is anything but surprising."

Upgrading Congress-- In Maryland, Meet Jamie Raskin

Sunday, Maryland state Senate Majority Whip Jamie Raskin declared that he's running for the congressional seat left open by Chris Van Hollen's decision to seek a U.S. Senate seat. “I am running for Congress," explained Raskin, "because America needs effective progressive leadership to renew the momentum of popular democracy in the country. I have a proven decade-long record as an effective progressive leader in Annapolis. I submit to you that I have the experience, the energy, the vision and the commitment to excel as your Congressman... We will rock the House!” He pledged to represent “the fact-based community,” against climate-change deniers in Congress. He said he would represent “the common good,” rather than “big-money interests," saying his campaign would not accept corporate funding. 

We asked an old friend of Blue America, David Segal, to take a look at the contest for MD-08. Segal, who was the first Green Party candidate to ever win a seat on the Providence City Council, later served in the Rhode Island House of Representatives and is currently executive director of Demand Progress. If what David has to say resonates with you, you can contribute to Jamie's campaign here at the Blue America page.


Jamie Raskin For Congress (MD-08)


by David Segal

I’ll just put it plainly: Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin is a progressive populist who’s running for Congress from Maryland-- and he very well could be the next Paul Wellstone or Elizabeth Warren.

Jamie has led the way on what’s quickly becoming an innumerable list of recent progressive successes in Maryland-- marriage equality, the repeal of the death penalty, passage of medical marijuana, and lowering the voter registration age to 16, to name a few.

Sunday afternoon several hundred people packed a restaurant and spilled out onto the sidewalk to back him as he kicked off his campaign to replace Chris Van Hollen as the representative of Maryland’s 8th District. The event opened with a message of endorsement from John Conyers, and acknowledgements of support from on the order of three dozen lefty elected officials from throughout District 8.

And then Jamie had at it. Though anything but naive, Jamie exhibits an earnest, energetic, infectious idealism that somehow manages to make this 52-year old seem precocious.

He told us the story of an encounter he had nearly 10 years ago, while launching his first effort for State Senate-- from his front porch. That day Jamie spoke passionately about the imperative to foster social justice, and proclaimed that aggressive support for gay marriage would be one of the hallmarks of his campaign and tenure in office. Afterwards, one of his proto-constituents pulled him aside and beseeched him: “Jamie, I’m with you on the issue, but you need to tone down your rhetoric about gay marriage. It’s just never going to happen here — and if you want to win, you need to appear to be more centrist.” Loathe to antagonize one of his few early supporters, Jamie bit his lip. But he says he thought, “My ambition is not to be in the political center. My ambition is to be in the moral center.”

Over two-plus terms in office he’s been precisely that: prioritizing civil rights and liberties and economic justice, combatting corporatism, refusing to take corporate contributions, and standing shoulder-to-shoulder with grassroots activists and organizers, helping make Maryland a bit more small-D democratic.

But before he was among the most impressive activist-lawmakers in the country, he was an activist-professor of constitutional law at American University. Beloved by his students, he has also taken on myriad righteous pro-bono cases and written books about the corrupting influence of private money on our political system and about the rights of students. And before he was an activist law professor, he was just… an activist. Congressman John Sarbanes spoke today of one of his earliest memories of Jamie, as an impassioned and shockingly articulate speaker at an anti-apartheid rally at Harvard in the 80s, where they were law school classmates.

The drive for social justice runs in the family: HIs father, Marcus Raskin, founded the Institute for Policy Studies. His wife, Sarah Raskin, was the chief bank regulator in Maryland and was recently successfully backed by progressives to become the first female Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

When Jamie announced his 2006 effort for State Senate, Maryland’s political pundits called the task before him impossible: He was trying to unseat a 30-year incumbent, a local political institution.

When he won the primary against her nine months later-- by a 2-1 margin-- the pundits called his victory “inevitable." And it surely was: His campaign built a Congressional race-sized network of hundreds of volunteers, and illuminated that the incumbent’s moderate and corporatist record was anathema to the values of the Takoma Park-Silver Spring electorate. They made it clear that Jamie would be what he calls a “justice politician” and not a “power politician."

Revel for a moment in just how remarkable that is, in the modern era of the Democratic Party: Somebody had the guts to challenge an incumbent Democrat from the left-- let alone his having had the political and organizing acumen to win, going away.

Jamie’s newest task isn’t easy, but it is far from impossible. (Don’t tell anybody, but he might even be a slight favorite.) With the support he’s likely to garner from the grassroots in his district and across the country, we can build a movement that, once it wins, will again seem to have been inevitable. And we’ll have rocketed into Congress an activist-organizer lawmaker who, working alongside the grassroots, will fight to do for the all of the United States some of what tremendous good he’s done for the people of Maryland.

Steering A Firm Course Through The Choppy Waters Of Sucker Populism

I'm really glad that both Alan Grayson and Raul Grijalva don't seem to have any problem making the populist argument that the rich should pay their fair share and that just because they contribute immense sums to the political careers of their favorite lackeys it doesn't mean they should get away without paying taxes. Grayson and Grijalva are both in tough re-election battles-- tough because they fight for ordinary working families and the wealthy special interests are targeting them. Both are responding aggressively, not by adopting GOP talking points and running for cover, but by being exactly who they are. It's why these two guys each has his own page at Blue America-- Alan Grayson's and Raul Grijalva's.

Yesterday Digby did the Blue America letter and even if you haven't signed up to get Blue America letters, this one was posted on her own site, on John's, and here at DWT. It was an ask for David Segal, the progressive state legislator running for Patrick Kennedy's seat in Rhode Island against a couple of stand-for-nothing careerists and an anti-Choice kook. It's very easy for Digby, John and I to support David and to support him with great gusto. He's clear and he's right to the point. He doesn't hedge and the last thing this guy is ever going to do is hide behind Mitch McConnell's skirts. Some Democrats are starting to wimp out on ending tax breaks for millionaires. Segal isn't:

One reason why the working class and people of modest means are willing to vote for Republicans is because they see through corporate Democrats' schtick: They speak out of both sides of their mouths, blunting their rhetoric-- and their principles-- and kowtow to the rich as they go begging for campaign contributions.

We need more Democrats who are willing to stand up for the party's core ideals: The wealthy are paying income taxes at a lower rate than they have in nearly 80 years (with the exception of a blip under Reagan/Bush 1). Amid the squawks of the deficit hawks and as we struggle to reinvigorate the economy, there's simply no sensible reason for this. We know that well-targeted spending (on things like public infrastructure and public transit) leads to more economic growth than do tax cuts for the rich. It's well past time to repeal the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.

If you haven't contributed yet, please consider helping out. Yesterday my first conversation of the morning was with Digby as we pondered how-- and why-- some Democrats could be buckling to right-wing faux populist pressure to extend the tax cuts for millionaires. We were on the phone an hour going back and forth about it. It was too early to call Amato but if we had, he would have just pointed us to a couple of paragraphs in the new book he and Dave Neiwert have out now, Over the Cliff:

Right-wing populism is essentially predicated on what today we might call the psychology of celebrity worship: convincing working-class schlubs that they too can someday become rich and famous-- because when they do, would they want to be taxed heavily? It’s all about dangling that lottery carrot out there for the poor stiffs who were never any good at math to begin with and more than eager to delude themselves about their chances of hitting the jackpot.

The thing about right-wing populism is that it’s manifestly self-defeating: Primarily those who stand to benefit from this ideology are the wealthy, which is why they so willingly underwrite it. It might more accurately be called “sucker populism."

Maybe we should send copies of the book to all the Blue America candidates-- except Segal; it comes natural to him.

The Progressive Future-- A Special Guest Post From Digby

-by digby

There's a lot of despair in these parts lately and it's perfectly understandable. The country is going to hell in a hand basket and the forces of corporatism and know-nothingism are dominating the political culture while the Democrats seem to be in a state of suspended animation. It's very tempting to just tune it all out and watch TV. But we can't. Not as long as there are progressive politicians like David Segal out there on the campaign trail fighting to change things every day. If don't support real progressive leaders with a track record of success, we are basically giving up.

David is running in a primary for the Democratic nomination for Patrick Kennedy's seat against two doctrinaire establishment hacks and an anti-choice zealot and he needs our help in the home stretch. (The election is September 14th.) His most formidable rival, the mayor of Providence is using his money advantage to run a deceptive ad and David needs our help to run this rebuttal to remind people who the real progressive in the race is:



I know it's hard to get excited about politics right now. But it would be foolish for us to fail to support a young, smart progressive with a proven track record in his run for congress. Unless we are prepared to simply surrender to the forces gathering around us we need to nurture future progressive leaders who understand this political environment and have ideas about how to prevail in it. David is one of those future leaders.

Here's what Howie wrote about him when Blue America endorsed him:

David Segal is one of us. He was elected to the Providence City Council in 2002 as a Green, and is now a lefty Democratic state Rep for Providence and East Providence. He has a very clear path to victory and he can win-- and if he does, he'll be among the strongest voices for progressives in the halls of the Capitol.

David's worked on the meat-and-potato issues: Jobs, the environment, housing, progressive taxes, all with success. He's successfully pushed for expanded renewable energy, more affordable housing, against predatory lending, and for foreclosure prevention measures.

But he's never shied away from the really controversial issues: He's been a vocal leader on criminal justice reform, standing up for the rights of immigrants and for gay rights, and has pushed as hard as one can from the state level against war spending. He's an ardent supporter of gay marriage, and was the sponsor of the last year's bill, which was passed over the Governor's veto, to allow gay partners to plan each other's funerals.

He's a co-sponsor of marijuana decriminalization, and just convinced the Governor-- after two years of vetoes-- to allow a bill to become law that ensures due process for people on probation.

He's sponsored the "Bring the Guard Home" legislation, and his first act on the City Council was to pass a resolution against the war in Iraq.

But, most importantly, he's an organizer at heart, who is committed to joining the Progressive Caucus-- and making it function better. Here's an excerpt from an interview with David:

"[I]n Rhode Island I've tried to develop alternative structures for legislators to lean on when the leadership makes such threats. I am the lead organizer for our progressive caucus. I founded a political action committee to support members of our progressive caucus so that if funding from sources dries up at leadership's request because something was done to offend them, that we would have at least some, some degree of money to fall back on to help fund our campaigns nonetheless. We funded ten, twelve races relatively modestly in the last cycle and hopefully we'll be able to do something in the forthcoming cycle."

That's the kind of inside political organizing we desperately need in the US Congress. If you can help with a few dollars today the campaign can keep its ads on the air and compete. If he wins the primary, there's almost no doubt that he will win the seat. It could be one of the few progressive victories in this midterm election.

Blue America Welcomes David Segal (D-RI)

Rhode Island's first congressional district, the eastern and northern parts of the state, including most of Providence, is an open seat this year because of the retirement of Patrick Kennedy. It's one of the safest Democratic districts in the country and McCain barely managed to scrape together a third of the vote. In 2008 Kennedy was re-elected with almost 70%. It's safe to say that whichever Democrat wins the September 14 primary will be the next Rhode Island congressman. There are 4 Democrats running: today's guest and the newest Blue America endorsee, state Rep. David Segal, Providence mayor David Cicilline, conservative businessman Anthony Gemma, and Bill Lynch, the Establishment candidate, a former Democratic Party state chairman and the brother of the state's Attorney General.

There are no actual John Barrows or Bobby Brights or Parker Griffiths among the Democrats. And although David Segal stands head and shoulders above the rest on every single policy issue without exception, the reason Blue America has decided to endorse in this race has more to do with his leadership potential. Everyone is always telling John and Digby and I that we need more Members like Alan Grayson in Congress. They don't grow on trees-- but we found one.

David Segal is one of us. He was elected to the Providence City Council in 2002 as a Green, and is now a lefty Democratic state Rep for Providence and East Providence. He has a very clear path to victory and he can win-- and if he does, he'll be among the strongest voices for progressives in the halls of the Capitol.

David's worked on the meat-and-potato issues: Jobs, the environment, housing, progressive taxes, all with success. He's successfully pushed for expanded renewable energy, more affordable housing, against predatory lending, and for foreclosure prevention measures.

But he's never shied away from the really controversial issues: He's been a vocal leader on criminal justice reform, standing up for the rights of immigrants and for gay rights, and has pushed as hard as one can from the state level against war spending. He's an ardent supporter of gay marriage, and was the sponsor of the last year's bill, which was passed over the Governor's veto, to allow gay partners to plan each other's funerals.

He's a co-sponsor of marijuana decriminalization, and just convinced the Governor-- after two years of vetoes-- to allow a bill to become law that ensures due process for people on probation.

He's sponsored the "Bring the Guard Home" legislation, and his first act on the City Council was to pass a resolution against the war in Iraq.

But, most importantly, he's an organizer at heart, who is committed to joining the Progressive Caucus-- and making it function better. Here's an excerpt from an interview with David Swanson:
"[I]n Rhode Island I've tried to develop alternative structures for legislators to lean on when the leadership makes such threats. I am the lead organizer for our progressive caucus. I founded a political action committee to support members of our progressive caucus so that if funding from sources dries up at leadership's request because something was done to offend them, that we would have at least some, some degree of money to fall back on to help fund our campaigns nonetheless. We funded ten, twelve races relatively modestly in the last cycle and hopefully we'll be able to do something in the forthcoming cycle."

Last week, many of us were disappointed as 148 Democrats, including Patrick Kennedy, joined Boehner, Cantor and 158 other Republicans to vote for more unjustifiable billions of dollars to throw down the Afghan sewer. The disgraceful supplemental demanded by the Military Industrial Complex passed 308-114, more Republicans voting for Obama's proposal than Democrats! Among the candidates running in RI-1, only David Segal came out publicly to say he would have voted NO.

I've been against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning. My first act on the Providence City Council in Providence was to sponsor an antiwar resolution in 2003, which of course was not going to end the war in its own right, but it was an opportunity for Providence to assert the negative impact of the war on the city’s ability to function-- to fund municipal services and education.  

I don’t think there’s any indication that we’re preventing future terrorism by keeping our presence in Afghanistan right now. The CIA’s made it clear that the drone attacks there present a real risk of destabilizing the Pakistani government, which possesses nuclear armament and should be a grave concern to all of us.

I think that it’s unfortunate but it’s the case that our involvement in Afghanistan is effectively a quagmire right now; there is no neat and tidy way to get out and tie it all up in a bow wrap everything up and leave it neat and pristine and I think it’s time to recognize that and bring the troops home.
 
I am the only candidate in the Democratic primary for CD 1 in Rhode Island who has pledged that the only Afghanistan war funding I will approve is the funding necessary to safely and expeditiously bring our troops home.

That's the kind of straight forward answer we always look for from our candidates and it's part of the reason we endorsed Segal today, why we've asked him to join us over at C&L today at 2pm (ET) for a chat and why we're asking you to dig deep and help him run his grassroots campaign, a campaign that accepts no corporate contributions. And it's also why Segal has also been endorsed by the PCCC, PDA, DFA, the Rhode Island American Federation of Teachers & Healthcare Professionals and why we'll be hearing some interesting endorsements this week from other organizations that will comes as a bit of a shock to the Democratic Establishment.

Meet David Segal (D-RI)

Our friends at PCCC have never sounded so excited and committed about anything as when they called us to tell us about a congressional candidate they had found in Rhode Island. David Segal isn't just one of those "but he's better than the alternative" kinds of candidates. Helping elect David Segal isn't like blocking a conservative like Blanche Lincoln or Marco Rubio. David Segal is one of us. He was elected to the Providence City Council in 2002 as a Green, and is now a lefty Democratic state Rep for Providence and East Providence. He has a very clear path to victory and he can win-- and if he does, he'll be among the strongest voices for progressives in the halls of the Capitol.

David's worked on the meat-and-potato issues: Jobs, the environment, housing, progressive taxes, all with success. He's successfully pushed for expanded renewable energy, more affordable housing, against predatory lending, and for foreclosure prevention measures.

But he's never shied away from the really controversial issues: He's been a vocal leader on criminal justice reform, standing up for the rights of immigrants and for gay rights, and has pushed as hard as one can from the state level against war spending. He's an ardent supporter of gay marriage, and was the sponsor of the last year's bill, which was passed over the Governor's veto, to allow gay partners to plan each other's funerals.

He's a co-sponsor of marijuana decriminalization, and just convinced the Governor-- after two years of vetoes-- to allow a bill to become law that ensures due process for people on probation.

He's sponsored the "Bring the Guard Home" legislation, and his first act on the City Council was to pass a resolution against the war in Iraq.

But, most importantly, he's an organizer at heart, who is committed to joining the Progressive Caucus-- and making it function better. Here's an excerpt from an interview with David Swanson:

"[I]n Rhode Island I've tried to develop alternative structures for legislators to lean on when the leadership makes such threats. I am the lead organizer for our progressive caucus. I founded a political action committee to support members of our progressive caucus so that if funding from sources dries up at leadership's request because something was done to offend them, that we would have at least some, some degree of money to fall back on to help fund our campaigns nonetheless. We funded ten, twelve races relatively modestly in the last cycle and hopefully we'll be able to do something in the forthcoming cycle.

 
And it's working. Progressives have been building power in Rhode Island: Last year they stood up strong together to block the passage of the state's budget until $25 million (a lot in RI terms) for city services and education funding were restored, and until they'd secured a promise that the capital gains tax structure would be made more progressive-- which it was, a month later.

A bill requiring that almost all employers in the state make use of the fascistic E-Verify program to check the immigration status of potential employees passed the House on a 53-17 vote in 2008 (it was killed by the Senate). The progressives held firm, pushed back, and in 2009 the bill passed on just a 38-33 vote, making it clear that support had waned, and ensuring its final death in the Senate.

David said this on the floor that day: “There were hundreds of thousands or millions of immigrants who came here without papers. If your parents or grandparents came here before the 1920s, they could not have come here illegally because there were no restrictions on immigration from the west. People put these laws in place for the first time because they did not like people with names like Pacheco or Ferri or Segal, swarthy dimwits that we were. Quite simply, in passing this legislation we are upholding and strengthening the legacies of those who first restricted immigration and they did it because they didn't like people like us. They didn't like our parents, they didn't like our grandparents and I am not willing to do that.”"

And how's this for a trump card in a candidates' debate: David's sued one of his current opponents, by name-- and won. When the Mayor of Providence persistently refused to enforce a law requiring developers receiving municipal funds to try to hire locally, David organized his council colleagues to sue in Superior Court for stronger enforcement, ensuring more jobs for the inner-city that was fronting the dough for the projects.

David is one of us, and he's exactly what we need in Congress. After eight years as an elected official he's proven, time and again, that he knows how to get things done while standing firmly behind his staunchly progressive values-- and help other progressives stand up stronger. Please join me in supporting his cause.