Civil War Breaking Out Among Both Congressional Parties

Pelosi made a very big mistake a couple weeks ago. She endorsed Joe Kennedy III in his bid to unseat and replace Massachusetts progressive Ed Markey. Pelosi's endorsement immediately turned the race around. Kennedy had been substantially ahead and Pelosi's kiss of death, brought a tidal wave of momentum into the race-- for Markey. Since Pelosi's endorsement there have been two public polls. Suffolk University's Massachusetts Senate poll shows Markey beating Kennedy by an astounding 10 points and the Data for Progress poll a few days ago has Markey up 7 points. This is quite the turn-around from the 17 point lead Kennedy began the race with!

Incumbents usually try to stay out of primaries, especially primaries that involve incumbents. But as all DWT readers are well aware, the only accountability for incumbents in deep blue (or deep red for that matter) districts comes through primaries. Pelosi wasn't attempting to give Ed Markey an accountability moment-- although she opposes the Green New Deal legislation he and AOC wrote-- but was instead trying to cultivate the Kennedy Clan for one reason or another. Same with 2022 Wisconsin Senate hopeful, Mark Pocan, who also endorsed Kennedy against the much more progressive Markey, even though Pocan is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Yesterday Melanie Zenona and Heather Caygle, reporting for Politico wrote that the congressional primary taboo is breaking down. They speculated that "lawmakers, aides and strategists in both parties say the pattern will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. It’s a shift that reflects the ideological-- and anti-establishment-- churn taking place in the Donald Trump era, and it’s sparking concern among the old guard about rising intraparty warfare."

"More and more members of Congress are going to look and say 'rules are rules' but if in fact there’s a district that’s suffering… we’re going to see a lot more members of Congress supporting challengers,” said Marie Newman, who knocked off longtime Illinois Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski earlier this year with the backing of several prominent Democrats.

Even as leaders in both parties have tried to paint any decision to wield influence in primaries as a “special” case, younger firebrands are interpreting their leadership’s involvement as a green light to show support and spend money on the challengers they prefer.

“If the establishment is going to start shooting at the outsiders and the pro-Trump elements of our caucus, then the bullets aren’t only going to be flying in one direction,” said Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, who backed the successful GOP challenger to Rep. Ross Spano (R-FL) after a member of GOP leadership targeted one of his other colleagues.

Playing in primaries has long been looked down upon in both the Republican and Democratic Party, where leaders deploy multi-million-dollar campaign arms to shield incumbents and squash any potential challengers. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took it a step further this cycle-- enforcing a “blacklist” of vendors who work for candidates seeking to oust sitting lawmakers, a move that outraged progressives and motivated them to get even more involved in primary campaigns this cycle.

“These places operate on members’ dues,” said Brendan Buck, a GOP strategist, referring to the parties’ campaign arms. “To be able to get members to contribute, they need to convince them it’s an incumbent protection operation.” Otherwise, he added, “that trust is eroded” and “the money stops coming in.”

Plus, it’s dangerous to take a shot and miss. Leadership used to even shy away from open primaries amid fears of picking the wrong candidate and alienating a future colleague.

“It’s a risky play, no doubt,” said Buck, who served as a top aide to former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI). “You better be damn sure it’s gonna work if you’re gonna do it. People have long memories.”

But now, insurgent lawmakers angry with the establishment and tired of abiding by the kind of decorum that once governed Washington are looking to flex their muscles in primaries — and put leadership on notice.

“No one gets to complain about primary challenges again,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response to Pelosi’s endorsement of Kennedy. The freshman lawmaker, who has won the ire of some colleagues for her openness to supporting primary challenges, also called on the DCCC to get rid of its vendor blacklist. “It seems like less a policy and more a cherry-picking activity,” she wrote.

This is hardly the first time rank-and-file lawmakers have engaged in primaries-- although many more are openly doing so this year-- but it’s now easier than it was a decade ago to actually wield influence through the use of grassroots fundraising and social media.

“The old ways of Washington empower leadership through money. But we’re starting to see that the message and movement may be more important than money,” said Gaetz, who swore off PAC funding. “In today’s world of social media, digital communication and wall-to-wall cable television, the leadership no longer has a stranglehold on the brand or the messengers.”

The 2022 cycle may offer further opportunity for insurgents, as incumbents may be facing entirely new constituencies after the latest round of redistricting.

Allies of Pelosi have defended her decision to back Kennedy, arguing the speaker did not undermine her policy of fiercely protecting House incumbents since she was weighing in on a Senate race. Progressive lawmakers and strategists have dismissed that explanation.

“What we’re seeing right now is the Democratic establishment really being honest in public about what they’re doing. What’s not a change is them taking sides in primaries-- they have long done it for years and years and years, they’ve just been more private about it,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.

Ocasio-Cortez, who declined to be interviewed for this story, shot to prominence after toppling one of the most powerful Democrats in the House: Joe Crowley, the Democratic Caucus chair who was often mentioned as a potential future speaker. A fellow member of her liberal “squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), took down longtime Rep. Mike Capuano in 2018 and has since backed other primary challengers.

Progressive challengers have already unseated several long-entrenched Democratic incumbents this year, including Lipinski, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel in New York, and Rep. Lacy Clay in Missouri.

If Neal is defeated by Holyoke mayor Alex Morse, it would be a huge victory for Ocasio-Cortez and a disappointment for Pelosi. The speaker spent several minutes praising Neal’s progressive bona fides at a news conference Thursday and said his district would suffer “a tremendous loss” if he’s ousted.

...But both Gaetz and Ocasio-Cortez have serious sway on the right and left, respectively, so if they do decide to get more involved next cycle, things could get messy. Several other Gaetz-backed candidates sailed to victory in open Florida GOP primaries last week, including far-right activist Laura Loomer who has been banned from Twitter and Facebook for racist comments and attacks on Islam but who has little shot at winning in November.

“One of the jobs of leadership is to keep the peace amongst your team. A real quick way to have your team fall apart is if there is suspicion that certain members are trying to unseat other ones,” Buck said. “Politics is a team sport. And if your team devolves into this type of fighting, it’s really hard to put that back together.”

As I pointed out yesterday, the increasingly dominant and uber-corrupt corporate-backed New Dem caucus has been given the keys to the DCCC. Their endorsement list is basically the Red-to-Blue program this cycle. Two of their most recent endorsements are in jungle primary states-- California and Washington-- where November elections can pit two members of the same party. Vile corporate conservative Sara Jacobs is running against progressive Georgette Gomez in San Diego and another corporate conservative, Marilyn Strickland is trying to defeat state Rep Beth Doglio for the congressional seat in Thurston (Olympia) and Pierce (Tacoma area) counties that Denny Heck is giving up. Jacobs and Strickland are both being backed by the New Dem PAC, while Gomez and Doglio are being backed by the Progressive Caucus. I'm guessing that unless the House Dems dump Pelosi as leader-- and pronto-- this kind of intra-party fighting will accelerate into all-out civil war. (NOTE: You can contribute to both Gomez and Doglio here.)

UNITY!!! Or Maybe Not? Can The Democratic Party Be Reformed?

This week, Bernie and Status Quo Joe named leaders of their "unity task forces" in the hope of bringing progressive voters back into the Democratic fold by November in the worthwhile attempt to dislodge Trump, albeit with the utterly worthless Biden. Quint Forgey, reporting for Politico yesterday, wrote that the purpose of the task forces are "to advise the Biden campaign on six key policy areas: climate change, criminal justice reform, economy, education, health care, and immigration. The task forces’ membership consists of a stable of prominent Democratic leaders and public policy experts, but its most notable appointee is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive New York congresswoman and superstar of the party’s left wing who backed Sanders during the primary contest and has evinced skepticism toward Biden’s more moderate ideology." Do you think that will help? Obviously that will be up to Biden. If he actually follows through, it may. First problem: her co-chair is sold-out establishment hack John Kerry.

The other co-chairs include Chiraag Bains, director of legal strategies for the liberal think tank Demos; California Rep. Karen Bass; Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge; Dr. Heather Gautney, a sociology professor and former Senate staffer; Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center; Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal; former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; union activist Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA; California Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard; and Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott. Sara Nelson, Pramila Jayapal, Heather Gautney, and Chiraag Bains are progressives. Biden and Sanders also named Carmel Martin of Biden for President and Analilia Mejia of Friends of Bernie Sanders as their respective campaign representatives "to coordinate and support the work" of the task forces.

The incorporation of Ocasio-Cortez and other high-profile progressives on the task forces in leadership capacities is certain to help assuage concerns from left-leaning Democrats that Biden will not heed their counsel when mounting his general election campaign against President Donald Trump. The groups are certainly not stocked with the party yes-men and shrinking violets that some liberals feared would fill out the advisory panels.

In a news release, the Biden campaign said the task forces “will meet in advance of the Democratic National Convention to make recommendations to the DNC Platform Committee” and to Biden directly. “Building upon the work of the Democratic campaigns to date, the ultimate goal of the Unity Task Forces is to develop the most successful possible agenda for Democrats in 2020,” the campaign said.

Biden said in a statement that a “united party is key to defeating” the president in six months, as well as “moving our country forward through an unprecedented crisis.” The task forces “will be essential to identifying ways to build on our progress and not simply turn the clock back to a time before Donald Trump, but transform our country,” he said.

“In the midst of the unprecedented economic and pandemic crises we face, the Democratic Party must think big, act boldly, and fight to change the direction of this country,” Sanders said in his own statement, adding: “I commend Joe Biden for working together with my campaign to assemble a group of leading thinkers and activists who can and will unify our party in a transformational and progressive direction.”

However... there is this:





This letter went out to Our Revolution groups from Jerry Perez on Monday:

My name is Jerry Perez and I am the field director of Our Revolution Los Angeles. Today, we announced that our members voted overwhelmingly to support forming a new party that is free from corporate interests and is accountable to the people. We are joining the Movement for A People's Party, and we'd like to invite other Our Revolution groups to join us with founder and executive director of MPP, Nick Braña for an informational call on Thursday at 5:30pm PST for a conversation about the People's Party.

We are building a mass movement that seeks to stop the exploitation of our communities, reject the money of wealthy special interest groups, educate and empower our constituency, train uncorrupted candidates accountable to the people's platform, and provide everyone with the tools to take control of their local politics. We will organize through electoral politics, nonviolent direct actions, and educational programs that further our movement and work toward our policy goals.

We are free to meet with you before Thursday's call so we can connect and address any questions you have. Please consider joining us.

This is going to be pretty awkward.

The New Bipartisanship: Members Of Congress From Both Parties Who Glory In Corruption Hate AOC

Trump and Pelosi make common cause: they both hate AOC

Friday, the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (HR 2500) passed 220-197. Every Republican voted against it, along with 8 progressive Democrats (Earl Blumenauer, Adriano Espaillat, Barbara Lee, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Mark Pocan, Ayanna Pressley and Rashia Tlaib). The Republicans opposed it because it didn't allocate enough money to the Military Industrial Complex and because several amendments curtailed Trump's ability to abuse the Pentagon and the separation of powers. Many progressives opposed the bill’s $733 billion price tag, but agreed to support it if certain amendments pass, particularly the ones constraining Trump’s war powers.

There were dozens of amendments, some of which-- by Ted Lieu and Ro Khanna-- we've talked about in recent days. Most of the amendments offered by Democrats-- like Ted's and Ro's-- passed. But not the two offered by AOC. One would have kept Trump from sending troops to the border and another was meant to bar funds from keeping migrants in Department of Defense facilities, in effect turning them into concentration camps. Amendment 429 failed 179-241-- 52 Democrats joining all the Republicans to oppose it-- and Amendment 430 failed 173-245-- 58 Democrats joining all but one Texas Republican to oppose it.




Most of the AOC-hating Blue Dogs and New Dems opposed both amendments. Here's the whole list of the Democrats who voted against one or both of the AOC amendments-- in case you keep track of things like that (also included is each member's ProgressivePunch grade):

• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- F
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- F
• Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL)- F
• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)- F
• Lacy Clay (MO)- B
• Emanuel Cleaver (MO)- C
• TJ Cox (CA)- F
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- F
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)- F
• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)- F
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- F
• Antonio Delgado (NY)- F
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)- F
• Jared Golden (ME)- F
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- F
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- F
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- F
• Steven Horsford (New Dem-NV)- F
• Crissy Houlahan (New Dem-PA)- F
• Marcy Kaptur (OH)- F
• Andy Kim (NJ)- F
• Conor Lamb (PA)- F
• Al Lawson (New Dem-FL)- F
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- F
• Mark Levin (CA)- B
• Dave Loebsack (IA)- F
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- F
• Stephen Lynch (New Dem-MA)- F
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- F
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)- F
• Joe Morelle (NY)- F
• Seth Moulton (New Dem-MA)- F
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)- C
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- F
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- F
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- F
• Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN)- F
• Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY)- F
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)- F
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)- F
• Mary Gay Scanlon (PA)- B
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)- F
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)- F
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- F
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- F
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- F
• Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI)- F
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- F
• Lauren Underwood (IL)- F
• Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)- F
• Sue Wild (New Dem-PA)- F
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- F
• Salud Carbajal (New Dem-CA)- F
• Matt Cartwright (PA)- A
• Ed Case (Blue Dog-HI)- F
• Sean Casten (New Dem-IL)- F
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- F
• Val Demings (New Dem-FL)- F
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)- F
• Vicente González (Blue Dog-TX)- F
• Jahana Hayes (CT)- A
• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)- F
• Anne Kuster (New Dem-NH)- F
• Jim Langevin (RI)- C
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- F
• Chris Pappas (New Dem-NH)- B
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- F
• Katie Porter (CA)- F
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- F
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- F
• Jackie Speier (CA)- C
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)- D
• Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA)- F

• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)- F "present"

By the way, another reason conservatives voted against the Pentagon funding bill is because it includes an amendment by Jackie Speier reversing Trump's ban on transgender soldiers. That amendment passed 242-187, with 10 Republicans-- Susan Brooks (IN), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Trey Hollingsworth (IN), Will Hurd (TX), John Katko (NY), Tom Reed (NY), Elise Stefanik (NY), Steve Stivers (OH), Fred Upton (MI) and Greg Walden (OR)--voting with the Democrats for equality.

And then there's the good kind of bipartisanship-- working for the common good

And a nice little UPDATE from this morning, courtesy of Señor Trumpanzee's, the Internet's biggest troll-- although, please keep in mind that AOC was born in New York City, just like Trumpanzee, Ayanna Pressley was born in Cincinnati, one part of Ohio that voted against Trumpanzee in 2016 and Rashida Tlaib was born in Detroit, another part of the U.S. that had the good sense to firmly reject Trumpanzee in 2016.

And he's sure that Nancy would pay? Has she contradicted him?

And, by the way, an awful lot of people get the news from The View, which helps explain why so many voters are so misinformed and even stupid beyond redemption. It's not Fox News, of course, but it really is just as steeped in self-righteous ignorance.

Who Would Have Ever Imagined That Nancy Pelosi Would Go Down In History As One Of The Worst Speakers Ever-- If She Resigned Tomorrow It Would Not Be Soon Enough

According to strange #NeverTrump Republican Andrew Sullivan, in his New York Magazine column Friday, many voters who are not Democrats may have "voted for the Democrats last fall because we wanted a serious check on President Trump’s intensifying authoritarianism. That includes many of us who don’t support the far left’s takeover of the Democrats, but who saw the urgency of an opposition with teeth, confronted as we are by a deranged, tyrannical bully in the White House. What would happen if the Mueller Report emerged with a Republican House still intact, we worried? How could we begin to investigate Trump’s tax returns, or his cronies’ corruption, or his foul pedophile friends, or his murky real estate money-laundering, if Paul Ryan, the Randian eunuch from Wisconsin, were still in charge?"

And speaking of eunuchs... who even needed Paul Ryan! With Trump sniping at Pelosi's progressive "enemies"-- especially AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib-- there almost seems to be an unspoken alliance between the fake president and lame-duck, increasinbgly detested speaker. And #NeverTrump Republicans like Sullivan are noticing: "It turns out, six months later, that on all these topics, the Democratic House majority didn’t matter much at all. Whenever a serious administration abuse of power seems to demand investigation, Speaker Pelosi springs almost instantly into inaction. There is nothing she won’t not do."

Pelosi?

When, for example, a highly dubious decision years ago by Labor Secretary Alex Acosta-- to give Jeffrey Epstein an incredibly lenient plea deal for the sexual abuse of 40 underage girls-- blew back into the headlines, Pelosi instantly ruled out any notion of impeaching Acosta: “It’s up to the president, it’s his Cabinet. We have a great deal of work to do here for the good of the American people and we have to focus on that.”

Really, Madam Speaker, oversight of shady dealings by Cabinet officials is the work of the president now? And holding a corrupt administration to account is not “work … for the good of the American people”? This “distraction” from real “work” meme is, in fact, a Republican talking point. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise described the oversight process this week as “presidential harassment rather than focusing on the priorities of the American people.” Trump himself tweeted a demand that Democrats “go back to work!” How practically different is that spin from Pelosi’s? (Even though the question is largely moot now that Acosta has resigned, it came as a relief to see Elijah Cummings was pledging to investigate him.)

The most epic moment of Pelosi’s oversight abdication was, of course, her response to the Mueller Report. She was completely out-foxed by Bill Barr’s shameless misdirection at first, and once his sleight of hand became obvious, she seemed to have no strategy to hold Trump to account in any way. She was presented with striking evidence that President Trump repeatedly abused the power of his office to obstruct justice-- the charge that brought down Nixon, and one charge that forced even Bill Clinton into a Senate trial-- and was all but invited by Mueller to move the ball forward through impeachment: “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Pelosi immediately, reflexively, punted.

Later this month, we will finally get testimony from Mueller. This week, the House Judiciary Committee has issued 12 new subpoenas for Trump officials, including Jared Kushner. This time, they tell us, they’re serious. These subpoenas come after almost all previous ones were rebuffed entirely by an unprecedented blanket assertion by the president that all oversight inquiries are of a partisan nature and should therefore be ignored. But last month the Democrats passed a resolution seeking court enforcement of their subpoena power. How long will this process take? Who knows? Many seem to think the process could go on for years-- probably likely to take longer than the rest of Trump’s term-- thereby nullifying any practical oversight at all, and giving all future presidents a precedent of immunity by stonewalling. What we do know is that six months into this Congress, we know nothing more from their efforts than we did in January. Could you speed this up if these subpoenas were part of an impeachment inquiry? Almost certainly yes. But Pelosi appears to be in no hurry at all.

Or take the issue of Trump’s tax returns. Judd Legum is aghast that it took the Democrats four months even to ask for them! When Trump (surprise!) refused to hand them over, Ways and Means chairman Richard Neal filed a lawsuit arguing that the reason he was doing so was not because he wanted to see if Trump had committed fraud or other financial crimes, but that he needed “to decide if legislative action is needed” on “the mandatory presidential audit program.” He believed the claim should be as modest as possible to help guarantee an eventual court victory. But “eventual” is the operative word here.

The goods are there though. So when Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill allowing Trump’s state tax returns to be examined directly by Neal, Neal refused, even though the data would be largely the same as the federal returns. He preferred to wait for the result of his own federal legal case-- which could be months or years in coming! And so the clock ticks on. It will likely tick past the next presidential election. This is the fierce urgency of whenever. It is an effective abandonment of a critical tool for exposing presidential corruption.

Maybe Pelosi could hold hearings and then merely vote on a measure of censure of the president? But no: that’s not on the table either. “I think censure is just a way out,” Pelosi said last month. “In other words, if the goods are there, you must impeach.” But the goods are there. We waited months on a thorough investigation, and it found multiple cases of obstruction of justice, a supremely impeachable offense for Congress to pursue. Isn’t she, rather than censure, Trump’s “way out”?

What would she use her oversight powers for? She has argued, for example, that the attorney general openly “lied under oath” to the Congress, her branch of government, a criminal offense. So what will she do? Impeach? Censure? Wait for it: She won’t be “speaking to anything more that he has to say.” Bill Barr must be trembling in fear. What did she do when Trump crossed a clear Constitutional red line and, via a fake national emergency, funneled money to his wall against Congress’s express wish? Yes, you guessed it: nothing. Not even censure. She’s a Speaker who will jettison even the power of the purse rather than take on a tyrannical president.

For good measure, she told Maureen Dowd that Trump “every day practically self-impeaches by obstructing justice and ignoring the subpoenas.” A word to Madam Speaker: People cannot actually impeach themselves. And if you read the Constitution, it’s your job. Why are you persistently refusing to do it?

I know that aggressive oversight, especially impeachment hearings, is a politically fraught decision, full of risk. I know the polls suggest it splits the country and, by her own expert counting, divides the House Democrats as well. I know her party won the House in 2018 by focusing on health care, rather than Trump. I think that should be their focus next year as well. But fortune favors the brave. If she doesn’t act against a serious threat to the Constitution, voters will infer that the Democrats don’t actually believe there’s a threat. If she lets this president own the narrative, as he keeps doing, Democrats will end up following his story rather than their own.

And there is no essential conflict between holding impeachment hearings and making the case for your policies. It should be possible for a competent and gifted Speaker to do both. But Pelosi, alas, is not exactly gifted in persuasively making a case for anything outside her hyperliberal constituency. And she’s deeply unpopular across the country. She has a worse favorable/unfavorable rating than Trump-- and during the partial shutdown in January, she had the lowest ratings of any politician in the country. But if she can’t deploy rhetoric or popularity, at least she could use her Constitutional prerogative.

Her strengths lie in her considerable skills for legislative cat-herding and winning news cycles in the mainstream liberal media. Because she is the first female Speaker, she is largely untouchable in the nonconservative press. I love Maureen Dowd, but her most recent column was beyond fawning. The only substantive achievement Dowd could point to in her glowing account of Pelosi’s political talents was that Pelosi had “gotten into Trump’s head” and that she “has offered a master class, with flair and fire, on how a woman can spar with Trump.” Seriously? Yes, she can provide some cutting retorts. But, substantively, a master class in capitulation strikes me as more accurate.

And isn’t it more plausible to say that Trump has gotten into Pelosi’s head? Here’s an example of what Dowd calls her “flair and fire”: “Oh, [Trump would] rather not be impeached… But he sees a silver lining. And he wants to then say, ‘The Democrats impeached me but the Senate’-- he won’t say Republicans-- ‘exonerated me.’” So fucking what? Of course he’d say that. Why are you allowing his future spin to affect your present Constitutional duty? You’re in a defensive crouch, Madam Speaker. Against a bully, that never works.

The best gloss I can think of to explain Pelosi’s abdication is that she believes that it’s only a matter of time before Trump loses in 2020, so why risk alienating moderates who get nervous with the I-word now? Why impeach when the Senate will acquit? Why go to war now, when it might imperil electoral victory next year?

Here’s why. There is a strong possibility that Trump is going to win the next election. I know it’s early but the head-to-head polling against most of the Democratic candidates is very close-- and that’s before the GOP has gotten to work on oppo research on those Democrats who aren’t well known. Incumbency in a strong economy is usually dispositive. The Dems have almost all decided to run further to the left than even Hillary’s woke-a-thon in 2016: free health care for illegal aliens, abolishing private health insurance, publicly funding abortions, declaring America in 2019 a product of white supremacy, etc. Their strategy seems designed to alienate every white person in the Midwest and give Trump another victory in the Electoral College. Only Biden has a serious polling advantage, and he’s looking frail and weak.

If Pelosi keeps playing it safe and Trump is reelected, it will set a precedent that a president can obstruct justice and be rewarded for it. He can avoid all serious congressional oversight and get away with it. The Congress will continue its journey as a withered limb in a Constitution that actually gives it pride of place, Article 1. And every time Trump gets away with another crime, or abuse of power, he is emboldened. Vindicated by re-election? God help us.

And what Trump now knows after six months of Democratic control of the House is that he is as free from congressional checks whether it is run by Democrats or Republicans. Pelosi has shown every future president that they can obstruct justice with impunity, refuse every subpoena with impunity, lie with impunity, and violate the separation of powers with impunity.

At some point, Madam Speaker, history may show you had one critical chance to stop this slide toward populist authoritarianism. And you decided you had better things to do.

Meanwhile, Pelosi has accomplished nothing-- not even raising the minimum wage increase she promised to do immediately after the Democrats won the House back. Oh, wait-- she hasn't accomplished nothing; I was wrong. She got Trump's concentration camps funded. And she passed PayGo, to make sure no big progressive ideas would pass. She is utterly worthless and destroying the Democratic Party, having launched an anti-progressive jihad, threatening members of her conference who were about to endorse Bernie with retribution, directing the DCCC to prevent progressive candidates from an even playing field and going war against 4 progressive women of color, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Omar Ilhan and Ayanna Pressley. What's the thermometer for? So you can contribute to the campaign of the progressive Democrat running to replace Pelosi in her San Francisco congressional district, Shahid Buttar.

This morning, Buttar noted that "As disturbing as it might be for Democratic Party activists to recognize, Speaker Pelosi is either entirely ineffective in mounting resistance to our criminal president and his corrupt administration, or instead unfortunately co-opted. Both of those possibilities are unacceptable. There is too much at stake-- especially with the twin cataclysms of fascism and climate catastrophe already unfolding-- to defer to the continuing failures of a careerist inclined towards accommodation. With a would-be tyrant in the White House, now is a time for full-throated resistance for real. The American people deserve leaders willing to oppose kleptocracy instead of enabling it. And we deserve representatives who will meet the needs of the future by expanding human rights, instead of doubling down on the predictable failures of corporate rule and eroding them even further."

The Root Cause Of The Pelosi-AOC Fight Is Simple-- And Never Mentioned By Corporate Media: CORRUPTION AS A Way Of LIFE IN CONGRESS

The Beltway media has no idea how to explain the rift inside the Democratic congressional caucus because the largely uneducated "reporters" don't understand even the most basic dynamics and classifications. For example, Heather Caygle, Sarah Ferris and John Bresnahan gave it a try-- and utterly failed-- yesterday at Politico: Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez clash drags on, threatening Democratic unity.

They don't seem to be able to connect the dots and see what the intra-party struggle is all about. Among the members cited in the report are Lacy Clay (D-MO) who is in Congress for the corruption opportunities, Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL), also corrupt, Derek Kilmer (New Dem-WA), also corrupt, Anthony Brown (New Dem-MD), also corrupt. Only Kilmer is described as a New Dem-- in fact as "chairman of the New Democrats"-- but without a description of what a New Dem is.

The New Dems are basically a new version of the Blue Dogs but without the overt racism and homophobia. It is a corporately-funded, pro-Wall Street group of right-of-center Democrats who have figured out how to take tainted corporate cash without taking it directly from the lobbyists and corporate PACs. The New Dems are the heart and soul of legalistic corruption inside the Democratic congressional conference.

Now, recall way back when AOC first got into Congress. She immediately identified this type of corruption as the reason for Congress being unable to pass legislation protecting working families from corporate predators. But instead of signing onto the gravy train, she declared war on it. If you know anything about the New Dems (and Blue Dogs), you know that THIS was seen by them as a declaration of war-- and a declaration of war against the war business is conducted in American politics-- on BOTH sides of the aisle:

"I don't think people who are taking money from pharmaceutical companies should be drafting health care legislation. I don't think people who are taking money from Oil and Gas companies should be drafting climate legislation."

Just days after AOC was sworn in, the dynamic-- progressive reformer vs corruption-- was already notable, albeit not by the Beltway media. For politics junkies, I noted in January, yesterday started with a pre-dawn Rachael Bade/Heather Caygle click magnetic piece at Politico, Exasperated Democrats try to rein in Ocasio-Cortez. I noted that their piece really amounted to petrified servants of the status quo within the conference continuing their desperate efforts to force Congress' most popular member-- AOC-- to OBEY! I even wrote that Beltway status quo publications like Politico will continue to back the effort. "The effort," wrote Caygle in January, "described by nearly 20 lawmakers and aides, is part carrot, part stick: Some lawmakers with ties to Ocasio-Cortez are hoping to coax her into using her star power to unite Democrats and turn her fire on Republicans. Others simultaneously warn Ocasio-Cortez is destined for a lonely, ineffectual career in Congress if she continues to treat her own party as the enemy."

They identified AOC as a disruptor and insisted she use her secret powers to disrupt only Republicans not themselves. The concept of disrupting a corrupt system is too abstract for most of them. Corrupt, conservative incumbent Democrats were immediately annoyed by her implicit threat to back primary opponents against members in their ranks she deems too corrupt and too conservative. But their frustration went beyond that: Democratic leaders were upset that she railed against Pelosi's entirely anti-progressive PAY-GO scam on Twitter the first week of the new Congress. Corrupt, conservative incumbent Democrat and jealous seat-warmers were peeved that there’s a grassroots movement to try to win her a top committee post they felt she didn’t deserve because she wouldn't bother using to extort legalistic bribes for the party-- the New York seat on the House Ways and Means Committee (which was open because AOC defeat Joe "the next Speaker of the House" Crowley," a corrupt sack of shit, Pelosi ally and New Dem-emeritis.

Caygle wrote that AOC had "barely been in Congress a week and is better known than almost any other House member other than Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis. A media throng follows her every move, and she can command a national audience practically at will. None of that came playing by the usual rules: Indeed, Ocasio-Cortez’s willingness to take on her party establishment with unconventional guerrilla tactics is what got her here. It’s earned her icon status on the progressive left, it’s where the 29-year-old freshman derives her power-- and, by every indication, it’s how she thinks she can pull the Democratic Party in her direction. The Freedom Caucus didn’t win many popularity contests in Congress the past four years, but it’s hard to dispute the hard-liners’ success dragging the GOP to the right." She's been dragging the Democrats to the left... and the New Dems and Blue Dogs don't like it, not one bit.

One of the most rot-gut, corrupt pigs in Congress, Blue Dog/New Dem Kurt Schrader of Oregon mansplained that "She’s new here, feeling her way around... She doesn’t understand how the place works yet." Today, he's desperately fighting off a strong primary challenge from the progressive mayor of Milwaukie, Mark Gamba, an admirer of AOC.

Caygle noticed that even back then some of the (corrupt) House Democrats were scared shitless. They’ve noticed that Ocasio-Cortez had hired two former organizers from the anti-establishment group Justice Democrats to run her office. One of them, her new chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, told supporters during a November conference call that "we gotta primary folks." Fast forward to... yesterday:

And who think it's a coincidence that Trump took Pelosi's side-- the only person in Congress who is keeping him from being impeached-- against AOC? Scott Wong got into how the New Dems and other corrupt conservative Pelosi allies went into full-fledged attack-mode against AOC and the Justice Democrats yesterday:

Justice Democrats is backing primary challengers to eight-term Rep. Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), a Hispanic Caucus member, and 10-term Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). The insurgent group also made noise this year about challenging Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), a CBC member seen as the heir apparent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). [Worth noting here that the candidate opposing Cuellar is a Latina and the candidate opposing Clay is African-American. The differences aren't about race. Cuellar and Clay are corrupt; they opponents are reformers.]

And CBC leaders are fretting that Justice Democrats may target other black lawmakers in the coming weeks and months, including Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Joyce Beatty (D-OH), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) and Anthony Brown (New Dem-MD). Brown said the group has been making calls in his district, actively trying to recruit a challenger to run against him-- something that Justice Democrats denies.

“It just seems strange that the social Democrats seem to be targeting members of the Congressional Black Caucus, individuals who have stood and fought to make sure that African Americans are included and part of this process,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY), a senior CBC member, told The Hill.

“I don’t know what that agenda is, but if they want to come after members of the Black Caucus, it’s two ways,” warned Meeks, the Queens Democratic Party boss who clashed with Justice Democrats in a local district attorney race last month.[Meeks' primary opponent, Shaniyat Chowdhury is also a person of color and hasn't been shy about talking to southeast Queens voters about Meeks' jaw-dropping corruption.]

...Some Democrats are hoping that Ocasio-Cortez, the rabble-rousing freshman with 4.7 million Twitter followers, gets a primary challenge herself in 2020.

Justice Democrats stormed onto the scene last year when one of their little-known handpicked candidates, Ocasio-Cortez, who is Hispanic, unseated then-Rep. Joseph Crowley, the powerful Democratic caucus chairman, in a New York primary.

In a statement, Justice Democrats’ executive director, Alexandra Rojas, defended the group’s strategy, noting that it has endorsed several candidates of color.

One of them is Cori Bush, a registered nurse and Black Lives Matter activist who is taking on Clay for the second time.

“We are supporting a black woman who is a community organizer who has taken on police brutality in the St. Louis area,” Rojas said. “Seventy percent of congressional districts in America have no competitive general election; primaries are often the only places where voters can have a real say.

“Barack Obama first ran for Congress in a primary challenge to Rep. Bobby Rush, a CBC member,” Rojas added. “This is a democracy and voters deserve choices.”

Justice Democrats also pointed out that they endorsed Ayanna Pressley, an African American woman, in her successful primary challenge last year against Democratic Rep. Mike Capuano in a Massachusetts district where minorities make up the majority.

This cycle, Justice Democrats is also supporting Bronx educator Jamaal Bowman, who is black, as he takes on House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY), who is Jewish, and Jessica Cisneros, a 26-year-old Hispanic woman who is running against her former boss, Cuellar.

The CBC’s allegations are “absurd and more about protecting incumbency over democracy,” a Justice Democrats source said.

Pelosi hasn't-- while the progressive movement has continued to evolve

In the last cycle, Justice Democrats backed American Civil Liberties Union activist Chardo Richardson over Rep. Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL), who made history as the first Vietnamese American woman elected to Congress. The group in 2018 also endorsed Bush, who eventually lost to Clay by nearly 20 points in the primary. This week, the group said they will back Bush once again as she gives it another shot in Missouri.

In an interview in the Capitol, Clay said it was absolutely clear that Justice Democrats are targeting lawmakers of color like himself. He and his father, Bill Clay, have represented the district for the past 50 years, and Lacy Clay called the group’s actions “insulting” to the intelligence of Missouri voters.

“They are going after the wrong target. Instead of fighting Republicans and defeating Trump and holding on to our majority, they find it convenient to go after their own, which is to me a bunch of B.S.,” Clay told The Hill.

...A senior House Democratic aide called it “ironic and funny” that Ocasio-Cortez is accusing Pelosi of attacking women of color, when Justice Democrats is targeting minority lawmakers.

“She’s only a woman of color when it’s convenient. None of the things she’s fought for aligned with communities of color and her group is funded only by elitist white liberals; she’s a puppet,” the top Democratic aide told The Hill in a phone call.

The aide then texted an image of a Goomba puppet from the Super Mario Bros. video game.

“I can’t tell you how pissed off people are” about the Justice Democrats, the aide added. “All these CBC members feel like they are under siege. But it’s offensive that these elitist white liberals feel like they can undermine the foundation of our party,” African American voters.

...Rep. Donald McEachin (New Dem-VA), a CBC member, said it was upsetting that Justice Democrats appeared to be taking aim at so many black lawmakers, especially since they have some of the most progressive voting records in the caucus.

“I think challenging other Democrats in the primary when we’re trying to hold on to the majority is wrong unless the person is so far out of bounds, so far away from Democratic orthodoxy, but that’s not what’s going on here,” McEachin told The Hill.

“It’s disturbing to see challenges to that many CBC members.”

So which trolls are circulating this lovely meme online this week? Is it Trump and/or Russian trolls? Or do the New Dems, Cheri Bustos/DCCC and/or the Pelosi office have their own troll army now too?

Nancy Pelosi-- The Tragic Decline

There was a time that being pro-Choice, for racial equality and LGBT equality and for gun control meant you were a progressive. That's a long long time ago and progressivism has evolved. To credibly call yourself progressive, you still need to be for all those things but you now have to be against big money in politics, for universal healthcare (preferably via Medicare-for-All), for dealing effectively with the Climate Crisis (preferably via the Green New Deal), for a living wage, against a free rein for Wall Street and for big corporations... In the old days, Pelosi (unlike Biden) was a progressive. No, really, she was; I shit you not. But as the movement went in one direction... she basically headed off in the other direction. She doesn't truly support-- except occasionally with platitudes-- any progressive goals that she didn't support before she left the CPC to pursue a party leadership position, first as Minority Leader and then as Speaker.

In very recent years, as her grasp on abstracts has begun to noticeably slip, she's compensated with a kind of imperious entitlement that was far less apparent during her first round as Speaker. This week, for example, she told the media "I have no regrets about anything. Regrets is not what I do." That's right... she and Trump both. And they're both screwing up the country royally. They both have to go.

This week Heather Caygle and Sarah Ferris reported for Politico on her closed-door meeting with the Democratic House caucus where she scolded progressives as as much as told them they're not as important as conservatives. "Pelosi’s comments, which were described as stern," they wrote, "came during the first full caucus meeting since a major blowup over emergency border funding last month between progressive and moderate lawmakers as well as a recent spat with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and her freshman allies."

"So, again, you got a complaint? You come and talk to me about it," Pelosi told Democrats, according to a source in the room. "But do not tweet about our members and expect us to think that that is just OK."

Democrats in the room said they interpreted that remark, in part, as a shot at Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who called moderate Democrats members of the “Child Abuse Caucus” in a tweet over their support for the Senate’s version of the emergency humanitarian package.

...Speaking behind closed-doors Wednesday morning, Pelosi also gave an emphatic defense of the moderates in the caucus, according to multiple sources, telling the room that they’re critical to holding the House majority. Pelosi told Democrats not to make the Blue Dog Coalition their targets, but criticize her publicly if they need to go after someone.

“I’m here to help the children when it’s easy and when it’s hard. Some of you are here to make a beautiful pâté but we’re making sausage most of the time,” Pelosi told the caucus.

The California Democrat added that when her members target her, it helps fundraising, eliciting a big laugh inside the room.

“We are a family, and every family has its moments,” the speaker said.

Pelosi also indirectly criticized Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, according to Democrats in the room, as she told members to tell their staffers to “think twice” before they tweet.

Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, went after Pelosi in a series of tweets over the weekend, criticizing everything from her comments on the squad to her stance against impeachment. Chakrabarti also tweeted scathing criticism of the Blue Dogs, calling them the "New Southern Democrats."

"They certainly seem hell bent to do black and brown people today what the old Southern Democrats did in the 40s," Chakrabarti wrote on Twitter before deleting the post.

Her remarks also come after Pelosi dismissed Ocasio-Cortez and the other members of the progressive “squad” in an interview with the New York Times over the weekend.

Pelosi questioned the group's actual influence, given that its members were the only four Democrats who opposed the House’s original humanitarian package. Ocasio-Cortez and the other progressives-- Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts-- quickly fired back, criticizing Pelosi’s remarks in a series of tweets.

Ocasio-Cortez didn’t address Pelosi’s speech as she left the caucus meeting, instead talking about the annual defense authorization bill that will be on the House floor this week.

But Omar defended her allies, saying she and other Democrats can vote however they want.

“I hope that leadership understands their role and understands what our role is,” Omar said.

Some of the moderates who felt targeted by Pocan’s tweet also spoke up in the caucus meeting, including Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, who belongs to the Problem Solvers Caucus that Pocan derided as child abusers. [She is also a vehemently anti-progressive Blue Dog who was one of the first freshmen to earn an "F" rating from ProgressivePunch and now has a horrifying 45.83 crucial vote score, indicating she isn't even really a Democrat at all.]

As a former federal law enforcement agent who focused on child trafficking, Spanberger said she was horrified that a fellow Democrat would compare members of his own party to child abusers, according to multiple people in the room. [Hard for garbage members like Spanberger to look in the mirror and realize what they are.]

Speaking to reporters later Wednesday, Pocan did not back away from his criticism of the bipartisan [right-wing members from both parties; not what bipartisan really means] Problem Solvers Caucus, which had taken credit for helping scrap the House’s more liberal version of a humanitarian border package last month.

Problem Solvers Caucus: Gottheimer (Blue Dog), Trump (Nazi), Reed (R)

“I know there are some people in the Problem Solvers Caucus that feel a little stung, because they got yelled at last weekend by constituents,” Pocan said, referring to recent town hall meetings held by moderates [wrong word, as usual-- conservatives are NOT moderates; they are conservatives] in their districts. “I understand why they’re upset, but they should be upset, because they got in trouble last week.”

Pelosi’s speech is part of an effort by Democratic leaders to knit the party back together after the bitter border funding fight last month.

Shortly before the July Fourth recess, moderate Democrats moved to block further consideration of the House border bill-- which had additional protections for migrant children-- after it became clear the GOP-controlled Senate would not take it up.

Pelosi bowed to centrists and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), agreeing to put the Senate bill on the floor and leaving progressives fuming.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) also delivered a forceful speech on Wednesday preaching unity within the caucus and urging members to speak directly with each other rather than publicly-- a sentiment that some lawmakers privately mused could also have been directed at Pelosi after her critique of the caucus' freshman firebrands. [Hoyer has a serious primary challenge.]

"If we have problems with each other, we ought to address each other," Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) said of Hoyer's message. [Yarmuth has a serious primary challenge.]

After Pelosi and Hoyer's remarks, another moderate, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), spoke up to complain that lawmakers shouldn't attack each other unless they're paying party dues. [Cuellar has a serious primary challenge.]

"If somebody has a problem, pay your dues before you start attacking other Democrats," according to a source in the room.

Some progressive members had privately discussed not paying dues to the caucus' fundraising arm earlier this year after officials announced contentious new policies that made it tougher for primary challengers to attract talented consultants.

"Privately discussed"-- but, par for the course, not acted on. Yesterday Rachel Bade and Mike DeBonis reported for the Washington Post how disrespectful Pelosi has become towards outspoken freshmen. As she increasingly loses her grasp and becomes more and more dependent on her aides, she has become more and more of a bully-- and finds it easy to express that side of her nature towards the freshmen she is so obviously jealous of: AOC (NY), Ilhan Omar (MN), Rashida Tlaib (MI) and Ayanna Pressley (MA). "The four," wrote Bade and DeBonis,"are struggling with the speaker’s moves to isolate them in recent weeks, according to interviews with the lawmakers, congressional aides and allies. Pelosi has made at least half a dozen remarks dismissing the group or their far-left proposals on the environment and health care. More recently she scorned their lonely opposition to the party’s emergency border bill last month." This drives Pelosi into a frenzy of uncontrollable recriminations, like some kind of wicked witch in Cinderella:

• @AOC- 4.7 million Twitter followers
• @SpeakerPelosi- 2.67 million Twitter followers
• @LeaderHoyer- 116K Twitter followers

"The speaker’s allies," wrote Bade and DeBonis, "say concerns about the next election is driving her moves to isolate these four women. “Sometimes a leader’s got to take positions to keep the team [united],” said Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY). “She knows what got us here and what’s going to keep us here.” Meeks is a corrupt bucket of slime who runs the Queens County Democratic Party machine-- ever since AOC defeated Joe Crowley, the last boss of the Queens County Democratic Party machine. Meeks is one of the most corrupt of the New Dems and his only reason for being in Congress is to enrich himself. He has a strong progressive primary opponent this cycle, Shaniyat Chowdhury. Please consider contributing to him-- and to the other progressives Pelosi and Cheri Bustos' DCCC are trying to undercut-- by clicking on the Blue America Primary A Blue Dog 2030 thermometer on the right. And. by the way, this is the iconic photograph of Pelosi's "ally," Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, disgracefully a member of the House Financial Services Committee who would have been removed long ago if Pelosi really gave a damn about ethics, which to her, is nothing but a cudgel to beat Republicans over the head with.

“When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,” Ocasio-Cortez told the Washington Post. “But the persistent singling out . . . it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful . . . the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”

The four women are trying to figure out how to respond, texting one another and weighing whether to confront Pelosi to ask her to stop. But for now, they are focused on their congressional duties, even as they defend their votes in the House that have drawn Pelosi’s ire.

“Thank God my mother gave me broad shoulders and a strong back. I can handle it. I’m not worried about me,” said Pressley, who called Pelosi’s comments “demoralizing.” “I am worried about the signal that it sends to people I speak to and for, who sent me here with a mandate, and how it affects them.”

The tensions underscore the political and generational divide between the most powerful woman in American politics, who has led House Democrats for more than 16 years, and the new band of liberals clamoring for change and trying to push the party left. Pelosi has spent more than 30 years perfecting an inside game to secure wins for her party, most notably the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The four freshmen lawmakers, by contrast, have built a massive online following and leveraged their power on the outside, including in the 2020 presidential race.

Their ability to work together-- or refusal to-- will have major implications for Democrats as they seek to oust President Trump and retain their majority in next year’s election. Pelosi "knows" that the fate of her majority rests with the moderate Democrats who captured Republican-held seats in last year’s midterm elections.

“A majority is a fragile thing,” she said, according to two people present for the remarks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private meeting, adding that members should show “some level of respect and sensitivity” to more moderate colleagues: “You make me the target, but don’t make our [moderates] the target in all of this, because we have important fish to fry.”

...Pelosi suggested to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in an opinion piece published Saturday that “the Squad” had a limited following inside the House. She specifically pointed to the example of the House-passed Democratic border bill in late June, which the group opposed.

“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi said in the New York Times interview. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

Several in the caucus were uncomfortable with Pelosi’s comments. Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders are expected to talk to Pelosi about her comments, according to two officials familiar with the plan. Other women of color in the House have similarly expressed concerns.

“I can’t tell the speaker to apologize, but I was taken aback by it. Because we’re all here to work together,” said Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT), the first black woman to represent her state in Congress.

Notably, Hayes, Ocasio-Cortez and Omar appeared together with Pelosi smiling on the cover of Rolling Stone in a photo taken in January.

While some of the four enjoy more diplomatic relationships with Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez’s relationship with the speaker has been chilly from the start. After she upset Rep. Joseph Crowley (NY) in the Democratic primary, Pelosi moved to immediately downplay her victory, saying it was a one-off event.

Still, Pelosi tried to create a bridge with the New Yorker: During their first face-to-face meeting just before the midterm elections, Pelosi spent nearly two hours trying to convince the liberal that she was just like her, touting her background. It was around that time that Ocasio-Cortez agreed to not only back Pelosi as speaker but also vocally defend her against rebels trying to keep her from the gavel.

Now, half a year later, virtually all communication between the two women has ceased. The two have not spoken one-on-one since February when Ocasio- Cortez declined Pelosi’s personal request that she join her select committee on climate change, according to individuals who know both lawmakers.

Just days after, during a private Progressive Caucus meeting, Pelosi singled out Ocasio-Cortez in front of her colleagues, calling her out for rejecting the select committee offer. Ocasio-Cortez had publicly criticized leadership for refusing to give the committee the power to directly draft legislation.

Since then, Pelosi has made several dismissive remarks about Ocasio-Cortez, calling her Green New Deal “the Green Dream or whatever,” and suggesting that a “glass of water” running as a Democrat could win in districts as liberal as hers.

“The third and fourth time [she insulted me], it was like, ‘This is unnecessary, but I’m not going to pick a fight over it. Whatever, I’ll be the punching bag if that’s what they want me to be,’ ” Ocasio-Cortez said. But now people are telling the freshman to talk to Pelosi. She doesn’t want to, however.

“There hasn’t really been a relationship, to be frank,” she said. “It’s difficult.”

Omar, according to people close to her, has been similarly disappointed. The  lawmaker from Minnesota looks up to Pelosi and has enjoyed a positive relationship with the speaker, despite her criticisms of Israel that caused a major stir in the party. Even then, however, Pelosi gave Omar a heads-up before chiding her publicly.

In one of her first conversations with Pelosi after she won her primary, Omar told Pelosi that she couldn’t vote on the floor because of a headwear ban in the House. Pelosi promised to change the rules so she could wear her hijab in the Capitol.

For Tlaib, Pelosi’s latest comment amounted to a mixed message-- one that seemed to contradict the advice Pelosi gave in a meeting early in her tenure. “Represent your district,” Tlaib recalled Pelosi telling her. “And that’s exactly what I’m doing.”

Hours after her primary win in August, Tlaib ruffled feathers by saying in a CNN interview that she would “probably not” support Pelosi for speaker. But Pelosi, directly and through intermediaries, worked through the ensuing months to keep her mind open, and Tlaib ultimately voted for her.

Tlaib then won a seat on the Financial Services Committee, a plum assignment for a freshman in a safely Democratic district. And even as she garnered outsize media attention, Pelosi appeared to have her back: When Tlaib was filmed telling a crowd of supporters in vulgar terms that lawmakers would impeach President Trump, Pelosi delivered only faint public criticism.

“Whatever is she saying is not going to impact my work,” Tlaib said of Pelosi’s comments over the weekend. “I’m going to continue to introduce legislation and policy.”

Yet some lawmakers and aides believe Pelosi’s treatment of the group is having a quiet effect on them. Many activists thought the group would band together to form a type of Freedom Caucus to deliver wins for the left, but they haven’t done so and appear almost on the defensive when Pelosi criticizes them.

They also have not tried to whip votes against a major leadership priority such as the border bill, nor muscled House support for impeachment, an idea Pelosi rejects. And they have declined to call Pelosi out by name as she sidelines liberal policy priorities such as Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal, dismissing them publicly as “enthusiasms” and “exuberances” rather than viable policy prescriptions.

“She chooses her words carefully. She does not misspeak,” said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA), a close friend of Pelosi. “There’s a big difference between being an advocate and being a legislator.”

Asked about why she hasn’t confronted Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez said she wasn’t sure what to do.

“I do find it a little curious that leadership doesn’t want us to try to have any sort of conversation about even messaging-- but we’re just freshmen, right?” she said.

I spoke with the chief of staff of one of Pelosi's top lieutenants this morning who told me, strictly off the record, that the chance that Pelosi could win another term as Speaker-- if she's foolish enough to try for it-- is "exactly zero... She's not fit to lead the party any longer. Everyone knows that but her. Members don't want to talk about it but she's more of a detriment than anything else... If she really understood what she's done to the party she would retire as soon as she could without losing even more face than she already has... As you wrote last week, she's turned her beautiful legacy into a pile of crap."