Alan Grayson Endorses Dennis Kucinich For Ohio Governor

Grayson has his own campaign to worry about and his own campaign funds to raise, but Kucinich is not just an old friend, but someone who inspired him Yesterday he officially endorsed Kucinich and asked his own supporters to contribute to Kucinich's campaign.

A Nobel Prize-winning economist put the cost of the War in Iraq at $6 trillion. That is almost 100 times as much as the federal education budget, and ten times the annual cost of the Medicare program.

Imagine what could have been accomplished with such an investment besides the destabilization of an entire section of the globe. With that consideration fresh in mind, here is a quick quiz. Who said the following, and when, and where?

“There is no world support for invading Iraq.”

“There is no proof that Iraq represents an immediate or imminent threat to the United States.... The Administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States, and is continuing to develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons.”

“The Iraq regime has never attacked, nor does it have the capability to attack the United States.”

“There is no credible intelligence that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting al Qaeda.... There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11.... There is no credible evidence that Iraq harbored those who were responsible for planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11.”

“There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.”

“Congress has not been provided with any credible information, which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.”

“Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the United States the support of the world community.”

So, who said this? Me? No-- I wish it were me. It was Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

And when? On October 2, 2002, six months before the War in Iraq began.

And where? On the Floor of the House, and in a letter to his colleagues in Congress.

Was it clarity? No, it was more than clarity. It was almost clairvoyance.

At a time when almost every public figure in America was hoodwinked, bamboozled, and flimflammed by Bush Administration propaganda, Dennis Kucinich was not. Dennis Kucinich saw the truth, and he said the truth. And Dennis Kucinich followed through, doggedly opposing the war in Iraq from alpha to omega.

Take my word for it: Congress is full of replaceable parts. But Dennis Kucinich is not one of them. Dennis Kucinich is unique.

And now, 40 years after he was elected Mayor of Cleveland, and 20 years after he was elected to Congress, Dennis Kucinich is running for Governor of Ohio. Think about what it would mean to have a tough, principled liberal leading this swing state. We need Dennis Kucinich as Governor of Ohio. This could be our best chance this year to put a bold progressive in a position of power. Dennis’s primary is just one month away.

And as the Washington Post put it yesterday, "'Kucinich was ahead of his time in terms of having that progressive politics before it’s popular, before it’s cool,' says Nina Turner, president of Our Revolution, the national progressive advocacy group born out of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign."

Is There One Single Best Member Of Congress? Have You Met Alan Grayson?

When Blue America weighs the pros and cons of endorsing a candidate for Congress, we often find ourselves measuring them by how similar he or she appears to be to Orlando Congressman Alan Grayson. Grayson is brilliant, courageous and, more than anyone else in the House, he defines progressivism. And you know what? One Congressman can matter. A lot-- that's why we're asking you to consider making a contribution to Grayson's reelection campaign today.

You've probably heard that Grayson passed more amendments than any other member of Congress. You've probably heard that he helped pass the first Federal media shield bill through the U.S. House of Representatives. But you probably haven't heard that he exposed a plot by the banks to form their own war council with a bunch of three letter agencies. This sounds crazy, but you can read this Bloomberg article, titled "Banks Dreading Computer Hacks Call for Cyber War Council." It's right there. Under the guise of fearing hackers and terrorists, banks have been seeking a formal way to influence the NSA and CIA into cyber-attacks. Alan Grayson is the member of Congress who exposed it, because he knows that exposure is the way to stop the banks from gaining power they shouldn't have.

This doesn't show up on a vote tally. It doesn't show up in the Congressional Record. It doesn't take a majority of Congress to do this. It takes one person, who puts the time and effort in. That's what makes Alan Grayson special. As Martin Sheen said in the video up top, "Last year, when the prospect of war between the United States and Syria reared its ugly head, Alan Grayson worked tirelessly to convince both his colleagues and the American people to give peace a chance. Alan Grayson not only won that fight, but he also established a critical principle-- that when it's our blood to be spilled and when its our money to be spent, then it's our decision to make. Tireless, tough, creative, articulate, honest, poised and persuasive, Alan Grayson has become one of the bold leaders of the renewed peace movement here in America."



Grayson is doing a money bomb this week and Blue America wants to make sure all of our members know about it. You can contribute here. As Alan said:

"'Government of the people?' Well, obviously. 'Government by the people?' Who else, space aliens? But 'Government for the people'-- that’s where the real debate is. And I know which side I’m on. I know which side Blue America is on. What about you?"

A last thought from Rep. Grayson: "We need your help in the year 2014, not in the year 3114, when Hillary Clinton the XXXIII will be running against George Bush the XXXV for President. Now, not then. Oh, and just a reminder: we will be choosing one moneybomb contributor (donating $20.14 or more) to join Rep. Alan Grayson in Orlando on Election Day, or some other date that’s good for you. Come on, Mickey Mouse is dying to see you!"

37... Our Right To Know What They're Feeding Us-- It's Not Soylent Green, Right?

Last week the L.A. City Council unanimously endorsed Prop 37, the one that would force food manufacturers to reveal whether or not they're sneaking genetically engineered ingredients into food being sold in grocery stores and other markets. “It's not often that the LA City Council votes unanimously to support a measure, but Prop 37 was a no-brainer. We have the right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families," said Councilmember Paul Koretz. "I'm proud to be a part of this true grassroots campaign in our struggle against the biggest pesticide and junk food companies in the world." The L.A. City Council joined all the progressive elected officials in southern California, from Senator Barbara Boxer to Congressmembers Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Judy Chu, and Brad Sherman in endorsing Prop 37.

The Pesticide and junk food industries are spending over a million dollars a day on false and misleading ads and seem to be turning around public opinion and persuading low-info voters that they don't need to be told what kind of garbage and potentially dangerous crap they're being fed. The Yes on Prop 37 have finally cobbled together the money they needed to put together their own response ad (above) and they're up on TV too now. There's also the PSA that Bill Maher did (below) that's starting to get some TV play.

There have been persistent rumors about Dennis Kucinich moving to L.A. after this current session of Congress is over. His wife is an actress and he's going to honor her wish to live in L.A. The fact that his political action committee sent out an e-mail asking his supporters to back Prop 37 lends credence to the rumor.

You have the right to know what you're eating.

Why should big corporations get to decide what to tell you about the food that you and your family eat?

That's your right. And this election, you have a chance to affirm it. We need to pass Prop 37 in California.

Proposition 37 requires labels on all food made from plants or animals with any genetically modified ingredients. And it would prohibit marketing these foods, including processed foods, as "natural." It's giving consumers a choice, and it's simple and honest.

Throughout my career in Congress, I have been a leading advocate for regulating genetically engineered food. I have led the charge for over a decade with a steadfast commitment to consumer choice and awareness and the public's right to know. I was the original sponsor of the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act-- a bill which would create national standards for labeling and a legal framework to ensure its accuracy.

Prop 37 is a step in the right direction for California and, like many initiatives, would set an example for the rest of the country.

The sad truth is that the United States is already far behind other nations in ensuring the safety of genetically modified foods and providing consumers with easy access to information before they purchase food.

Consumers deserve the right to know-- just like they do in the European Union, Japan-- even in Russia and China.

Proposition 37 respects the rights of consumers and places the public interests above the special interests.

It is no surprise that big business is aggressively funding a campaign to defeat Prop 37. They don't want consumers to make informed choices. Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative-- this should be a no-brainer for all of us: let the people decide what they want to buy, what they want to eat, and what they want to feed their families.

So, please vote YES on Proposition 37 on November 6. And if you are an absentee voter, make sure to fill out your ballot and return it to your local board of elections.

Remember, the corporations that oppose the right of consumers to know what's in their food are pulling every dirty trick in the book-– from inventing a false title for their top science spokesman (who is well known among actual scientists as a mentally unbalanced, greed-obsessed and deranged anti-science radical), to making up newspaper endorsements and even fabricating quotes from the U.S. government. These opposition ads have been rated “mostly untrue” and “misleading” by newspaper fact checkers.

Do We have A Right To Know What's In Our Food? Or Should We Just Trust Monsanto To Poison Us Slowly?

Every Californian has his or her own ideas about which proposition is the most important. To prisoners convicted on 3 strikes you're out, it's all about Prop 36. To union activists Prop 32 is a like-or-death situation and for anyone on death row... well Prop 34 literally is a life or death situation. And if you happen to be a pimp who makes a living by trafficking in human beings-- something like modern day slavery-- you're worried that Prop 35 will pass.  We'll be talking about all these propositions closer to election day. But I wanted to bring up, once again, one that DWT has been championing all along: Prop 37: the Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling Statute. If it passes-- and according to a  new poll in the L.A. Times it's winning in a landslide with 61% ready to vote yes and only 25% in opposition. Here are the quick reference arguments in the official Voter Guides that arrived at everyone's home this week. First the argument in favor:

Proposition 37 gives us the right to know what is in the food we eat and feed to our families. It simply requires labeling of food produced using genetic engineering, so we can choose whether to buy those products or not. We have a right to know.

So, you wonder what the corporations who oppose this are saying to combat this common sense approach? Here's their statement on the same page of the Voter Guide:

Prop 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme, full of special-interest exemptions and loopholes. Prop 37 would: create new government bureaucracy costing taxpayers millions, authorize expensive shakedown lawsuits against farmers and small businesses, and increase family grocery bills by hundreds of dollars per year.

“There has always been a huge outpouring of grassroots support for Proposition 37 and the right to know what’s in our food,” said Gary Ruskin, campaign manager for Yes on 37. “Despite the pesticide industry’s best efforts to confuse and mislead, Californians are standing strong for the right to know what they are eating and feeding their families.” Tom Fendley, his political director, added that "Today's poll s consistent with all previous national and state polling. All polls have shown overwhelming public support for the labeling of genetically engineered foods.”

Pesticide giants Monsanto and DuPont and their allies have raised more than $32 million and they're gearing up to spend it on deceptive advertising to persuade voters to change their minds. Ruskin said explained that "Their upcoming avalanche of attack ads will try to scare voters into believing food costs will go up if Proposition 37 passes, using bogus figures from bogus ‘studies’ funded by their own campaign.”

The USC poll gives reason to believe that California consumers will withstand the barrage of brainwashing cash.

Californians aren’t price sensitive when it comes to genetically modified foods, reveal the latest results of the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll. Even when presented with information about how much regulation might cost the cash-strapped state, a majority of voters support a November ballot initiative that would require new labeling for food that contains genetically modified ingredients. If approved by voters, the initiative would become the first of its kind in the United States.

...Younger voters overwhelmingly support the measure: Californians age 18-29 support the initiative by a margin of 73-20 percent. Among voters aged 30 to 39, support for Prop. 37 is 66-19 percent; age 40 to 49 support it by 60-29 percent; age 50 to 64 support it by 60-25 percent; with support slipping for ages 64 and over to 52-30 percent. Men support the initiative by 54-32 percent; women by 67-19 percent.

The poll further showed that support for the initiative is similar across education levels and demographics. Voters without a college degree favor the measure 62-24 percent; those with a college degree favor the measure 60-26 percent.

Registered Democrats favor the initiative by 66-19 percent; Republicans 49-35 percent; and voters with no party preference by a margin of 63-25 percent. Fifty-nine percent of White voters support Prop. 37 while 28 percent are opposed; of Black voters, 69 percent are in favor and 20 percent are opposed; of Latino voters, 67 percent are in favor and 19 percent oppose.

Following on the heels of a French call for an investigation into GMOs with a request that the entire European Union ban them entirely if they are found to be detrimental to human health, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that Russia isn't waiting around and that they have already suspended all imports and uses of Monsanto's genetically engineered corn. Russia took action after a study showed that Monsanto's corn is causing cancer.

The study, conducted by France's University of Caen and published last week, found that rats fed over a two-year period with the U.S. crop-biotechnology company's genetically modified NK603 corn, marketed under the Roundup Ready brand name, developed more tumors and other severe diseases than a test group fed with regular corn.

Don't worry. Monsanto has its own stock of bought off "scientists" who will present absolute proof that brushing your teeth with Roundup will increase your lifespan and cure cancer and toenail fungus.

Time To Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

My first job as a dj was at WUSB in Stony Brook, New York, my college station. That's when I learned about the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC had put in place in 1949. Being pretty opinionated, I didn't always love it but I did realize it was... well, fair. I was also booking the speakers program at the university at the time and when I hired the Julian Bond (D-GA) my faculty advisor, Mrs. Couey, insisted I present a balanced program as though the Fairness Doctrine also governed the Speakers Bureau. Bond was one of 8 African Americans elected to the previously all white Georgia House of Representatives after the passage of the Voting Rights Act (1965). The unrepentant racists who ran Georgia's House refused to seat him (ostensibly because he opposed the War in Vietnam) but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 (Bond v Floyd) that hey were denying him his freedom of speech and had to seat him. I asked her if she wanted me to hire someone from the KKK. "Now, Howie..." she said. I hired Strom Thurmond to speak on the same night. I've written about what went down and here's my 2006 recitation of the story. Fair and balanced.

But the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, doesn't govern communications in a college auditorium, only over the publicly-owned airwaves. And the idea is that those airwaves, although they are being used by private companies to make millions and millions of dollars, should also be used for the public good. The fairness doctrine was deemed part of the public good, probably because the kinds of companies that gained control of the radio industry were owned by wealthy conservatives who would-- if not forced to take the public good into consideration-- fill the airwaves with corporate whores and fascists pushing the reactionary line-- people like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, O'Reilly... the whole panoply of American neo-facsism. And look at what happened when 25 years ago this month, the FCC did end the Fairness Doctrine. The radio waves because a virtual brainwashing machine for deranged right-wing ideology.

Progressives-- without the backing on conservative Democrats-- have tried to bring the Fairness Doctrine back. In 2005 Louise Slaughter (D-NY) got the ball rolling with the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act which failed to gain enough support to get out of committee, Since then Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) have both tried and even President Bill Clinton indicated he might support the idea: “Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.”

Demonstrating a fatal character flaw, Obama, is always looking for common ground with the extreme right no matter how they undermine and denigrate him. I suspect it was to try to please that that he said he opposes reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. The has put a kind of a crimp in the efforts of progressives who would like to work on the issue. But it's certainly encouraged right-wingers:

"Radio Independence Day" will be July 4, if activist Brent Bozell, Rep. Mike Pence (a former talkshow host), Rep. Greg Walden (a former group owner), talk host Laura Ingraham and tax activist Grover Norquist get their way. Their idea of "independence" is getting the House to hold an up or down vote on the Broadcast Freedom Act-– which would prohibit the FCC from reviving the long-dormant Fairness Doctrine. They and a bunch of talkshow hosts fear it would squelch the voices of conservatives. There’s a discharge petition to get the BFA out of committee and onto the House floor, but it’s still 14 votes short. Bozell, president of the Media Research Center and publisher of NewsBusters, "demands" that members of Congress sign up for a vote on free speech by July 4. Bozell says "the era of the Fairness Doctrine represented dark days for this first and fundamental right."

An aside-- Walden, who represents the right-leaning eastern half of Oregon, is currently campaigning to be the head of the NRCC, the GOP's version of the DCCC. He thinks he should be part of the Republican leadership team.

Tomorrow... Our Future

For those of us in Wisconsin, California, Montana and New Mexico, let's keep these words by Elizabeth Warren in our minds when we vote

Tomorrow, Tuesday, June 5, could be an historic day. First and foremost, there's Wisconsin-- a chance to replace a destructive anti-democracy shill of the one percent, Scott Walker, with a decent Democrat whose career in politics has always been in support of working families, Tom Barrett. In 2010, Walker campaigned on creating jobs and economic development, decided to pit neighbor against neighbor in an effort to drum up support for the radical Koch agenda, and ended up losing more jobs than any other state in the country. Tomorrow, of course, all hinges on turnout. It's going to be close. There are plenty of Wisconsinites who get their information from Fox and from Hate Talk Radio. They'll be out in force for Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch. Will ordinary working folks be able to overcome the 30-1 spending advantage the right put into this race?

If you live in Wisconsin, or if you have friends or family in Wisconsin, here's where you can find your polling place. Polls open at 7am and stay open 'til 8pm. In Wisconsin voters do NOT need an ID to vote and can still register at the polls as long as they bring proof of their current address. Democrats are also attempting to replace a gaggle of reactionary state senators. Good idea! Walker hasn't been able to carry out the Koch/ALEC agenda on his own. And among the Democrats most worthy of winning a seat is Lori Compas, who's running against Scott Fitzgerald, Walker's Senate henchman.

Few in Wisconsin are more identified with the grassroots resistance than Lori Compas, a 41-year-old wedding photographer and mother of two. With no assistance from the state Democratic Party, Compas led an unlikely yet successful drive to recall the Senate majority leader, Scott Fitzgerald, Walker’s most essential and visible ally. Compas lives in Fort Atkinson, a small town 30 miles east of Madison, and has never run for office before. She is now Fitzgerald’s improbable opponent.

Would that ever be icing on the cake!



The other big races tomorrow are primaries in Montana, New Mexico and California, where Blue America has outstanding progressives going up against run-of-the-mill, garden variety Democratic hacks in most cases. The exception is in CA-25 (Santa Clarita, Antelope Valley and Simi Valley-- the northeast corner of L.A. County) where Democrats-- along with many independents and even some Republicans-- have completely united around Dr. Lee Rogers in a grassroots effort to oust corrupt corporate shill Buck McKeon. In California's "jungle primary," everyone, regardless of party, runs on the same ballot and the top 2 vote-getters go on to the November general election. There are 3 Republicans plus Lee and the latest poll from the Antelope Valley Press shows Lee leading the pack with 46.25% and McKeon struggling to stay in second place with 25%.

One of the most respected and admired Republicans in the Santa Clarita Valley, Scott Wilk, is running for an open Assembly seat. Wilk was formerly McKeon's district chief and there's no one who knows McKeon and how he operates better than Wilk. One of his opponents in the primary, although she appears to be coming in a distant fourth, is McKeon's batty wife, Patricia. My theory has always been that she's never been a serious candidate for office-- she's 70, unaware of any serious issues facing the state legislature and best known for her reply to a question about California's budgetary problems during a debate by stating the obvious, "I have no idea"-- but that her candidacy was a way to funnel illicit campaign dollars from the Military Industrial Complex into the McKeon household. Anyway, Wilks is running against Patricia but over the weekend he penned an editorial about the single biggest issue that is leading to a collapse in support for Buck-- the CEMEX Mine.

On Thursday, our community reaped what its federally elected leadership sewed.  When the CEMEX truce expired with the City of Santa Clarita, our worst fears became a reality.  With nothing to stop them, CEMEX could begin their mega-mining operation in Soledad Canyon any day.  And our Congressman continues to insist that he cannot help us because of a clause in a rule that he voted for.  Its time to make right on his mistake.
 
CEMEX’s projected mine in Soledad is not merely another issue facing our community. It is THE issue facing us. The scale of the mining project is nearly 20 times larger than what is currently mined in Soledad Canyon today, and it will last for 20 years. The daily operation of the mine will result in 18-wheelers and gravel trucks entering and departing from the mine every 2 minutes, which will add an additional 1200 trucks traveling each day on our local freeways and roads. The dust created by the project will greatly harm the air quality of our city and will exceed acceptably safe levels by nearly 200 percent.
 
The City of Santa Clarita has done its part.  They have spent millions on advocacy, on legal wrangling, and frankly begging Congressman McKeon to do what is right and stop this mine.  This issue transcends partisanship and is simply about protecting our community’s quality of life.  
 
Unfortunately, the current federal leadership has failed to prevent today from happening.  Our community is one step closer to an ecological disaster because of this failure.  According to Mayor Bob Keller, Senator Boxer has pledged to do all that she can to help us.  Its time for Congressman McKeon to do more than lip service on the topic.  Its time for him to introduce the companion bill and stop this disaster from happening. 
 
Congressman McKeon likes to tout that he stopped Elsmere Canyon from becoming a landfill, well why is it that this is so much harder than that?  It took him three years to make that legislation reality, in ten years, the Congressman failed to even achieve a hearing on this issue in Washington.

...It is time for leadership on this issue.  It is time for action.  In our community’s time of need, I ask Congressman McKeon to put community ahead of partisanship and quality of life ahead of politics.  For if the mine is to become a reality, our community will face an ecological disaster unrealized to date.  It is time to make right with this community.

Last week we saw Jason Schaff executive editor of the district's biggest newspaper, the Santa Clarita Valley Signal explain why they had decided against endorsing McKeon, for the first time in his entire two decade-long congressional career. He said CEMEX is the most important issue to many voters in the district, but so is anger against incumbents. “I think it goes back to the mood locally, and throughout the country about incumbents. And is 20 years too long to be in Congress?” Washington Dems don't "get" this race. I suspect they will after tomorrow.

Northern California has a completely different dynamic to deal with in the primary to replace the retiring progressive champion Lynn Woolsey in the 2nd CD. This primary will result in two Democrats facing off against each other in November. There are 8 Democrats, 2 Republicans and 2 independents in the primary. The latest polling shows Assemblyman Jared Huffman, author and progressive activist Norman Solomon, Marin County Supervisor Susan Adams, and wealthy hobbyist Stacey Lawsen as the top contenders, in that order. Lawsen is widely viewed as a junior Meg Whitman type candidate. She's got a lot of money she lucked into and has never been involved with politics but needs something to do with herself and got the idea of moving up to the district to run for Woolsey's seat. Huffman has sown himself to be a captive of the corporate interests who have financed his career. Adams is a respectable Democrat who would make a reasonable alternative if CA-2 didn't already have one of the single most outstanding candidates running for Congress anywhere in America, Norman Solomon (the Blue America endorsee). Thursday Jackson Browne played a concert to help Norman raise funds to counter the last minute influx of money from Lawsens' bank account in her desperate and rather pathetic attempt o buy the seat. And yesterday Dennis Kucinich barnstormed with him up and down Marin and Sonoma counties. Kucinich:

"Norman will be an instant leader in Congress-- on war, on bloated military spending, on Wall Street, on threats to Social Security and Medicare (from either party). Norman Solomon was an advocate for the 99%-- challenging the 1%-- before there was an Occupy Wall Street movement. Every supporter of mine should be a natural supporter of Norman. Help him carry on the legacy of strong peace and justice advocacy in the U.S. Congress.”

Virtually every important progressive leader in America has endorsed Solomon, including Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, John Conyers (D-MI), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Dolores Huerta, Glenn Greenwald, and countless others looking for innovative, independent-minded leaders to implement a peaceful and prosperous agenda for this country.


The link above for Glenn Greenwald, also references Rep. Franke Wilmer's race in Montana. It's an at-large district-- so, it's for the whole state, like a Senate race-- and it's an open seat. Like Norman Solomon, Lee Rogers and Eric Griego, Franke is the Blue America-backed candidate. I'll let Greenwald explain:

This Montana candidate’s biography is almost as impressive as her views on key issues. In the 1980s, Wilmer was a single mother raising her daughter, working as a waitress and a carpenter while putting herself through college. Typically working two jobs at the same time, it took her 16 years to finish. Now she’s a full professor at Montana State University, a third-term state legislator, and an author who specializes in solving international problems without resort to war. She spent substantial time in the former Yugoslavia as it was falling apart.

...She’s running in a Democratic primary against two corporatist, Blue-Dog-type candidates of the kind that has helped make so much of the Democratic Party worthless or worse. She wrote an essay for Klein about the basis of her worldview and why she’s running that’s as provocative and smart as it is inspiring. As soon as I read it, there was no question for me that she’s an extraordinary candidate and person; as but one example, she explains that her work in the middle of the horrific war in Yugoslavia led her to devote herself to an examination of “the question of dehumanization (and psychoanalytic explanations for it) as a political dynamic that rationalizes political violence,” both domestically and internationally.

Wilmer told us that she’s ”very concerned and deeply troubled by the notion that the policy that led to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki essentially defends the practice of extrajudicial execution,” and added that the “suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens [in the NDAA] is equally troubling.” She cited to us a remarkable op-ed she wrote in the Great Falls Tribune on September 12, 2001-- less than 24 hours after the attack, when most people were in full-on panic and vengeance mode-- that calmly warned of the dangers of excessive reactions. The whole op-ed is amazing: it describes her experience with war in Yugoslavia to warn how brutal and savage it is, and ends this way: “Only by the rule of law, only through a just response which punishes the individuals responsible, can we preserve what cannot be destroyed through violence, our commitment to democracy.” There are all too few people demonstrating that perspective even now, more than a decade later; she was urging this on the day after the 9/11 attack.

Wilmer compares current threats to militarily attack Iran with the attack on Iraq, arguing that both are examples of invalid “preventive war” dogma; “instead,” she argues, “what we need is to invest time and resources in the development of an effective and enforceable international non-proliferation regime based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty.” She questions the legality of unmanned CIA drones (“Under international law weapons must be able to discriminate between civilian and military targets and drones do not do that“), and argues that drones are “military weapons” and thus “should only be used in military operations, and military operations, in turn,necessitate a declaration of war by Congress.“ She decries the lack of Wall Street prosecutions: “I don’t believe the investigations have been rigorously pursued, nor have those responsible been held accountable.” And as former Chair of the Montana Human Rights Commission, she has worked extensively, in a not-very-friendly environment, to secure equal rights for LGBT citizens and same-sex couples.

Truly, she’s not just an extraordinary Congressional candidate but an extraordinary person. She combines impressive academic research and theory with all kinds of practical, brave real-world activism. But she’s also been an accomplished legislator, which means, as she explains in that Klein essay, that she’s quite strategic about enacting legislation. There would literally be nobody like her in Congress.

And that brings us to Albuquerque, where progressive champion, state Senator Eric Griego is up against a couple of corrupt careerists, Marty Chavez (corrupt and conservative) and Michelle Lujan Grisham, whose disgraceful and self-serving record of Director of Aging and state Secretary of Health should disqualify her from any elective office anywhere. She's perfect for EMILY'S List, the least trustworthy component of the corrupt DC Democratic Establishment. Griego has been endorsed by women in Congress who are actually trying to work for the protection and safety of American women, like Donna Edwards (D-MD) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME), as well as by Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson and Raúl Grijalva. In end of the campaign rallies in New Mexico this weekend Griego sharpened the distinctions between himself and his two mediocre (at best) opponents:

We have to “send people to Congress… who are willing to stand for what we say we believe in, even when it’s tough… we’ve got to stand for something as Democrats, that’s what people are yearning for,” Griego said to the packed crowd. “We need someone who’s like us, has our values. Who wants to fight for Social Security, fight for the environment, take on the special interests and Wall Street.”
 
“One race is not going to do it, but if we add my voice to Elizabeth Warren’s… and we send 15 or 20 vertebrates up there, then the conversation has to change,” he continued, emphasizing his commitment to fight for New Mexico’s working families.

Kucinich is showing himself once again as an important national leader. Last week he came out swinging for Eric. "Let me introduce you," he wrote to his own supporters, "to a champion for Wall Street reform, Eric Griego. Eric is running for Congress in New Mexico's first district, and he is the first candidate in the nation to run a television ad saying, 'Wall Street bankers who broke the law belong in jail.' That's a bold stand for a congressional candidate. Since Eric is shaking up the status quo, he's come under attack by his more conservative opponents. With just four days left before his primary, he needs our help.
 
"Eric has a record of standing up for what we believe as Democrats. He passed public financing on the City Council and a green jobs bill in the State Senate-- he's one of the few candidates in the nation who can say that. In Congress, he wants to put Americans back to work by passing a real jobs bill-- rebuilding crumbling schools, wiring the country with high-speed internet, and investing in 21st century energy and transportation projects."

Eric Griego, Franke Wilmer, Norman Solomon, Lee Rogers... 4 champions of ordinary working families we hope to be fighting for all the way through November. But first, they have to win their primaries tomorrow. Do you pray? In case you missed it Saturday night, here's some inspiration from Wisconsin musicians Cory Chisel and the Wandering Sons:

One Week From Tomorrow: Super Tuesday... For Progressives

Kucinich passing the baton

Next Tuesday, June 5th, is primary day in several states, including three where we have crucial contests pitting progressive, dynamic leaders against, at best, garden variety Democrats. In California, two races stand out above and beyond all others: the CA-2 primary to replace retiring Lynn Woolsey and the first shot in twenty years for the Democrats to replace corrupt reactionary curmudgeon Buck McKeon. Our candidates, respectively, are Norman Solomon and Lee Rogers. Also here in the West, there is a primary for Montana's one at-large House seat and there is one outstanding candidate, state Rep. Franke Wilmer. Similar story in New Mexico, where the Albuquerque district has a corrupt conservative and a well-funded careerist being challenged by one of the most important progressive leaders running anywhere in America, state Sen. Eric Griego. These are 4 of the most outstanding candidates for office running anywhere and it's crucial to elect each of them-- and polling in all 4 races looks good.

Blue America would like to appeal to you to help us hit the ground running for these candidates for the general election. We want to get right into action against House Armed Services Committee chairman/bigot Buck McKeon in northeastern L.A. County and against extremist crackpots Janice Arnold-Jones in New Mexico and Steve Daines in Montana. And, because California's strange new "jungle primary" is likely to force Norman Solomon to face off against a corporate garden variety type Democrat, Jared Huffman, we need to help explain to voters why Norman is the exceptional candidate worth their trust and support. A lot of work.

Here on our Blue America ActBlue page, it's easy to contribute to all of our candidates or any one or two or more of them. And we love you for doing it. We'd also like to ask you to think about contributing to the Blue America PAC this week as well, a fund we use for one thing: communicating to targeted voters. We've been using TV, Internet and radio spots, mailers and billboards. There is no such thing as a contribution being too small. So whatever you can do, we'd be really grateful.

Last week Dennis Kucinich sent a note out to his own northern California supporters-- as did Alan Grayson and Raúl Grijalva. (By the way, Raúl has also endorsed Lee Rogers, Franke Wilmer and Eric Griego.) This is what Dennis told his folks why he's so enthusiastic about Norman, who he referred to as "one of the top peace candidates for Congress anywhere in the country":

Norman and I have been friends for almost 15 years. He is a powerful intellectual, a gifted writer and an activist who is willing to put himself on the line for the principled causes of peace, justice and the environment.

He will be one unique member of Congress...

Norman is a true progressive. He is an independent thinker. Too many Democrats go along with outrageous military spending, deadly wars and Wall Street greed, all of which demoralize our nation, drain our federal treasury and cause resentment around the world. Norm Solomon is unafraid to stand up and speak out when others are silent.

Norman will stand up to the Wall Streeters who continue their high-stakes gambling at public expense. He refuses to take corporate PAC money or lobbyist donations. That puts him at a disadvantage in this primary battle.

As you know, I will not be returning to Congress next year. We need Norman in Congress so that he can share his insight with all members. Because of his fierce dedication to the public interest, Norman will be an instant leader in Congress-- on war, on bloated military spending, on Wall Street, on threats to Social Security and Medicare (from either party).

Norman Solomon was an advocate for the 99%-- challenging the 1%-- before there was an Occupy Wall Street movement. Every supporter of mine should be a natural supporter of Norman. Help him carry on the legacy of strong peace and justice advocacy in the U.S. Congress.

And that is what Blue America has sought out in all of our candidates and it's what these four candidates all have in common-- proven leaders who will be advocates for the 99% and will not buy into the abysmal bipartisan corrupt ways of Washington. Unless you live in Montana you've probably never heard of Timm Twardowski. He runs AFSCME in that state and knows Rep. Wilmer well. "There is no doubt that Franke is the only candidate that understands what it means to do the 'work' for Montana in Washington, he told us. Which is why AFSCME endorsed Franke. "Franke's Montana experiences have shaped her deep commitment to the issues that affect us here at home and I know she will bring that message and hard work to Washington. Franke understands the unique nature and challenges of America's working families and will work to protect the middle class and restore the American Dream. It’s not about politics; it’s about doing the 'right thing' and putting our trust into someone who has walked in our shoes. Franke understands the work that needs to be accomplished in Washington and will always defend our beliefs."

This year Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is working harder than I've ever seen progressives work to help elect more progressive candidates to Congress. Raúl has endorsed all 4 of these candidates. Here's what he had to say about Eric Griego in the state next door, New Mexico:

Eric Griego believes that "the last thing we need to send to Washington is a Democrat who's a kinder, gentler version of the Republicans." I agree. Democrats must fight for a government that works for all people, not just those with deep pockets and fancy titles.

Eric fought to get corporate money out of politics as an Albuquerque City Councilor, where he passed one of the strongest local campaign finance reforms in the nation. As State Senator, he took on the Big Oil companies and put middle-class workers first by passing a green jobs bill into law.

Eric is supported by leading progressive groups and major labor unions-- and he is the only candidate in the race to have a lifetime 100% rating from Conservation Voters New Mexico.

I need Eric Griego fighting by my side in Congress.

Alan Grayson also wants one of our candidates fighting on his side when he's back in Congress next year. Last year Alan sat down with Lee Rogers at a medical convention in Orlando and got to know him and to give him some of the helpful advice that is helping Lee beat the Buck McKeon machine. Here's the endorsement of Lee Rogers that Alan Grayson sent us:

I'm happy that Dr. Lee Rogers, candidate in CA-25, is a solid progressive. I'm happy that a Rogers victory means the defeat of Buck McKeon, who has been called the most corrupt Member of Congress. But I'm especially happy that Dr. Rogers knows something about something-- a quality that Congress sorely needs.

When I was a lawyer, I had a client with a severe case of diabetes. I watched his health deteriorate over the years. The circulation in his legs weakened to the point where a foot was amputated.

It was terrible.

Dr. Rogers is a podiatrist and medical researcher. He pioneered a new protocol for such cases that reduced amputations by 72%.

Dr. Rogers runs the Amputation Prevention Center in Los Angeles. He teaches medicine. He has received awards for his research.

Healthcare is now one-sixth of the US economy. Imagine how good it would be to have someone in Congress who knows it so well.

Let's face it; many Members of Congress are good at only two things: getting elected, and getting re-elected. Whether Dr. Rogers is good at either of those things remains to be seen. But for the good of Congress, and our health, I'd like to see it happen.

All the Blue America candidates are on the same page. And they all will need the help to go all the way in November. And the race to keep an eye on for tomorrow? Progressive insurgent Beto O'Rourke is challenging corrupt El Paso incumbent Silvestre Reyes in Texas' 16th CD. This could be another blow against the DC Establishment Machine and polls show Beto winning handily among early voters.

Republican Vote Rigging... Helpful To Marcy Kaptur Too?

I have to admit I don't get all that worked up over the fact that the GOP Establishment has been stealing the nomination for Romney in state after state. But I should be worked up-- and not only because they're likely to also tamper with election results in November's general election when it will matter more. It's all part of the Republican Party War Against Democracy. Rachel gets into it a bit in the video above-- not the vote rigging, but the barriers the GOP is putting up to keep poor people and students and others likely to vote for Democrats from voting. At the same time, the BradBlog is looking at the vote rigging. And the part that did get me most interested was the vote rigging that seems to have played a role in depriving Dennis Kucinich of a seat in Congress.

It started with a venal Republican state legislature gerrymandering his district in such a way that he was forced into a primary with Democratic colleague Marcy Kaptur, who was given a larger share of the new district. Brad was astounded by the results in Lucas County (Toledo), where Kucinich only won 3.7% of the vote. Is that even possible? Sure it is-- when voting is done on easily hackable Diebold machines that offer no verification whatsoever. And, as Brad warns, "Some 20 to 30% of voters across the nation will still be forced-- shamefully, even after all that we now know about these oft-failed, easily-hacked machines-- to cast their ballots on the very same and other similarly 100% unverifiable voting systems on Election Day during the 2012 Presidential Election."


Here's a 10 page document, evidence of algorithm vote flipping in GOP primary elections, much of it in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. I spoke to a Member of Congress about it, mostly because of my concern that if Republicans can do it now-- and it's rare that anyone ever gets punished for it-- they'll do it in November as well. He responded with an article by Robert Kennedy, Jr, for Rolling Stone (impossible to access there, so here's a link to the article preserved by Common Dreams). Here's the part that deals with Lucas County:

Blackwell authorized only one investigation of registration errors after the election-- in Toledo-- but the report by his own inspectors offers a disturbing snapshot of the malfeasance and incompetence that plagued the entire state. The top elections official in Toledo was a partisan in the Blackwell mold: Bernadette Noe, who chaired both the county board of elections and the county Republican Party. The GOP post was previously held by her husband, Tom Noe, who currently faces felony charges for embezzling state funds and illegally laundering $45,400 of his own money through intermediaries to the Bush campaign.

State inspectors who investigated the elections operation in Toledo discovered "areas of grave concern." With less than a month to go before the election, Bernadette Noe and her board had yet to process 20,000 voter registration cards. Board officials arbitrarily decided that mail-in cards (mostly from the Republican suburbs) would be processed first, while registrations dropped off at the board's office (the fruit of intensive Democratic registration drives in the city) would be processed last. When a grass-roots group called Project Vote delivered a batch of nearly 10,000 cards just before the October 4th deadline, an elections official casually remarked, "We may not get to them." The same official then instructed employees to date-stamp an entire box containing thousands of forms, rather than marking each individual card, as required by law.) When the box was opened, officials had no way of confirming that the forms were filed prior to the deadline-- an error, state inspectors concluded, that could have disenfranchised "several thousand" voters from Democratic strongholds.

The most troubling incident uncovered by the investigation was Noe's decision to allow Republican partisans behind the counter in the board of elections office to make photocopies of postcards sent to confirm voter registrations-- records that could have been used in the GOP's caging efforts. On their second day in the office, the operatives were caught by an elections official tampering with the documents. Investigators slammed the elections board for "a series of egregious blunders"' that caused "the destruction, mutilation and damage of public records."

On Election Day, Noe sent a team of Republican volunteers to the county warehouse where blank ballots were kept out in the open, "with no security measures in place." The state's assistant director of elections, who just happened to be observing the ballot distribution, demanded they leave. The GOP operatives refused and ultimately had to be turned away by police.

In April 2005, Noe and the entire Board of Elections were forced to resign. But once again, the damage was done. At a "Victory 2004" rally held in Toledo four days before the election, President Bush himself singled out a pair of "grass-roots" activists for special praise: "I want to thank my friends Bernadette Noe and Tom Noe for their leadership in Lucas County."

The very basis of right-wing politics-- greed and selfishness-- makes it impossible to separate conservatism and corruption. Historically, they have always been bound at the hip and today there is virtually no difference between corruption and conservatism. They are, in effect, the same. (Take a look at the wikipedia page for the above-mentioned GOP Lucas County Chairman, Tom Noe, if you'd like to see the way the Republican Party has turned itself into a criminal operation. Or, better yet, spend an hour going through the DWT archives from 2005, when we were looking into how the Republicans managed to steal the 2004 election for Bush-- mostly in Ohio.

Super Tuesday- Ohio

Romney vs Santorum vs Paul vs Gingrich has a certain amount of entertainment value for political junkies... but let's be real-- the decision by the Republican Party Establishment to select Romney as their party's nominee was made long ago. This whole primary thing was, in retrospect, probably a gigantic mistake for them. So as much as I'll be passively looking to see which clown won Tulsa or which doofus had the most votes in Montpellier... it doesn't matter. It's a foregone conclusion that even if Santorum wins Oklahoma, in November that state is firmly in the Romney column and Vermont is firmly in the Obama column. But that doesn't mean there's nothing important happening tomorrow. There certainly is. Ohio's political parties have primaries to pick their November nominees-- and not ever race is a foregone conclusion.

As of tomorrow it will be official that the malevolent incompetents at the DCCC have failed to even offer an opponent for John Boehner. They were so aggressively unhelpful to Justin Coussoule in 2010 that no one in the district even put a name forward to try this year. So Boehner, who has raised $12,944,563 so far this year will be free to spend all that plus his time and energy campaigning against Democrats from coast to coast instead of defending himself the way he was forced to do by Coussoule. (He does have a GOP primary opponent, teabagger David Lewis, who, as of February 15, had raised $7,896, spent $7,876 and has $20 cash-on-hand heading into tomorrow. Thats district 8. In the newly redrawn district 9 there's something very different happening.

The GOP is putting on a clown show with Joe the Plumber. But the real race is the primary between Democratic incumbents Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich, a contest we covered last week. Short version:

Marcy Kaptur voted to fund Bush’s wars. Dennis did not.

Marcy Kaptur voted for the Patriot Act. Dennis did not.

Marcy Kaptur supports the Keystone pipeline. Dennis does not.

Dennis has worked relentlessly for nuclear safety at Davis-Besse. Marcy Kaptur has not.

Dennis supported the Dream Act. Marcy Kaptur opposed it.

Dennis supports Marriage Equality. Marcy Kaptur opposes it.

Dennis fully supports Choice. Marcy Kaptur opposes it.

Many progressives feel he's the #1 best Member of Congress. But Marcy is usually a reliable progressive on almost everything but Choice. She even has had one great moment, when she urged foreclosed on constituents to refuse to leave their homes. Like Kucinich, she's good on economic justice issues. But, all in all, she's just another Member of Congress, better than most but... she's no Dennis Kucinich. Sunday night he sent out an e-mail to supporters reminding them that "This election is not just about one seat. This is about the future of our country and the soul of the progressive movement. In primary elections all over the country right now, corporate-owned Democrats are trading the soul of the Democratic Party for the magic beans of big campaign contributions." The campaign wants to remind Democratic primary voters not just that Dennis took a stand against the war in Iraq, and voted against funding it every single time but that Kaptur voted to fund the war over and over, and she took almost a quarter-million in campaign funding from war contractors. He calls it "a street fight for the soul of the Democratic Party" and reminds people that she gets a lot of PAC and corporate money. Her average donation was $1,307; his was $48. "How," he asks "can any person or any party fight for average Americans when they are funded by the special interests?"

The other redrawn district with a crucial primary tomorrow is in the 3rd CD (basically, Columbus). There are three frontrunners, Mary Jo Kilroy, a stalwart progressive who has been endorsed by Blue America, plus business-friendly Joyce Beatty and an ex-Governor's brother, Ted Celeste. We covered the race a month ago and today I just want to remind everyone in the district, that as inconsequential as the GOP primary is, this race really is important. The winner of tomorrow's primary will be the next congressmember from OH-3. Let's make sure it's a lifelong progressive fighter, Mary Jo Kilroy, not a corporate shill.

Yesterday Mary Jo was going from meeting to meeting talking with voters about the issues that concern them. And foreclosures was right at the top of everyone's list. Mary Jo, like her colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wants real action and accountability. "I call on Mr. De Marco to do the right thing for communities struggling with the problem of wave after wave of home foreclosures. His policy is unfair to the homeowners, unjust, and hurts us all as this crisis lowers property values and is a drag on the economy." Big Business and Wall Street interests have helped finance a campaign against Mary Jo by backing a conservative "business-friendly" Democrat. Tomorrow, if you're in Columbus or if you have friends or relatives in Columbus, please don't forget this is a key seat for progressives that will be won-- or lost-- now, not in November.


UPDATE: Well... At Least Mean Jean Schmidt Lost Her Seat

Southern Ohio voters never liked her much and they finally managed to take her out, getting behind moderate podiatrist Brad Wenstrup, who beat her 49-43%. The two Democrats vying for their party's nomination, David Kirkorian and William Smith, are locked in a 50/50 tie. In the 9th CD, Marcy Kaptur beat Dennis Kucinich. His national prominence just couldn't hold up to the fact that most of the new district was made up of her constituents. He won in his areas and she won in hers. In the end she beat him 42,451 (56%) to 29,892 (40%). But the biggest tragedy was the narrow victory by conservative shill Joyce Beatty over progressive Mary Jo Kilroy in the new OH-3 (Columbus).

Dennis Kucinich vs Marcy Kaptur

Ohio's radical right Republican state legislature just gerrymandered that state's congressional districts. One of the effects was to push Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur into one district. Both are basically progressives-- and both are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. But there are differences. The election is in 12 days. Last night Kucinich sent out a list of reasons why he's the better choice:

Marcy Kaptur voted to fund Bush’s wars. Dennis did not.

Marcy Kaptur voted for the Patriot Act. Dennis did not.

Marcy Kaptur supports the Keystone pipeline. Dennis does not.

Dennis has worked relentlessly for nuclear safety at Davis-Besse. Marcy Kaptur has not.

Dennis supported the Dream Act. Marcy Kaptur opposed it.

Dennis supports Marriage Equality. Marcy Kaptur opposes it.

Dennis fully supports Choice. Marcy Kaptur opposes it.

Democrats are loathe to get involved in this kind of a fratricidal fight. Blue America doesn't endorse in primaries unless there is one really bad Democrat-- like, say Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA)-- running against one really good Democrat-- like Matt Cartwright. This northeast Ohio race was one we were never going to jump in as a PAC. I will say, however, that for all her economic populism, Kaptur doesn't measure up to Kucinich, one of Congress' most outstanding Members. Alan Grayson has been campaigning for him-- and raised $50,000 for his race. [UPDATE: A Kucinich supporter informed me that Grayson has raised another $100,000 for Dennis since that original push!] “Congress is full of replaceable parts," Grayson explained. "But Dennis Kucinich is not one of them. Dennis is unique.” And on his Facebook page Tuesday Grayson explained why he had maxed out personally to the Kucinich reelection campaign:

Two weeks from today, the remarkable 43-year political career of Congressman Dennis Kucinich will either continue, or it will end. I want it to continue. So I’m maxing out to Dennis Kucinich’s campaign.
 
The Federal Election Campaign Act permits me to contribute $2,500 toward Dennis’s March 6 primary. That’s what I’m doing. Today.
 
I’m doing it for all of us – everyone with a head, a heart and a spine. Every good progressive who will benefit if Dennis Kucinich remains in Congress.
 
I’m doing it for Dennis, because he’s my friend.
 
And I’m doing it for myself. Because:
 
(1) If I’m elected to Congress again this year, all of us will get more good things done – myself included – if Dennis is there to energize and galvanize the Democrats in the House. And . . .
 
(2) When I wake up on the morning of March 7, the day after Dennis’s primary, I don’t want any regrets. No “if only I had . . . .”s. Whether Dennis wins or he loses, I want to feel that I did everything that I could to help him.
 
Maybe you do, too.

Be Still, My Heart... The End Of California's Most Corrupt Politician, Jerry Lewis?

I probably shouldn't get all worked up. Just skimming the report yesterday by Texas on the Potomac I noticed some errors, but... Jerry Lewis being among even an error-ridden "12 most endangered incumbents of 2012" is the kind of thing that makes my world go round. (I know, sad.)

I'll come back to Jerry Lewis in a moment, but while we're on the subject of "sad," I want to mention that Dennis Kucinich is also on this list. Were we to lose Kucinich to an outrageous GOP gerrymandering farce, it would be a great tragedy not just for Ohio but for the whole country. Alan Grayson has been urging his own donor base to contribute to Kucinich's campaign. “Congress," he wrote, "is full of replaceable parts. But Dennis Kucinich is not one of them. Dennis is unique. Now Dennis Kucinich is in the toughest race of his 15-year career in Congress. The Republicans have tried to gerrymander him out of Congress. He needs your help, and he needs it now.” Grayson supporters donated $50,000 to Kucinich in one day after that one e-mail. What makes this all the more tragic is that the primary pits Kucinich against another strong progressive fighter-- progressive on just about everything but women's choice, where she's absolutely horrible-- Marcy Kaptur. But in terms of economic populism, the two of them are equal. The district includes many more Kaptur voters than Kucinich voters, so this is going to be painful.

Another shocker on the Texas on the Potomac "12 most endangered" list was Brad Miller, but author Rick Dunham has this analysis all wrong. He doesn't seem to realize that Miller isn't running in the part of his district that has been turned into a haven for conservatives, but that he's going up against David Price in a primary. In November we explained why Miller is a better choice than Price.

Price voted for several of the "free trade" deals, including the worst ever-- NAFTA, and just a few weeks ago, he voted for the horrible deals with Korea, Colombia and Panama. Brad Miller voted against every trade deal that's come up with the exception of one with Australia, a country with a similar enough standard of living to ours that it would not put American workers into competition with very poorly paid workers... David Price has consistently been on the wrong side. Brad Miller has consistently been on the right side.

...Tragically, Price voted for all the financial deregulation in the nineties, which allowed banks to become too big to fail, erased the separation of commercial and investment banking (Glass-Steagall), and prohibited any regulation of derivatives. Other Members of Congress have told me that Brad has been the leading critic among members of bank practices, and introduced the House version of the Kaufman-Brown bill that limited banks' total assets to two percent of the GDP. That would have allowed banks with more than $300 billion in assets, which are huge banks, but would have required the six biggest banks to split into more than 30 entities (not all would be banks). He has also been a tireless advocate for separating certain bank functions to avoid conflicts of interest and he introduced legislation to prohibit servicers of mortgages owned by others (securitized mortgages) from holding second liens on the same homes. That effectively would have required the largest banks to spin off their servicing affiliates. Most recently he introduced the legislation to make it easier for bank customers to move their accounts to create effective competition in consumer banking.

And speaking of banking, let's look at bankruptcy. Price voted for the God-awful bankruptcy bill that became law in 2005, which made it almost impossible for middle-class families to seek bankruptcy relief from overwhelming debt, and made it impossible ever to reduce student loans in bankruptcy. There are peer-reviewed academic publications by economists that find that the bankruptcy law changes fueled the explosion of subprime mortgages because families had no way out of debt, so they borrowed against their homes. Also, lots of young people are now unemployed and have crushing student loan debt that will almost certainly be with them for most of the rest of their lives. Brad Miller voted against that bankrutpcy bill and he was the first Member of Congress to introduce the legislation to allow modification in bankruptcy of home mortgages ("cramdown"), and was one of the leaders of that fight throughout. That had a lot to do with why Alan Grayson, also then a member of the House Financial Services Committee told Blue America that "Brad Miller is exactly what people hope that their representatives will be: thoughtful, independent, selfless, smart, and completely committed to their well-being. There are very few Members of Congress who are willing to tell a well-connected lobbyist to get lost; Brad is one of them."

Brad voted against extending all of the Bush tax cuts last December, and signed a letter circulated by Barbara Lee to the "supercommittee" to oppose any cuts to Medicare or Social Security to reduce the deficit. Price voted to extend the Bush tax cuts, and signed the opposite letter to the supercommittee urging that "mandatory spending"-- in other words, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security-- be "on the table" to reduce the deficit.

It's still going to be a tough race for Miller-- you can help him here-- but Rick Dunham picked Miller for his list for the wrong reasons. His name and Kucinich's were the two on the list that got me nervous. I hope Jon Tester is reelected in Montana because he's better than the freak running against him, but not because he's lived up to the populist promises he made when Blue America supported him in the 2006 primary and general election. He's been pretty disappointing. We also supported Larry Kissell, and I actually hope he loses his seat. He's grotesque and doesn't belong in public office. In my mind it's a toss-up between him and John Barrow (also on the list) as to which Democrat has most earned a place on the garbage pile of political history.

Obviously I'm overjoyed to see Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) on the list, because it means Elizabeth Warren will be a U.S. Senator, the best of all outcomes this year. Far worse than Brown, though-- and also on this endangered list-- are clueless-for-anything-but-comic-relief teabaggers Allen West (R-FL), Bobby Schilling (R-IL) and Blake Farenthold, R-TX), all destined to be looking for new jobs come January 2013.

Now for Jerry Lewis. This is what Dunham had to say:

After 34 years, the changing demographics of California may end the career of the state’s senior Republican lawmaker. Lewis’ Republican base was split in his state’s nonpartisan map-drawing, and his house is now in a Democratic-leaning district that also is home to Democratic Rep. Joe Baca. If Lewis chooses to run again, he’d have an uphill campaign in new territory. Or he could move to a nearby (and very Republican) district that is the epicenter of the state’s Tea Party movement. If he does that, he faces a tough primary.

That other district is the new 8th and all kinds of freaks have crawled out from under various rocks to run for the seat. Lewis still hasn't said what he'll do-- at least not publicly. The primary's in June, and so far we have four contenders: Gregg Imus, cofounder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Victorville Mayor Ryan McEachron, Victorville Councilwoman Angela Valles and Hesperia ex-Mayor Bill Jensen, who was also founder of the High Desert Tea Party. They're all anti-immigrant fanatics, hatemongers and anti-regulation morons. And once Lewis declares for sure he won't run, two GOP establishment types of the Lewis mold are likely to be heard from: San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt and Assemblyman Paul Cook from the Yucca Valley.

Line In The Sand Time? To Save What's Left Of The New Deal From The Bandits And Predators?

Wednesday one of Raúl Grijalva's most important points in his press conference about the Republican threats to force the treasury into default was that "The people we represent cannot simply be collateral in this discussion... We owe our allegiance at this point to that group of people that is not here to speak for themselves." Of course, who hasn't known that's exactly what conservatives-- on both sides of the aisle-- intend and have always intended? What else are average American families, the kind who don't hire lobbyists and don't write big campaign checks, but collateral?

What Grijalva's speech above closely. Will he be able to withstand the pressure to vote for "the deal" if it comes down to forcing the country into default? Will he be able to withstand it if his is the deciding vote? Would any progressive? Would YOU? I don't know the answer to that-- not for Grijalva, not for you... and not even for me.

Yesterday I read a memo from the Blue Dog polling firm, Anzalone Liszt Research in which they summarized how the public is reacting to the debate over the debt ceiling. Since this is being widely read Inside-the-Beltway, I thought it might be worth sharing so readers of this blog can see what goes into the thought-process of the Serious People who make the decisions for us. Obviously-- apart from the drama among the political elites-- "Wall Street, Main Street, and real voters seem to be increasingly aware-- and concerned-- of the consequences of forcing the government into default.

It shouldn't be a surprise that "raising the debt ceiling" is not verbiage that tests well in opinion polls. Recent AP/GFK numbers show roughly twice as many voters want their member of Congress to oppose raising the debt ceiling as prefer their member support it (22% Support / 42% Oppose). Though it does bear noting that a majority either support the extension (22%) or aren't sure (35%).
 
However, a basic favor / oppose measure only tells part of the story. Even as pluralities generally oppose extension in a vacuum, there has been a consistent trend toward greater support for lifting the ceiling. Polling from Pew/Washington Post has found an uptick in voter concern toward NOT raising the debt ceiling, while concern over raising the ceiling has remained static. 

A thirteen point plurality in mid-May was more concerned about raising the ceiling (35% NOT raising the ceiling / 48% raising the ceiling) than letting it lapse, but the same question has since tightened to just a 5-point plurality (42% NOT raising the ceiling / 47% raising the ceiling). Similar polling from Gallup and the Wall Street Journal/NBC confirms the trend of more voters favoring lifting the debt limit as the national debate progresses.
 
Also, when voters are provided with more context, the issue becomes more competitive. Gallup finds support for raising the limit running at roughly 1:1 with opposition when pro and con arguments are provided (46% Should Raise the Ceiling / 49% Should Not). When AP/GFK asked voters if they support or oppose raising the debt limit to "avoid defaulting on U.S. Government debts", voters were again split virtually down the middle with 38% supporting raising the limit to 41% in opposition. Similarly, recent Quinnipiac numbers show a fuller picture of the situation leading to an evenly divided public. Roughly as many voters are concerned that "not raising the debt limit would force the government into default and hurt the economy" (43%) as are concerned that "raising the debt would lead to higher government spending and make the debt bigger" (45%).
 
AP/GFK also finds only minimal support for the extreme Bachmann-esque position that the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised under any circumstance. Their mid-June results found 34% of voters believe Congress should raise the debt limit then deal with spending cuts separately, 43% believe Congress should raise the limit only with significant spending cuts, and only 18% believe Congress should not raise the debt limit under any circumstance. Gallup also shows that Americans prefer a deficit reduction approach that includes both spending cuts and tax increases. More than seven in ten voters prefer a plan that either includes "equal spending cuts and tax increase" (32%), "mostly spending cuts" (30%), or "mostly / all tax increases" (11%). Only 20% of Americans insist on deficit reduction through spending cuts alone. Even 68% of Republicans prefer some element of tax increases to cut the deficit, compared to just 26% of Republicans who want tax increases completely off the table.
 
Fundamentally, the Republican position in the debt ceiling debate (spending cuts only) is not only out of step with the broader electorate, but also even among self-identified Republicans. 

Fresh CBS News polling reveals that Americans are eager for their leaders to compromise and focus on the real issues facing families. By more than 5:1, voters nationwide would prefer a compromise that they don't fully support (76%) to not reaching an agreement and having the U.S. default on its debts (14%). Support for a compromise spans party affiliation, as overwhelming majorities of Democrats (80%), Republicans (78%), and Independents (72%) prefer even an unsatisfying compromise to government default. Even 64% of self-identified Tea Party supporters would rather see a compromise they don't fully support, compared to only 28% who prefer no compromise and a government default.
 
Gallup polling out this week shows a similar phenomenon. A better than 2:1 margin would prefer their representatives "agree to a compromise plan, even if it's one they disagree with" (66%) than "hold out for the basic plan they want, even if the debt ceiling is not raised by the deadline" (27%). Clear majorities of Democrats (69%), Republicans (57%), and Independents (72%) are ready for a compromise, even if it is not their preferred plan.
 
As the details of a debt ceiling-compromise evolve, so do the politics behind it. Spin is rampant on both sides, but over the past couple of weeks the dynamic seems to have shifted against Republicans. John McCain's public critique of the GOP's House leadership that Republicans are "not winning the battle" is symptomatic of a growing sentiment that Republicans are poised to receive the brunt of voter anger if a deal is not reached. The most recent polling on the issue seems to confirm that public opinion is indeed gelling against Republicans. 

As the President has repeatedly said, the debt ceiling debate represents what many Americans believe is wrong with Washington: profligate spending, political gamesmanship, and a failure of political leaders to come together in good faith to solve real problems. Given that, it shouldn't be a surprise that voters don't give any of the actors high marks for their role in the debt ceiling debate. However, a CBS News poll out this week shows President Obama's rating for his handling of the debt ceiling negotiations (43% Approve / 48% Disapprove)-- while not stellar-- is dramatically higher than those of Congressional Republicans (21% Approve / 71% Disapprove). Congressional Democrats are also in the red (31% Approve / 58% Disapprove), but receive a net-disapproval rating roughly half the 50-point disapproval rating of Congressional Republicans.
 
No matter what Americans may think of the details of the different plans, President Obama is seen as operating in good faith while Republicans are not. Gallup shows that 60% of Americans feel the President is trying to find a solution, while a similar 62% believe Congressional Republicans are NOT. The perception that President Obama is working to find common ground, while Republicans play politics certainly contributes to the critical 19-point edge the President receives on who respondents believe is more concerned about doing what is best for their families in the debt ceiling debate (51% Obama / 32% Congressional GOP).
 
Gallup finds a 20-point margin of Americans blame Republicans for the current crisis (29% Obama / 49% Congressional Republicans), and July Quinnipiac numbers show voters more likely to blame Congressional Republicans (48%) than President Obama (34%) if the government defaults on its debt obligations. In June, Pew found similar results, with 42% blaming Republicans and 33% blaming the President. 

The politics of the debt ceiling are certainly volatile, and while it may be difficult for any side of the debate to come out better than they entered, the Republicans' current trajectory could inflict real political damage on a party struggling to prove it can govern and to find its political identity heading into a crucial election year.

One Democratic congressman who is unlikely to buckle under pressure from the Establishment is Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). And he made that pretty clear in a letter he sent out to his constituents yesterday denigrating Obama's "Big Deal" framing. Like most progressives, he's fuming over Obama's seeming willingness to compromise away Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid guarantees.

President Obama applauded the gang of six "compromise" based on, as he explains, "shared sacrifice and everybody... giving up something."

The only thing being compromised is the Administration's values. This deal cuts Social Security and threatens Medicare and Medicaid, selling out those who need help the most, America's children, poor and elderly-- all while taxes are being cut.

Our message is simple: cutting Social Security which has nothing to do with the debt ceiling is not a "big deal" we can accept, it is a bad deal we must reject.

Do not let them disingenuously fold the issue of Social Security-- which is solvent through 2036-- into raising the debt limit. Do not let them move the ball so far down the field that a "compromise" has become a politically friendly term for caving in on the very cornerstone of our Party and-- more importantly-- on well established principles of economic and social justice in America.

The more details that emerge, the worse the picture gets. While our unemployment remains perilously high and families are suffering, instead of a roadmap for recovery we are receiving directions towards another depression. Any "deal" that ignores the massive economic challenges of this country and balances the budget on the backs of children, seniors and the poor is not moral. In a lifetime, will our party have journeyed from the New Deal to the Raw Deal?

With the signatures of Dale Kildee (D-MI) and Cedric Richmond (D-LA) last night, there are now 80 Members of Congress who have signed the Grijalva-Ellison letter to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. People are wondering how many will buckle and vote for the execrable deal when Obama's Wall Street economic team begins threatening doom the way Bush's did to get the TARP bankster bailout passed. Remember what happened with all the pledges to not vote for the corporate-oriented health care reform bill if Obama killed the public option?