The Way To Beat Trump's Coup Attempt: Unity And Solidarity

Yesterday, the Trumpist Regime announced it will send more violent, provocative goons to occupy Portland. In response to widespread fury from the Democratic base that Pelosi and Hoyer do something about Trump's paramilitary forces invading American cities under the guise of the Department of Homeland Security, on Thursday Rep Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who represents Portland, proposed an amendment to the budget funding the department which would restrict its ability to use the pretext of protecting federal property to prevent constitutionally protected publicly assemblies and free speech.

On his congressional site, Blumenauer wrote about the appropriations bill amendment:

In response to the Trump administration’s continued occupation of Portland, Oregon and the president’s threat to expand such operations to other cities, U.S. Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), along with Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Chuy Garcia (D-IL), announced a new plan to block federal law enforcement officers from intervening in constitutionally protected protests across the country.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has relied on a section of the United States Code to justify the use of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and other federal law enforcement officers to protect federal facilities. In practice, this has resulted in gross abuses of power toward protestors, including the nightly use of munitions and tear gas. Unidentifiable federal forces in unmarked vehicles have also grabbed protesters off the street in Portland.

On Thursday, the lawmakers filed three amendments to the Fiscal Year 2021 Homeland Security; Department of Defense; and Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bills that would further reign-in the Trump administration’s federal law enforcement overreach. These appropriations bills would defund the ability of DHS, DOJ, and DOD to use the pretext of protecting federal property to prevent Americans from carrying out their rights to public assembly and freedom of opinion.

“Our citizens, our local officials, our Congressional delegation and our governor have all asked the Trump administration to stop the lawless occupation of Portland. We will not stand for these abuses of power any longer,” Blumenauer said. “Congress must defund these secret police forces before they wreak havoc and inflame tensions in other cities.”

“We will not let Trump or his administration get away with militarizing our streets,” Bonamici said. “He is using camo-clad federal officers without identification badges to terrorize protestors, violate First Amendment rights, and dramatically escalate tensions in Portland. We will use every tool we have to make sure these officers are removed from Portland, and we will work to prevent him or any other overbearing executive from trying this again here or in other cities.”

While these amendments would not interfere with the authority of the Federal Protective Service to secure federal property, they will ensure that no taxpayer resources can be used to police protestors, unless explicitly requested by local authorities.

If federal support is requested, the amendments would require that non-military law enforcement personnel wear uniforms clearly identifying their agency of affiliation, rather than any uniform resembling a military-style combat uniform worn by the Armed Forces.

Yesterday the L.A. Times' Melissa Etehad and Laura King reported that Trump’s deployment of dubiously legal gestapo-like goon squads to Portland and other U.S. cities has reignited protests this weekend against police brutality and racism-- likely exactly what Trump was aiming for. "[A] string of fresh demonstrations," they wrote, "erupted in other major cities from Seattle to Baltimore, with marchers expressing fury at the specter of heavily armed, unidentified federal officers on community streets and ongoing anger at their initial targets-- police brutality and racism. In Portland early Monday, federal agents in camouflage waded blocks beyond the federal courthouse that the Trump administration has said they are there to protect-- against the wishes of local and state officials-- and pushed back demonstrators who authorities said had breached a fence."

Demonstrations also broke out in cities including Louisville, Kentucky, Chicago, Los Angeles, Richmond, Virginia, and Austin, Texas, where a protest took a fatal turn. Austin police said they were investigating a shooting death on Saturday evening of a man taking part in a Black Lives Matter protest downtown. Police said the slain man, who was apparently armed with a rifle, was shot from inside a vehicle that drove close to the demonstrators. A suspect was detained, police spokeswoman Katrina Ratcliff said.

...The reignited protests-- and the response of authorities with tear gas and rubber bullets-- are the latest incendiary strain on a country still shaken by the May death of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and by generations of police brutality. After protests slowed down considerably in most cities-- except Portland, where they had continued unabated-- they reenergized over the weekend in the wake of President Trump’s move to send federal agents into cities in a strategy that critics say appears aimed at trying to shore up his flagging popularity ahead of the November election.

As Trump tweets all-caps messages about law and order, critics charge that the White House is making use of chaotic images of confrontations on the streets of Portland and elsewhere to whip up fears about a generalized breakdown of order-- mainly in progressive, Democratic-run cities.

The deployment, meanwhile, has instigated a new round of anger that centers on constitutional questions over federal authority and states’ rights. And it plays out amid a pandemic that is battering the economy and sending jobless rates spiraling upward. In some respects, it is reminiscent of the late 1960s, a time of gathering fury and frustration against the White House over the Vietnam War, civil rights and a sense of America drifting further from its ideals and vision of itself.

Over the weekend, Digby explained how Trump and Barr saw Portland-- a city with protests about on thing or another almost every day of the years-- "as an opportunity to use their federal paramilitaries to foment violence and create a backlash among white suburbanites... Everyone who thought Trump was some kind of peacenik had it so wrong. He loves war, he just doesn’t like foreign wars that were started by his predecessors. What he’s always wanted is a civil war. And so he’s trying to start one... I think we all knew on some level the moment they named the agency the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security, that we were building an internal police force. And if you build it, they will use it. They’re using it."

She continued that "Blue America has joined with Oregon SenatorsJeff Merkley and Ron Wyden and others in sponsoring a petition demanding that our government:

• require federal agents and the agency they work for to be clearly identifiable.
• prohibit the federal misuse of unmarked vehicles.
• prohibit federal agents from patrolling city streets, outside of federal property, unless invited to do so by local authorities.
• require agencies to disclose how many personnel have been deployed and for what mission when they’re sent into our cities.

On Sunday, Juan Cole's Informed Comment published a "Waging Nonviolence" essay by George Lakey, Understanding Trump’s game plan in Portland could be the key to preventing a coup in November. "The feds," wrote Lakey, "began to arrive June 27 and have ramped up in numbers since. The Washington Post reported that a curious 53-year-old Navy vet, Christopher David, approached a demonstration where he saw agents acting aggressively. He asked the officers to remember their oaths to protect the Constitution. They attacked him and broke his hand. Agents were assembled from Customs and Border Protection, Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]. According to the New York Times, 'The tactical agents deployed by Homeland Security include officials from a group known as BORTAC, the Border Patrol’s equivalent of a SWAT team-- a highly trained group that normally is tasked with investigating drug smuggling organizations, as opposed to protesters in cities.' Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler called it 'an attack on our democracy.' That was before he was tear-gassed on the street in a demonstration. Oregon Attorney Gen. Ellen Rosenblum filed a lawsuit, seeking a restraining order. Gov. Kate Brown, who called Trump’s intervention 'a blatant abuse of power,' said that the protests were starting to ease before federal officers arrived. What might have prompted Trump to act? Why Portland? How might this choice be strategic for Trump, both to bolster his chance to win the election-- and perhaps to remain in office even if he doesn’t win? And what can activists do about it?" [Portland's suit was rejected by a federal judge.]

Trump’s earlier hopes to win based on a strong economy and conquest of the coronavirus have faded. He needs another emotional issue that responds to people’s need for security: public order. The narrative couldn’t be clearer. In new advertising and tweets Trump has argued that Biden “is a harbinger of chaos and destruction.” During a two-week period in July the Trump campaign spent nearly $14 million to air a television spot suggesting that police departments won’t respond to 911 calls if Biden is elected.

Trump’s team figures that a percentage of voters who might otherwise be ambivalent about him can be tipped toward supporting him by appealing to their anxiety. In the 1960s, when the nonviolent civil rights movement moved national public opinion sufficiently to pass two landmark U.S. civil rights acts, I watched a series of riots in Philadelphia and elsewhere, from 1965-66, break the movement’s momentum.

...But why target Oregon for this intervention?

Portland is known nationally for having some activists who try to defend themselves against police violence in a violent way. By sending in federal agents who will escalate violent tactics, there seemed a good chance of getting video footage for Trump’s election campaign, proclaiming him as “the law and order candidate.” With luck they would get vivid pictures at the site of federal buildings that give the feds their protective justification for being there.

A long-time white anti-racist activist and conflict studies professor at Portland State University, Tom Hastings, told me another reason why Portland is an obvious choice for Trump’s team: Oregon’s electoral votes were already certain to go to Biden. It doesn’t matter for November’s election that Oregon’s major elected officials are protesting the federal intervention. Hastings also pointed out that the cities on Trump’s list for more interventions have Democratic mayors.

One key to a winning strategy is to figure out what the opponent’s strategy is and refuse to be manipulated-- in Portland and in the other cities on Trump’s target list.

Federal intervention in Portland has turned the previous hundreds of late-night protesters into thousands. Nonviolent tactics include dancing, a “Wall of Moms,” and orange-clad dads with leaf-blowers, who blow away tear gas.

Other activists have escalated violent tactics in response to the escalation by the feds. According to the New York Times, some of the protesters used lasers while federal officers fired projectiles into the crowd. Court papers claim that a Molotov cocktail was thrown and one protester was charged with hitting an officer with a hammer, while the Times reported multiple efforts by some protesters to set alight the wood on the façade of the federal courthouse. The fire attempt of course reinforces Trump’s dubious claim that the feds need to be there to protect federal property.

Activists everywhere can learn from the major shift in tactics made this year by looking at the national response to the May 25 police killing in Minneapolis of George Floyd. Our spontaneous reactions expressed grief and anger in multiple ways.

The mass media (as usual) gave most headlines to the rioting. That meant, as historical research has shown, the impact of the movement could have set back the struggle for racial justice. However, from the start, the vast majority of people were protesting nonviolently. The more fact-based mass media caught up with that quickly. The rioting quickly ebbed, and the image of the movement shifted to one that fairly consistent uses nonviolent action.

When police in some locations continued to act out violently against the peaceable demonstrators, they only proved the point demonstrators were making. Their brutality displayed on nightly TV boomeranged against them, and more people joined the protests.

Almost all activists found far more effective ways to escalate than using fire and projectiles: They escalated the contrast between their behavior and that of the police.

By channeling rage and grief into nonviolent tactics, the Black Lives Matter surge sustained itself, grew exponentially, introduced new people to the streets and a national conversation about racial injustice. It continues to chalk up a series of limited victories. Bigger victories await even more focused nonviolent campaigning.

Any effective strategizing-- Trump’s or ours-- includes a back-up plan, and my guess is that the Trump team has one. If Portland activists refuse to play into Trump’s hand by adopting a nonviolent discipline, Trump has a list of other places to try. Trump can hope that in Chicago or Oakland activists might not see how much he wants them to fall for his ploy.

When announcing to the media his list of targeted cities, Trump revealed how important this narrative is to him. His next statement was that if Joe Biden is elected, “the whole country would go to hell. And we’re not going to let it go to hell.”

Although Trump would undoubtedly claim voting fraud because of mailed-in ballots, the emotionally more impactful narrative would be “hell” in the form of violent chaos in the streets happening in real time following the vote. He has plenty of armed Trump loyalists ready to do their part. While the courts wrangle about voting fraud, the chaos can serve as Trump’s immediate rationale for staying in the White House in January.

The “violent chaos” narrative is Trump’s growing emphasis, and I think it’s linked to his hope that police will give a break to Trump-followers in the streets. On July 19 on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Trump said again that he would not agree ahead of time to obey the results of the election. But then he added, “Biden wants to defund the police.” As I mentioned, his campaign is already investing millions in TV ads attacking Biden’s capacity to support the public’s basic need for safety and security.

Even a man as reckless as Trump likely knows that initiating a Constitutional crisis is an unusually chancy operation. He needs preparation even to have a chance of success. By “success” I mean at least making a deal in which he and his family would avoid the parade of lawsuits that await him when he is no longer in office.

I see him and his team taking a number of steps to prepare. Right now in Portland he’s trying out the narrative that justifies a refusal to exit.

Chaos is good for him. For years he’s been preparing his base to produce an armed force of “irregulars” that can generate chaos. Armed men are showing up in places of political tension and conspicuously being allowed to remain there by local police. Examples include April 30 in Lansing, Michigan, June 2 in Philadelphia and July 20 at the Utah State Capitol.

Trump also needs the legitimacy of a governmental force at his command. On his home ground in Washington, D.C. he experimented with soldiers in combat gear and military helicoptors attacking peaceful demonstrators to clear the way for a photo-op.

That test didn’t work out well. The demonstrators didn’t turn to violence to give him justification, so the media revealed a military behaving disgracefully. Trump received enormous push-back from military leaders. They clearly vetoed further use of the their forces for his own political purposes.

Still wanting the availability of loyal government guns, in Portland he’s testing civilian federal armed agencies that represent governmental legitimacy. Chad Wolf, the acting head of Homeland Security underlined his loyalty when he visited Portland on July 16. How that works out is yet to be seen.

Since Trump does believe in the art of the deal, if a take-over doesn’t work he needs also political enablers with some credibility who will step in to arrange a compromise that protects Trump and his family when they leave. He’s in good shape there. Republican leaders have plenty of practice enabling Trump’s corruption and presumably will be available for this service in the midst of a crisis that’s not turning his way.

...When Germans overthrew would-be dictator Wolfgang Kapp in 1920, they used a defensive strategy. It wasn’t easy. World War I left Germany intensely polarized, much more than the United States is now. The right wing saw an opportunity to try a coup d’etat, backed by some of the armed forces.

Germany’s center read the attempt as an attack on the integrity and security of the system, and responded to the left when it called for a general strike. Along with ordinary people staying home, governmental civil servants failed to show up for work.

Kapp found empty offices, with no one to type out a manifesto saying he was the new ruler of Germany. He needed to bring his daughter to the capitol the next day to do the typing!

Even an economically battered, partly destroyed, and politically divided Germany found so many leaders and ordinary people linked to that sense of integrity and security of the whole system that within a week the coup was defeated by nonviolent defense.

...The United States is a polarized country. The path of least resistance is for each pole to become obsessed by the other: The right wing wastes time learning about and despising us, and vice versa. That’s the trap.

The way out is to pay attention to the center, which especially in defense scenarios, is the prize. Learn about centrists, make friends with them, discuss your points of agreement and disagreement. Your growth as an activist is guaranteed.

Our own fear may urge us to “look good” to our comrades, perhaps by doubling down on whatever campaign we’re now involved with. Our campaigns (for racial justice, immigrant justice, stopping a pipeline, etc.) are in one sense addressing sub-systems. That’s good, because in ordinary times the sub-system offers concrete gains when we win.

However, if my analysis is correct, in this situation what’s in play is the national system as a whole, which will make it more critical for a moment-- and also will make the center available in a new way.

Remind your friends that because the center is easily alarmed by disorder and especially violence, its willingness to defend the whole depends partly on the degree to which it sees “our side” as nonviolent and “the threat” as violent. Because the overwhelming majority of Portlanders have been demonstrating for Black Lives Matter in nonviolent ways, elected officials are mobilizing against Trump’s intervention. If the majority had been violent, Trump’s intervention would be welcomed by the center.

Reduced to bare bones, our three-point plan in this political moment may be: stand with the community as a whole, communicate the power of strategic nonviolent action, and then-- as Hardesty reminds us-- as soon as Trump is really out, we can return to our disagreements and our struggle for revolutionary change!

Why Hasn't Pelosi Pulled The Funding Bill For The Department Of Homeland Security?

Why hasn't the House Democratic Leadership pulled the bill for funding for Department of Homeland Security off the floor. It's supposed to be voted on next week? Are Pelosi and Hoyer actually contemplating funding an agency that is helping Trump deploy his private militia/secret police on our streets? Many people are wondering.

ACRE, the Action Center on Race and the Economy, is a campaign hub for organizations working at the intersection of racial justice and corporate accountability. They provide research and strategic support for organizations working on campaigns to win structural change by directly taking on the corporations that are responsible for pillaging communities of color, devastating working-class communities, and harming our environment. Maurice BP-Weeks, Co-Executive Director, was very clear about ACRE's reaction to Pelosi moving forward with the funding bill: "As Trump unleashes an all-out attack on our cities with his brutal, militarized, and out-of-control secret police, Democrats shouldn’t be appropriating another single penny for his out control and reckless fascist regime. Bringing any bill to the House floor to fund a DHS that is deploying a cold, calculated, and secret police force is not only unconstitutional, but also deeply immoral. Democrats ought to be pulling every lever they have in their power right now to defund and abolish Trump’s secret police not to pour more money into it. Unfortunately, their track record is lacking to say the least. Democratic leadership in the past supported some of the same heavily militarized DHS practices that disappeared, surveilled and terrorized the Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities around the country for decades, and refused to take action when undocumented people were detained in countless raids. We’re at another make or break moment for Democratic leadership. If despite all the calls to defund and abolish the police nationwide the House chooses to further fund Trump’s secret force, they will cement a leadership failure of epic proportions. The time for rhetoric and nuance is over."




PPP did a series of surveys for MoveOn, released this week, that show voters in Arizona, Maine, and North Carolina prepared to vote against Trump and his Senate enablers at least in part because of the way Trump is using military force against civilian protesters in Portland. "Majorities of voters in all three states," reported MoveOn, "oppose Trump’s militarized used of federal agents without identification, witnessed in Portland and pledged to expand into NYC, Baltimore, Detroit, Philly, and Chicago. And voters want Congress to act to rein Trump in on this front-- again, majorities in all states, and particularly strongly in North Carolina, where 61% of voters support the no-brainer policies included in Sen. Merkley’s Preventing Authoritarian Policing Tactics on America’s Streets Act (eg: must wear ID on uniform, no unmarked vans for detentions, etc.). This Resolution has 42 cosponsors in the Senate-- Tillis, McSally, and Collins are all absent... This is more evidence of the broader story we’ve all seen: Republicans in the Senate have been choosing Trump over their constituents and their country. Our poll also shows that this decision might cost Republicans their jobs and control of the Senate. In all three races, the Republican incumbents are trailing their Democratic challengers. 

• In Maine, Gideon leads Collins 47-42 (in the first poll since Gideon clinched the nomination).
• In North Carolina, Cal’s up on Thom 48-40.
• And in Arizona, Kelly leads McSally 51-42. 

If you follow Marianne Williamson on Twitter you have probably noticed that she is more than outraged by the Trump unconstitutional incursions in Portland and his threats to do the same thing in Albuquerque and Chicago. A few days ago she used a longer form to write that Trump has announced that his goon squad is "going to go into American cities with high crime rates and fill them up with militarized agents who will fix all that. How, exactly? Well, no one is sure, because violent criminals don’t wear signs that say, 'Me! I’m the bad guy! Come get me!' Our esteemed crime-busters from DHS will presumably do what they’ve done in Portland: pretty much take anyone around and grab them into unmarked vans, in one of those 'proactive arrests' meant to make people aware that they should not and will not do anything criminal… such as… standing around in public after 10pm. The situation would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous. My biggest fear-- I’m sure everyone’s biggest fear if they think about it-- is that someone’s going to get killed in all this. And then, my fellow Americans, expect all hell to break loose. The giant of the American spirit has been slow to awaken to the deeper problems in our midst, but it’s awakened now. And she’s pissed."

I don’t think the president’s goons from the Department of Homeland Security (I always thought that name was creepy), untrained though they apparently are, are being told to shoot lethal weapons at protestors. But that’s not the point. Situations like this are volatile and they shouldn’t even be happening. Only in a dictatorship do squads of secret police invade cities, presumably to establish “law and order” but doing nothing but spreading chaos and fury.

When running for president, at my CNN Town Hall I said we needed to be aware of the risk of encroaching fascism. No wonder the political status quo didn’t think those the words of a serious candidate, huh? But what an insane system calls crazy might not be, and what it calls sane might be what is bound to drive all of us crazy. Such is the state of America today.

Am I hopeful? Yes, because hope is a moral imperative. Am I cynical? No, because to me that’s an excuse for not helping. In truth, I think that in the long run we’re going to be more than okay; I think we’re going to be magnificent. I think we’re going to have Lincoln’s proverbial “new birth of freedom.” But not immediately, not easily, and not without pain. Not in the short term, and perhaps not even in the middle term. There’s no reason to expect things will not get ugly very, very soon. The president is sending his troops to cities whose citizens simply will not have it.

Nor should they. This has gone too far. There are times when you have to draw a line, and now is such a time. A dangerous man is trying to destroy our democracy and we must not let him. America does not belong to him; it belongs to us. And millions of us are buckling up.

After she ended her presidential run, Marianne endorsed several progressive candidates for Congress this cycle. I asked a few of them if they're as disturbed by Trump's display of aggressive authoritarianism as she is. You can probably imagine that Shahid Buttar, running for the San Francisco seat occupied by Pelosi, is incensed. He told me that "the democracy of which we are rightfully proud is fragile. It has sustained brutal damage at the hands of Republicans-- and Democrats-- who have openly embraced authoritarian policies for generations. Mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, indefinite detention, executive secrecy, and militarized police are all facets of a problem far worse than the sum of its parts: fascism. The generations that preceded us fell asleep at the switch, but the sordid abuses of an aspiring tyrant have awakened in America a memory of our civic commitments. Today, from Portland to Washington, we are taking action reclaim our sovereignty, resist the unconstitutional orders of a criminal president, and hold the corporate opposition accountable for having funded authoritarian agencies for decades without meaningful oversight. I’m disgusted by our so-called leaders, and horrified by their mounting violations of our rights. At the same time, the growing movement to defend democracy makes me immensely proud of We the People of the United States."

West Virginia progressive Cathy Kunkel notes that even in the most Trump-friendly state, Trump has been turning toxic. "Congressman Alex Mooney has spent the last four years," she told me, "defining himself by his support for President Trump. And here in West Virginia-- as around the country-- voters are not impressed by Trump's handling of the pandemic. Running on Trump's coattails is not the strategy it was 4 years ago."

Eva Putzova, a former Flagstaff, Arizona City Council member, lived in Slovakia at one time and this authoritarian outburst from the dying-- but very dangerous-- embers of Trumpism is not her first brush with fascis, something she tweeted about yesterday. This morning she told me that "Trump's Homeland Security forces are no different than KGB, STASI, and my home country's ŠTB. What we see in the U.S. cities today is what we fought against in 1989 in former Czechoslovakia. I'm extremely worried about Trump's abuse of power and the long-term effects it can have on our democracy, especially when we consider how the public health crisis limits people's appetite to protest that power."

History professor and Riverside County congressional candidate Liam O'Mara noted that his district, the 42nd "has been changing along with the rest of Riverside, but went for Trump from a combination of progressive apathy and Trump's own populist rhetoric. But while he claims to stand for the common man, all he cares to do is line his own pockets and funnel taxpayer cash to the oligarchy. And that's totally Ken Calvert's jam. For 28 years now, #CrookedKenCalvert has been serving his corporate owners in the defense and real estate industries, and actively making life harder for people in the 42nd. He likes to brag that he's helped with freeway congestion, but what he's actually done is helped developers throw up bedroom communities for commuters, thus creating that traffic, and then funneled jobs to contractors to deal with the same traffic... and never mind all the pollution. People are starting to get wise to Calvert's lies, and his full-throated support for reopening schools is just to help Trump's own play for reëlection. Crooked Ken doesn't care if kids die or get permanent lung damage, or if they bring the infection home to vulnerable family members. He cares only about serving Trump and the oligarchy. And people are talking about it. Is DC a swamp of corruption? Oh yeah. And we could have started draining it four years ago by electing Bernie Sanders. Instead we elected a swamp-monster like Trump, who brought in dozens of lobbyists to top jobs. Naturally, the long-term corrupt like Calvert drifted into his orbit, and now we have to knock them both out in November."

David Kim, is a progressive Democrat running for Congress in Los Angeles, promising a more activist and grassroots approach to governance than the incumbent, Jimmy Gomez. "As an immigration attorney who defends people fleeing dangerous governments," said Kim this morning, "I am incredibly saddened and disturbed by Trump's escalating displays of authoritarianism. I am equally disgusted that Congress has taken no proactive measures to address the current situation, such as pulling the bill for funding DHS off the floor. If our leaders allow Trump to oppress and silence the people with his fascist goon squad, then they, along with Trump, will be sent home in November by a mass of voters fed up with our morally bankrupt system. The American people cannot, must not, and will not let this country devolve into an authoritarian dystopia."

This week Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced a bill in the House to restrict the ability of the U.S. Marshals Service to deputize other federal employees to perform the functions of a Deputy U.S. Marshal. The bill would also prohibit the Attorney General from designating Drug Enforcement Administration officers to enforce federal laws outside of their Title 21 authority. The bill allows for an exception when the federal support is requested by the state governor. The bill is in response to what the Trump goon squad has been doing in Portland, a city represented by Blumenauer. Lieu noted that "What happened in Washington, DC and Portland is outrageous... We cannot allow this Administration or any future one to abuse its authorities against Americans practicing their First Amendment right to protest. In light of reports that the Trump Administration may use authoritarian tactics in additional cities around the country, we are working at breakneck speed to reign in this unfettered and troubling use of force."

Blumenauer sees right through what Trump has been up to, "From the dramatic influx of unnecessary federal agents, to the egregious use of violent tactics, it’s clear that the Trump Administration’s goal in Portland is to inflame tensions for political gain, rather than to keep our city safe. No community should face such a siege from the very people sworn to protect them. In order to ensure the rights of all Americans, it’s clear that we must fundamentally change the way federal officials can be deployed and used."

He’s Not The Worst Democrat-- Guest Post By Albert Lee

He’s not the worst Democrat. Why are you running against Earl? I get that question a lot. Yes, he is not the worst, but why settle for mediocrity? Also, I am not running against Earl, I am running to represent the People of the Third District of Oregon to the United States Congress.

Let me break it down for you. First of all, I am running for very selfish reasons. I know that not everyone is on board with the seriousness of our climate emergency, but I fervently believe that we have 8 to 12 years to do something about it before it’s too late. I am young enough to have a five year old daughter and I have read news articles like the End of Civilization by 2050 and I have watched and read too many post-apocalyptic movies and books like the Road. I have listened to podcasts like It Can Happen Here. We are at a point where science fiction and science fact are converging. In 2050, my daughter will be 37 and I will be 75, a few years older than Earl is now, if I am so lucky or unlucky. I have a stake in the future. It’s not about Earl; it’s about our future.

I want to ensure that my daughter has: a. A planet to live on, b. A country to thrive in, and c. A life worth living. I do not see how we are going to take the bold and, yes, uncomfortable actions necessary to combat this crisis with the measured incremental half-steps of folks who have divided interests. This climate emergency has been one for my entire lifetime. I’m 44 years old. This has been an emergency for the entire 23 year tenure of our sitting Congressman. It didn’t just happen last week when he came out with his symbolic resolution calling it an emergency. We’ve known it’s been an emergency. We watched Captain Planet and the Planeteers in the 1990s. And those mere words do absolutely nothing to effect change. You see, our Congressman is really good at protesting, resisting, and talking, but that’s not his job; that’s our job! He is in the position with the power to take bold action, not just spout inspirational words. So this leads to the question, why doesn’t he?

Well, let’s start off with taking a look at the thing that has caused the Climate Emergency, Homelessness, the lack of Affordable Housing, the lack of Living Wages, Endless War, Income Inequality, and Crumbling Infrastructure. How are all of those things linked? Simply... Money in Politics. Too many of our career politicians take money from corporations and the super wealthy. The money comes with strings attached and then we get perverse results that benefit the few over the many; things like subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, when we should be doing everything we can to curtail their use. We get endless war so a select few may profit instead of investing in our infrastructure here at home or maybe even our education system to combat the deterioration of our collective analytical skills that has led us to somehow end up with the current occupant of the White House.

This disease affects both sides of the aisle. In the case of our Climate Change Champ, he has a huge holding in fossil fuel stocks and takes money from a wide range of industries including health, construction, railroads, insurance, real estate, beer and wine, big Pharma, Fossil Fuels, and the little shoe company in Oregon and refuses to sign any pledge to not take more.

You see, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. This same situation happened two years ago, but on another topic, Universal Healthcare. I went to his town hall on healthcare at the Unitarian Church downtown. Back then, I too drank the KoolAid. I believed that he was the people’s champ! But he let us down. I watched as everyday folk shared their woes and asked him to support Medicare for All. He stuck to talking points on shoring up the Affordable Care Act and sticking it to Republicans. I left confused. I couldn’t understand why… until I went home and looked up Open Secrets and Follow the Money. Now today, he sings a different tune. He’s signed up to co-sponsor Medicare for All.

But you see good ole Earl has always been Johnny-Come-Lately. He is an LGBTQIA champ… who voted for DOMA. He is now all about Medicare for All, or so he says, while he continues to accept Health Industry cash. He comes kicking and screaming. We have to beg him, cajole him, and eventually threaten to primary him in order for him to align himself with the will of the people. Another good example is the fact that the Third District voted overwhelmingly for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary (57-43 in Multnomah County), yet he used his super-delegate vote to countermand the will of the people and voted for Hillary. I guess he knows where his bread is buttered, the Establishment. But these days, you will find him trying to get pics with Bernie, with the Squad… anyone who he thinks will help make him look better, more progressive. He was taking pics with Beto for a minute, until that star lost its shine. Here in Oregon, we love our Pinots, but I hope we have a critical eye to distinguish a PINO from the real progressive.

Our Federal delegation consists of 2 Senators and 5 representatives. That’s 6 Democrats and 1 Republican; 6 Men and 1 Woman. 100% are over the age of 62; white; multi-millionaires; and property owners. The state of Oregon has about 64,000 millionaires (about 1.5% of the population) and has a median income of about $60,212. About 62% are homeowners. In its current composition our Federal delegation is not representative of the people. Here in the Third District, we have had rapid demographic changes and are the most diverse district in the State. Yet, we’ve had 13 representatives, all have been white, 11 have been male.

I am running to represent the people of the Third District of Oregon because democracy requires choice, a choice we haven't had in at least a generation. I am running because we face a series of crises here in the Third, across the country, and around the world that require bold action now, not incremental steps. I am running because I believe in the basic tenets of the Democratic Party when it comes to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It is beyond time that uplift new voices, from different perspectives, and other lived experiences to represent us. I am standing up as one of us to represent all of us and to take the bold action necessary in times of crisis.

I will leave you with one of my favorite poems by Emily Dickinson.

Much Madness is divinest Sense—
To a discerning Eye—
Much Sense—the starkest Madness—
'Tis the Majority
In this, as all, prevail—
Assent—and you are sane—
Demur—you're straightway dangerous—
And handled with a Chain—

Sincerely,

Albert Lee
Father, Husband, Veteran, and
Challenger for the Right to Represent
The People of the Third District of Oregon

Pelosi Is Famous For Being The First Woman Speaker-- If She Re-Elects Trump By Failing To Impeach Him, She'll Be More Famous For That... And Loathed

Allan Lichtman correctly predicted the winner of every presidential election since 1984. He even predicted Trump would win in 2016. This year he said Trump would win again-- unless Pelosi jumps out of a window on the 48th floor of the Transamerica Pyramid... or in some other way let's go off her insane and unpatriotic and defeatist notion of not impeaching Trump. Lichtman, who's been correct about elections far more often than Pelosi, says unless Trump is impeached, he'll win again-- and that will be on Pelosi's headstone.

"Trump wins again in 2020," he told Chris Cillizza the day before Mueller's televised statement, "unless six of 13 key factors turn against him. I have no final verdict yet because much could change during the next year. Currently, the President is down only three keys: Republican losses in the midterm elections, the lack of a foreign policy success, and the president's limited appeal to voters... Democrats are fundamentally wrong about the politics of impeachment and their prospects for victory in 2020. An impeachment and subsequent trial would cost the president a crucial fourth key-- the scandal key-- just as it cost Democrats that key in 2000. The indictment and trial would also expose him to dropping another key by encouraging a serious challenge to his re-nomination. Other potential negative keys include the emergence of a charismatic Democratic challenger, a significant third-party challenge, a foreign policy disaster, or an election-year recession. Without impeachment, however, Democratic prospects are grim."

Watch that Morning Joe clip on MSNBC from yesterday. Pelosi and Hoyer are screwing this up badly. They want to protect the seats of a bunch of (mostly conservative) freshmen in red districts and instead they're going to bring the whole house down with their geriatric loser ideas. Lichtman told the Morning Joe audience the Democrats have a chance to win but "only if they show boldness and not timidity and move towards an impeachment inquiry. The Democratic leadership"-- that would primarily be Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn, Hakeem Jeffries, Cheri Bustos-- is wrong... morally and constitutionally, by avoiding impeachment. If you have a constitutional crisis, the constitutional remedy is impeachment. They are also wrong politically. The Democrats seem to be going down the same rathole as 2016 when they believe the polls and think they're going to cruise to victory... The Democrats need to get on the right page politically as well as morally and constitutionally."

The Morning Joe Democratic Party hack-in-residence, Steve Ratner, made a fool of himself by echoing Pelosi's and Hoyer's talking points. Lichtner took off his head and handed it to him.

Qasim Rashid is a Virginia attorney in the midst of a hot campaign for the House of Delegates. He seems to take the idea of anyone being treated as though they are above the law as a personal affront. Last night he told me that "The Congress must fulfill its obligations to protect our nation and the separation of powers. A democratic republic that exempts accountability for anyone, including the President, ceases to live up to its responsibilities and delves into dictatorship."

Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) issued a statement after Mueller's address yesterday: "When the redacted Mueller Report was released, Republicans were quick to try to bury the scandal. Trump and his allies have repeatedly cried the president's innocence and worked hard to laugh off and discredit the investigation into his conduct."

Today, Special Counsel Robert Mueller spoke to the world. His words were very revealing. The key quote:

If we had had confidence that [Donald Trump] clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

This is far from over. It's time for Congress to do its job. It's time to pick up where the Mueller investigation left off. It's time to begin an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump. I'm fully behind Rep. Rashida Tlaib's call to action, and will do what I can to support her work as we move forward. I just checked, and I'm still only one of 10 members to sign onto Rep. Tlaib's impeachment inquiry resolution. Hopefully, after today's press conference, that will change."

Since Earl brought is up these are the 9 cosponsors to Rashida's H.Res.257:

Al Green (D-TX)
Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
AOC (D-NY)
Jared Huffman (D-CA)
Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-TX)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)

I know Rashida reached out to Justin Amash. I wonder what he's waiting for. Meanwhile, Tomas Ramos is a community activist in the Bronx, not an attorney. He's running for the open seat next to AOC's that Jose Serrano is leaving. This morning he told that "Mueller made it clear that the president obstructed justice. At this point, anyone that stands by the president when he is obstructing our democracy needs to be put on notice. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. We need congress to enact the articles of impeachment now!

Marqus Cole, the progressive Democrat running for the open 7th district seat in the suburbs north of Atlanta, told us today that as a former prosecutor he "swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Right now, we have the Special Counsel telling us directly that if they had the evidence to clear the President of criminal activity they would have. They did not. The Special Counsel is telling us that there is another constitutional mechanism in place to handle this matter. There is. It is time that we let the President know that no person is above the law. It is time that Congress do its duty and open up an impeachment inquiry."

Pelosi says there aren't enough members of the Democratic caucus to pass an impeachment resolution-- too many crass cowardly Josh Gottheimers and Abigail Spanbergers. Pelosi's instinct to always put narrow partisan (self)interests over country and constitution has served her well, but it helps explain a lot of what's wrong with America. Many progressives say she has to be removed-- and fast; she's the other side of the Trump coin. Dazed, confused and inexorably dug-in inside her fetid bunker with Hoyer, Lujan Clyburn Bustos and a other revolting loyalists, she doesn't-- they don't-- get it and she never will. But... these Republican former federal prosecutors do:

Votes Have Consequences: Greens Take On Blumenauer over TPP

"Progressive" Rep. Earl Blumenauer gets a Fast Track talking to

by Gaius Publius

As we reported, TPP lost its first major vote in the Senate when Fast Track enabling legislation (formally, "Trade Promotion Authority") failed to clear the 60-vote barrier:

Senate Democrats on Tuesday delivered a stinging blow to President Obama’s trade agenda by voting to prevent the chamber from picking up fast-track legislation.

A motion to cut off a filibuster and proceed to the trade bill fell short of a 60-vote hurdle, 52-45. Sen. Tom Carper (Del.) was the only Democrat to back it.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) switched his vote from yes to no to reserve his ability to return to the measure at a later date. ...

The opposition included Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) and other pro-trade Democrats who back the fast-track bill.

“The group is concerned about the lack of a commitment to trade enforcement, which is specifically the customs bill,” Wyden told reporters in explaining his opposition. ...

Wyden was joined by Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Mark Warner (Va.).

There's a lot to focus on here. I recommend you click through to get the ins and outs of the "procedural" issues. As you do, though, keep in mind that any attempt to add currency manipulation restrictions to TPP will kill the treaty. McConnell, in his post-vote comments on the floor, said Obama will veto such a bill.

Now notice the names. If you look back at our whip list piece, you'll see that all of the Democratic Yes votes except Carper switched to No. It also looks like every Republican, even those leaning or declared No, voted Yes. At least for now.

So what's going on? The short version — this is an extremely unpopular "trade" deal. Once you say "NAFTA" it gets simple fast:

"It's like NAFTA."
"I hate it."

"It's not like NAFTA."
"Did you just say NAFTA? I hate it."

That's all it takes to explain it. And every Democrat named above is walking a line, trying to pass a bill that people hate but their funders love ... trying to turn this NAFTA-like "trade" bill into something they can explain, while not destroying it. That task is impossible, and I suspect Harry Reid, the hero in this story, understands that.

All you need to know — any attempt to tie Obama's hands and the hands of the CEO class who are writing TPP will doom it to failure. Finance Committee Chair Orrin Hatch said as much in discussing an early bipartisan currency manipulation amendment (my emphasis):

In the most contentious [committee] vote of the day, Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) lost their bid — on an 11-15 vote — to include an amendment in the legislation that would have required the White House to include enforceable currency manipulation provisions in international trade agreements. ...

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) went as far as to say if the amendment passes, “you could kiss TPP goodbye.”

There is no way "pro–free trade" Democrats can thread this needle, and the White House is swinging "all or nothing" wood as part of their pressure. They're in a real bind, these Democrats, but they'll keep trying until the White House gives up on this legacy dream and moves to the next one. For once, though, Democrats voted with their constituents — mainly because their constituents are swinging some wood of their own.

"Progressive" Earl Blumenauer Targeted by Oregon Environmentalists over Trade

Case in point, "progressive" Oregon House member, bow-tie-wearing, bicycle-riding Earl Blumenauer. Normally considered a "progressive" — though not a reliable one by any means — Blumenauer played Wyden's role in the House, the role of "lead perp." Blumenauer put the bipartisan stamp on Fast Track when it exited Paul Ryan's Ways and Means Committee.

Oregon environmentalists made sure he knew they noticed:

Greens Turn Against Longtime Ally Earl Blumenauer Over Trade Deal

Bike pin or no bike pin, environmentalists are attacking the progressive Democrat for supporting “fast track.”

Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Food and Water Watch launched a television spot Tuesday criticizing Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon for supporting so-called "fast-track" trade legislation swiftly moving through Congress.

That's Earl Blumenauer—the congressman who wears fluorescent bicycle pins.

"You might think congressman Earl Blumenauer always fights to protect our environment, but you would be wrong," a narrator's voice intones during the ad. "Blumenauer just voted to fast-track a trade deal that would devastate our environment and contribute to climate change."

Blumenauer boasts a 95 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters, and has earned a reputation as an opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline and as a champion of climate action.

But for green groups, Blumenauer's record is the reason they believe it is important to go after him. At a time when many high-profile Republicans disdain the idea of taking action on climate change, environmentalists fear that Democrats will take their support for granted. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Food and Water Watch want to make sure that even their friends understand that support for fast-track won't go unpunished.

"Support for fast-track won't go unpunished." The way to punish a careerist is to interrupt his career. Just a thought. You can give him your thoughts here:

Rep. Earl Blumenauer
1111 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4811

If you vote in Oregon, be sure to say so. He'll be glad to know that.

Fast Track Will Be Back

This isn't the end. Fast Track will return. The White House is already calling this a "procedural snafu" and they're gearing up for more. But unless pro-TPP Democrats win in the next round ...

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who rallied his caucus to reject the fast-track measure on a procedural vote, has already floated a plan to find a way out of the impasse by offering to drop anti-currency manipulation language in a customs bill from his party’s list of demands.

While his initial overture likely won’t settle the issue, and top Republicans said they were skeptical of Reid’s proposal, Democrats’ willingness to return to the bargaining table suggests the trade measure may not be dead. And pro-trade Democrats huddled with the White House on Tuesday evening, as the administration looked for a way forward.

... momentum has swung and will continue to swing towards the people opposed.

Of all the fights in DC, this is most like the fight over Social Security cuts. Obama and Boehner failed multiple times to win that one — too many people "got it" and were opposed. Obama and McConnell will try again with TPP, but it seems people "get it" on these phony trade deals as well. They're clearly opposed.

"Obama and Boehner" ... "Obama and McConnell" ... Are you sensing a pattern?

GP

Floor Votes on Fast Track Next Month; Open Rebellion Moves to the House

Democrats playing "Follow the Neo-Liberal Leader"

by Gaius Publius

This is a "bring you up to date" post for those following TPP. If you read these pages (or here), you know that Fast Track enabling legislation for the TPP "trade" agreement passed the Senate Finance Committee with seven Democrats voting their loyalty to President Obama and corporate America instead of to their constituents.

Shortly after the Finance Committee vote, the House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Paul Ryan, passed the same bill. The Hill (my emphasis throughout):

The House Ways and Means Committee approved a trade promotion authority (TPA) measure — 25-13 — with only two Democrats lending their support to the bill, highlighting the difficulty President Obama is having courting members of his own party.

As expected, Democratic Reps. Ron Kind (Wis.) and Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) backed the measure. ...

The House’s action follows the Senate Finance Committee’s approval by a 20-6 vote — with seven of the panel’s 12 Democrats favoring its version of the bill — late Wednesday night, setting up floor votes in each chamber sometime next month.

"Democrat" Ron Kind is chairman of the Wall Street–financed New Dems, so he's a known quantity. More on Earl Blumenauer, a surprising name in the pro-TPP list, below. You can read or ignore the rest of the article as you choose. It contains much Obama-pleasing spin about how important TPP might be, along with the usual complement of she-said opposition from the progressives.

Ways and Means Committee member Sander Levin (D-Mich.) had planned to offer a substitute for the bill, but it was never considered:

Levin’s attempt to make wholesale changes to the Ryan bill fell through the cracks after his substitute amendment was ruled out of order because it crossed committee jurisdictions and thus never got a vote.

I've written that I believe any change to Fast Track will kill the bill; I still think that's true. This means that if Pelosi is still trying to find a "path to yes," the only place she'll find it is by capitulating to President Obama. On the other hand, if she's holding out for changes as the only condition of her support, she's likely to come down on the No side, which would help the progressives enormously.

Note Earl Blumenauer above, another so-called "progressive" from Oregon, voting for Fast Track and TPP. If you're starting to think he needs the Ron Wyden treatment, you're right. His contact information is:

Earl Blumenauer
1111 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4811
Fax: (202) 225-8941

Feel free to tell him you'll be happy to make him a lobbyist in 2017. Like Ron Wyden and all House members, he's up for reelection in the next cycle. (For why Wyden and now Blumenauer are so bad on this issue, read here.)

Open Rebellion Against TPP in the House

Like all of us, I'm interested in the floor vote in the Senate (my early prognosis here). But I think the real action, or at least the greatest uncertainty for the bill, is in the House. Most progressives, meaning members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, are united against Fast Track. Many claim to still be seeking that illusive "path to yes," but if Fast Track fails, TPP is moot — it will never see the light of any congressional vote.

In addition, as noted, I believe any attempt to modify Fast Track will kill the bill. For example, here's what Orrin Hatch said earlier about Portman and Stabenow's attempt to add currency manipulation language to the Senate version of Fast Track:

In the most contentious vote of the day, Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) lost their bid — on an 11-15 vote — to include an amendment in the legislation that would have required the White House to include enforceable currency manipulation provisions in international trade agreements.

Five Democrats — Cantwell, Nelson, Carper, Bennet and Warner — and 10 Republicans opposed the amendment. ...

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) went as far as to say if the amendment passes, “you could kiss TPP goodbye.”

Hatch is right, and not just on the currency issue. Fast Track (officially called "Trade Promotion Authority" or TPA) is written exactly as Obama and his corporate friends need it to be written. Anything that ties his hands — enforceable environmental or labor-rights language, for example — will unravel the multinational negotiations like a ball of cotton wool.

That said, here's the state of play in the House. Roll Call:

Trade Fight Galvanizing the Left

With the first round of appropriations bills and a possible budget conference report on the House floor this week, the chamber’s progressive contingent is looking farther down the road at the storm brewing over so-called Trade Promotion Authority, or “fast track.”

Legislation allowing President Barack Obama to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement would ordinarily be divisive within the House Democratic Caucus, but progressives say there’s even more at stake in this most recent fight: 2016.

If they can’t stop the TPA bill, the nearly 70 voting House members in the Congressional Progressive Caucus are determined to make such a ruckus that the party’s 2016 candidates — presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton in particular — realize Obama’s middle-of-the-road approach to trade, or any major policy area, is not acceptable.

“I think if we were to keep fast track from happening here, then the message is pretty clear to the national campaigns, Hillary’s in particular, that this is an issue that’s going to energize the base,” said CPC Co-Chairman Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz.

“I think it kind of sets a tone nationally,” Grijalva said, “My point being, if the vast majority of the Democrats in the House are willing to confront their president, it only makes sense that any candidate for that position is on the line.”

“The Progressive Caucus, and the progressive movement in general, needs to be loyal to the principles and ideas, not personalities,” said Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., Grijalva’s co-chairman.

"If the vast majority of the Democrats in the House are willing to confront their president" ... That's why they call it "open rebellion." Nothing covert about opposing, strongly, the leaders of your party. Do those leaders include Nancy Pelosi, or will she stand with her more progressive colleagues?

Much of the larger House Democratic Caucus strategy on TPA hinges on whether Republicans need Democratic votes. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, traditionally an ally of progressives and a point person when it comes to delivering results for the Obama administration, hasn’t signaled how she’ll ultimately vote. But she said at her own news conference on April 23 it would behoove Republicans [to] work with Democrats if they do in fact need votes, and she would be fighting to make the bill more palatable for her members.

Pelosi would be giving House progressives a huge win in the event she came over to their side on trade, a sign ideology [note author's spin] won out over her loyalty to the president, and also that, politically, liberals had won the messaging wars over even the center-left [more author's spin].

Note the author's spin, called out twice above. Neo-liberalism hasn't been "center-left" since the day it was hatched.

Nancy Pelosi isn't much of an ally of progressives lately. She supported and whipped for Chained CPI, for example, Obama and Boehner's failed attempt to cut Social Security benefits in the last Congress. And she's the one who publicly said she wanted a path to yes on TPP. So we'll have to see.

Prognosis? Alan Grayson told me in this interview (jump to 41:20) that he thought Fast Track could very possibly fail, that too many House Republicans would be opposed. Keith Ellison sounds less certain:

“I believe we will derail this,” Ellison said, “but no matter what happens, it’s kind of like this: Will the little guy beat up the big bully? Who knows? But if the little guy’s willing to fight, the big guy’s able to win in a bloody battle or lose in a bloody battle. But the battle will be bloody.”

Indeed, the battle will be bloody, or as Warren has characterized these duels, with "teeth on the floor." Watch for Warren to weigh in again, then note Hillary Clinton's response (or non-response). She could easily fail this early and important test badly, driving even more progressives to stay home. I'm certain that's not what she wants to do. Does she also want to "do" TPP? The real center-left awaits the answer.

GP

​

Gerrymandering Is Dangerous To The Health Of Our Democracy-- So Why Won't Congress Do Something About It?

Gerrymandering undermines democracy and, from a partisan perspective, it can cut both ways. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of the least savory and most corrupt Members of Congress, recently reelected to head the DNC-- and with a fast track to the future House Democratic Leader post in her back pocket-- once, as a member of the Florida state Senate, drew herself a congressional district she could run in the next year-- and has been in Congress ever since. Several of her shady Florida colleagues (both sides of the aisle) did the same thing.

Georgia Blue Dog John Barrow, no friend of this blog's by any stretch of the imagination, has had a very different experience with gerrymandering than the power-crazed Wasserman Schultz. One of the chief sponsors of H.R. 223-- the John Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act (the anti-gerrymandering act)-- Barrow has been pursued, relentlessly, by Republicans in the Georgia state legislature, trying to redistrict him out of a seat. A longtime Athens-Clarke County commissioner, Barrow was first elected to Congress in 2004-- on the same day the GOP won control of both Houses of the Georgia state legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. One of their first acts was an unprecedented mid-decade gerrymander meant specifically to defeat Barrow. They removed his hometown, solidly blue Athens, from his district and he was forced to move to Savannah to have a chance of staying in Congress. He narrowly won reelection. Last year the legislature, in an attempt to defeat Barrow again, took overwhelmingly blue Savannah out of the district, making it much redder and forcing him, in effect, to move to Augusta. But he once again managed to scrape by and cling to his seat.

H.R. 223 prohibits mid-decade redistricting and puts redistricting into the hands of nonpartisan commissions and takes the job away from craven politicians. "All over the country, the votes of moderates and independents are being suppressed by the partisans who are in control of the redistricting process in their states," writes Barrow on his House website. "The result is that the partisan extremes are over-represented in Congress and the moderate majority is under-represented. This is a bipartisan problem, and it requires a nonpartisan solution."

There's a lot of talk about how Republican legislatures with Republican governors in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Michigan have redrawn their states' districts to the advantage of the GOP. That's completely true. They're as bad as Georgia and as bad as Texas was when Tom DeLay rejiggered the state legislature there. But there are states where the Democrats control legislatures and governors' mansions where they're as bad as the Republicans. Illinois and Maryland, for example, were as outrageous last year as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

So why doesn't Barrow's bill have any co-sponsors? I asked several Members of Congress if it's because he's held in such low esteem on both sides of the aisle. Several mentioned that Steve Cohen (D-TN) has an identical bill, H.R. 278 (also called the John Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act) and that he has 6 cosponsors, not just progressives but also two of Barrow's fellow Blue Dogs, Collin Peterson (MN) and Mike Michaud (ME). Cohen, who represents Memphis, spoke for many reform-minded members of both parties: “It’s time to take politics out of the redistricting process. Congress is so polarized today that we’re unable to find common ground on the major issues facing our country.  Instead of solving our nation’s problems, Congress is just kicking the can down the road and waiting until the next election for answers.  I believe that if we eliminate the gerrymandering of districts we will help get more accomplished for our country.” This morning he told me that if the bill eventually passes, starting right after the 2020 census, it would require each state to appoint an independent, transparent congressional redistricting commission, the way California and Arizona do now. The commission would be charged with creating a redistricting plan that emphasizes geographical contiguity and compactness of districts rather than political affiliations or the impact a district’s lines may have on incumbent representatives.

The responses I got from a dozen or so other Members-- many who refused to talk about it on the record-- led me to understand that so many Members have benefited from gerrymandering that they don't see it as a big problem for democracy; they see it as a tool in their own careers, all too often the primary prism through which many Members look at any issue.

Right now, for example, the NAACP is pushing back against Virginia Republicans who have gerrymandered the state so that despite statewide majorities for Obama (1,971,820 to 1,822,522) and Senator Tim Kaine (1,944,992 to 1,758,857) in November, there are 8 Republican districts and only 3 Democratic districts. Virginia Republicans want to start awarding presidential electoral votes based on these unfairly drawn House districts. Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy at the NAACP, explained that “You want to make sure in any system put in place in any state that the outcome is reflective of the actual votes cast. What we have is a system that’s being proposed and actually moving forward in many ways that does not meet that criteria and that raises concerns for us.”

Under the bill proposed by State Sen. Charles Carrico (R), Mitt Romney would have won nine electoral votes to President Obama’s four in 2012 despite losing the popular vote of the state handily. This is because the congressional map is currently gerrymandered in the Republican Party’s favor, a situation that critics note would dilute the impact of African American voters packed into heavily Democratic urban districts while lending more weight to voters in whiter and less populated areas. A similar dynamic would likely occur in other blue states controlled by Republicans that are currently considering rejiggering their electoral votes. Had Carrico’s proposed changes been applied nationally before the 2012 election, Romney would have been elected president even though he received close to 5 million fewer votes than Obama.

“The way this is structured, racial and ethnic minority groups or any subgroups within the state would find themselves quite frankly more disenfranchised then ever,” Shelton said, adding that the bill would be “moving away from more democratic forms of governance.”

Although no one was willing to speak on the record about it, the Congressional Black Caucus opposes efforts like Barrow's to stop the partisan gerrymandering. "A lot of their members," one congressman told me, "have benefited from the crooked redrawing of lines. Republicans make deals with African-American politicians for super-safe seats with unassailable majorities in return for supporting GOP plans that strip competitive districts out of the system."

Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) is one of the original co-sponsors of Cohen's bill. He told me that “It’s the worst kept secret in Washington that our current redistricting process too often gives incumbent politicians more influence over picking their voters, than voters have in picking their politicians. Both political parties have developed the redistricting process into an art form, punishing opponents and protecting incumbents. Politicians should not be allowed to achieve through the redistricting process what they can’t accomplish at the ballot box. To make Congress more representative, all districts in all states should follow balanced criteria and metrics instead of the corrupt system we have today.” That's why he has the reputation for being one of Congress' most dedicated reformers.