A Message From Blue America (via Darcy Burner)

It didn't go well for progressives last night. So we pick ourselves up and we keep on fighting.

We lost in Wisconsin. Corporate spending outweighed grassroots organizing. Scott Walker, who outspent Tom Barrett something like 25-1 took 1,331,076 votes (53%) to Barrett's 1,158,337 (46%). In short, Walker spent 88% of the money to get 53% of the vote. The one bright note from last night was that the Democrats only had to take back one Senate seat to stop the Walker-ALEC agenda in it's tracks-- and they did. While Republican state senators Scott Fitzgerald, Terry Moulton, and Jerry Petrowski all beat back the replacement efforts Racine Democrat John Lehman beat incumbent Van Wanggaard, 51-49%, less than a thousand votes separating them.


In New Mexico, although the heinous Marty Chavez was kept from advancing to the general, progressive champion Eric Griego was also beaten-- and by a weak, corrupt Democrat, Michelle Lujan Grisham, who will have trouble holding the seat in November. The final results: Grisham 19,011 (40.1%), Griego 16,631 (35.0%) and Chavez 11,817 (24.9%). In Montana two progressives, Franke Wilmer (18.3%) and Dave Strohmaier (14.0%) , split the progressive vote and allowed a weak Democratic hack, Kim Gillan (31.1%), who will lose in November, slip into the nomination.

And that left California, where turnout was startlingly low and voters... surly. The good news-- about the only good news of the night-- came from just north of L.A. where in CA-25 and CA-26 Lee Rogers and Julie Brownley make it to the general election. Brownley, with a million dollar cash infusion from DC Dems, beat back a challenge by "Independent" (read: mainstream Republican) Linda Parks and came in second to radical right extremist Tony Strickland, who she'll go toe to toe with this fall. The final was Strickland 44.2%, Brownley 26.8% and Parks 18.5%.

Next door, longtime incumbent and powerful chair of the House Armed Services Committee Buck McKeon was held to a shockingly weak 50.2% first place finish and he'll be facing Rogers in November. Please consider helping Rogers here on our ActBlue page. McKeon was unable to buy his wife a slot in the general and she came in third in the primary which saw Democrat Ed Headington first (31.6%), Republican Scott Wilk a very close second (31.3%) and Patricia McKeon trailing with 22.3%.

Lori Saldaña (22.0%) is still in a dead heat with New Dem Scott Peters (22.6%) in CA-52, which, combined, is more than Brian Bilbray managed to pull (41.3%). In CA-51 it looks like Juan Vargas will face off against Republican Michael Crimmins is a conservative vs conservative match-up. Denise Ducheny seems to have not made it to the runoff.

In the Berman/Sherman race (CA-30), the less reprehensible Sherman came out ahead, 42.4- 32.4% and they'll continue wasting millions fighting it out. Sherman is more populist on financial matters and when asked if they would each vote again to attack Iraq, Berman said YES and Sherman said NO. Still undecided is the blue-leaning 31st district (San Bernardino), where two Republicans are leading. Carpetbagger congressman Gary Miller (26.7%) is ahead but local Republican Bob Dutton (24.9%) and the DCCC pick Pete Aguilar (22.8%) are still in contention. (No, it doesn't look good; it looks like this will be a Republican vs Republican general election match-up.)

Also, still not called is the race for the second of two finalists for the general election to replace Lynn Woolsey in CA-2, although, as you can see in this chart, it doesn't look promising for our candidate, Norman Solomon: [UPDATE: There are 40,000 uncounted votes, mostly from Marin and Sonoma-- so don't write him off yet.]


I hope you watched Darcy's video up top. If you didn't, please do. We have a long way between now and November. And there's a lot at stake-- not least of which is Darcy's own race in a new Washington state swing district. Darcy's ahead among the Democratic candidates in every poll-- very substantially ahead, in fact-- but the DCCC is pumping behind the scenes for a reprehensible one-percenter, Suzan DelBene, who they hope will self-fund her own campaign. Current polling shows DelBene running a very distant third, behind Darcy and a raving conservative named Laura Ruderman.

EMILY'S List Gets It Wrong... Again-- This Time In Albuquerque, New Mexico

People who watch carefully, lost faith in EMILY'S List, once a trusted component of the progressive coalition, long ago. In their rush to endorse conservatives they wound up going too far in 2008, pushing a virulent anti-Semite from the Harold Ford camp, Nikki Tinker, against one of the most progressive incumbents in the history of Memphis, Steve Cohen. By the end of the race, with EMILY'S List donors threatening to bail on them, they withdrew their endorsement (on the morning of Election Day!) Because of early voting, EMILY'S List supporters cast ballots for this monstrosity and she wound up with almost 20% of the vote. It might have been a good time for EMILY'S List to take a time out and reassess what they've become. Instead they doubled down on recruiting a supporting conservative women to run against progressives. Often they find wealthy donors looking for a hobby to run for office. And more often than not these candidates have nothing whatsoever to recommend them for high office other than their checkbooks and a supposed ability to attract Republicans, like Stacey Lawson in Marin County, California.

But today there's another congressional race being decided-- this one in NM-1 (Albuquerque)-- with EMILY'S List playing the worst possible role. And it pits them against progressive women, like Donna Edwards (D-MD) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME), who have always been EMILY'S List backers. We touched on this briefly a month ago. The progressive movement in America is firmly behind state Senator Eric Griego-- and that includes both Edwards and Pingree, as well as Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairmen Raúl Grijalva and Keith Ellison and virtually all of the progressive organizations from MoveOn,org, DFA, PCCC, Peace Action, PDA, Sierra Club, League of Conservative Voters, (and Blue America) to labor unions like AFSCME, American Federation of Teachers, Communications Workers of America, NEA, National Nurses United, UFCW, the Teamsters and on and on. But once again, EMILY'S List is the skunk at the garden party, backing a corrupt and untrustworthy hack who is more likely to either throw the primary to conservative Marty Chavez or the general election to Janice Arnold-Jones, deranged the Republican, than to actually ever win herself.

Yesterday Griego's campaign launched a series of ads focused on reminding New Mexico voters, in the closing hours of the primary campaign, that Griego is “the one Democrat who will fight back for us” in Congress.

The positive closing ads the Griego campaign is launching today will be targeted broadly and focus specifically on Sen. Griego’s bold progressive record of fighting to create jobs and protect to the environment.

Some of the ads feature prominent local women leaders highlighting Griego’s courage and record as a progressive fighter for women, teachers, and working families, like this one. These ads will directly target the women voters who will play a key role in deciding Tuesday’s primary and who, according to last week’s Albuquerque Journal poll, already favor Griego.

“We need to send more people to Congress with backbone... to stand by our children, our seniors, our veterans, and our working families...and that’s Eric Griego,” noted Christine Trujillo, President of New Mexico’s American Federation of Teachers, who appears in the ads. “Eric Griego is the clear choice for teachers, parents and children.”

“There's no more steadfast supporter of women and women's issue [than Eric Griego]-- particularly on the right to choose,” said State Senator Dede Feldman, who is featured in the ads documenting Griego’s leadership role in protecting choice in New Mexico.

“Senator Griego has... voted and led the committee into resisting bills like parental notification and others issues that really would be damaging to women... His is a real profile in courage. He has stood up to a conservative democratic leadership and... he has given many of us the courage to go on," she added.

LaDonna Harris, a Native American community activist in Albuquerque and president of Americans for Indian Opportunity, also appears in the ad. In a recent email to friends and supporters, Harris urged New Mexicans outraged by recent House Republican efforts to ensure that the Violence Against Women Act doesn’t include protections for Native American women to support Griego on Tuesday.

“I’ve been watching Eric for a long time-- as he stood up against anti-woman forces in the State Senate and passed public financing on the City Council. I have long admired his tenacity and his courage, and I know he will not waiver in his convictions” in Congress, said Harris in the message.

Meanwhile, the EMILY'S List candidate, Michelle Lujan Grisham, used her longstanding positions in state government to move into a situation where she could sell her influence for profit, which brings up some questions about her character. Her firm, Delta Consulting, received a no-bid contract from the Health Department, the agency she ran-- but that doesn't sound any alarms at EMILY'S List at all. It gets Republicans in a hopeful frame of mind though. Through the firm, she has made quite a lot of money from Delta's contract with the New Mexico Insurance Pool. It comes down to is a person whose motivation for public service is questionable. Once out of government, she immediately sought to capitalize on her position by becoming a lobbyist and securing contracts from the sectors where she had worked. Perfect scenario-- if you're looking for more of the same revolving door corruption in DC that EMILY'S List has become an integral part of.


UPDATE: CA-2-- The Writer Behind "Who Is Stacey Lawson"

Another of the most dreadful of the EMILY'S List picks this cycle, as we mentioned above, is carpetbagger, one-percenter and political hobbyist Stacey Lawson. Political activist Paul Andersen outed himself yesterday as the mastermind behind the website that has been the best place to find all the facts on Lawson.

As a long-time politico on the North Coast (some may remember RiggsWatch, which was a website I set up in the mid-90′s to track former Congressman Frank Riggs’ actions in Congress), I follow politics in the region closely.

The 2nd Congressional District is a unique region of the nation and we need to be represented by someone who has a stake and vested interest in our community. Over the decades we have been ably represented by the likes of Don Clausen, Barbara Boxer, Doug Bosco, Lynn Woolsey and Mike Thompson.

This whole endeavor started because I was interested in how someone who’s a complete unknown could raise so much money-- which in today’s day and age makes her an instant contender among a group of candidates that actually have significant governmental experience.

Stacey Lawson has barely lived in this district for three years. She has no public service experience in our community. She doesn’t even own a house, instead renting a mansion in her current location of San Rafael. Who had even heard of Stacey Lawson before last fall?

With a strong political research background I took it upon myself to do some digging. This is actually the type of research journalists used to do, but unfortunately there aren’t any journalists that do this at the Santa Rosa Press Democrat (unless you’re declared an enemy of the editorial board, like Michael Allen).

I deliberately remained anonymous because I knew the website and my efforts would get more publicity that way. And it worked-- the Press Democrat made more of an issue about who was behind the site than what the site actually said. This publicity generated many more hits on the site than I imagine would have happened otherwise, which in turn spread this information further.

As a professional political researcher, I ensured that everything on the staceylawson.info website could be verified through the public record. I utilized Lexis and online research to find out about her failed management at Chelsea Henry, her deleted Huffington Post blog and StaceyTV videos, her deep ties to her guru Dattreya Siva Baba and the mythology of her upbringing and business experience. There are no unsubstantiated facts on the site-- everything is attributed.

As to the issue of whether the website is permissible under federal election law, I can assure you it is. The maximum amount an independent person or organization can spend in advocacy or opposition for a candidate without having to file with the FEC is $250 (incorrectly stated as $1000 in the Press Democrat editorial). Thus far I have spent $200 on Google Adwords and $5 on the domain name. The website hosting is free.

This effort has been a purely voluntary one on my part-- I have not sought nor expect any remuneration. In the interests of full disclosure, I worked on Susan Adams’ Congressional campaign from August 2011 to the beginning os April 2012. I left for a variety of personal and political reasons. I want to state clearly that the Adams campaign had no knowledge of my activities with the “Who Is Stacey Lawson?” website.

As with anything involving politics, the best course is to “follow the money.”

As it turned out, Stacey Lawson has her own personal fortune from her well-timed sale of a failing company during the heyday of Silicon Valley in the late 1990′s when a company losing money was actually considered a winning proposition. This also allowed her to ingratiate herself with wealthy benefactors such as investment bankers and venture capitalists. She also has significant ties to the well-funded new-age community through her guru.

This is all reflected in the fact that fully 80% of her money comes from outside the 2nd Congressional District and nearly half from out of state. 70% of her money comes from people who have contributed the maximum $2,500 to her primary election. Nearly 60 people have actually contributed the maximum of $5,000 for her primary and potential general election campaigns.

Because she is such an unknown, we really don’t know what to expect from her which makes her funding sources so important. We don’t know what she has pledged to the high-tech and investment banking industries that are funding her campaign. The Stacey Lawson campaign is unfortunately a prime example of the power of money in politics, which I think most people would agree is one of the prime reasons we’re in the mess we’re in.

Wealthy newcomers always misjudge the environment in which they are entering, probably due to their ignorance of how politics works and their over-inflated sense of self generated from their success in the private sector.

What they fail to recognize is that the political arena is not a boardroom. The Congressperson for the 2nd Congressional District is the people’s representative in Congress. They should expect to be vetted thoroughly. Every other serious candidate in the race has gone through the same thing.

I'll just leave off with a reminder to all DWT readers in Northern California: Please vote for Norman Solomon today-- and please persuade some of your friends o do likewise. There's no reason why this district shouldn't have the best Member of Congress anywhere... right?

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.

In Albuquerque There Is Just One Progressive Democrat We Can Count On To Fight For The 99%

In the race for Congress in New Mexico’s open blue First CD, only one candidate stands out as a true progressive fighter for the 99%: Eric Griego. That's why he was one of the first candidates anywhere endorsed by Blue America this cycle.

If we call ourselves progressives, we believe in the common good and lifting up all boats. That is why Eric Griego fought to increase the minimum wage in Albuquerque. In contrast, his corrupt ConservaDem opponent, Marty Chavez, sided with the Republican city councilors to oppose it. Griego is well known in New Mexico politics for having taken on conservatives in the legislature who wanted to balance the budget on the backs of working families by cutting Medicaid and the retirement savings of public workers.

If we call ourselves progressives, we believe that the best way to restore our economy is by generating aggregate demand-- by putting Americans back to work, not cutting jobs and services helping families. Conservatives argue that cutting the deficit they created with two wars, tax cuts for the rich, and the Great Recession caused by their deregulation of Wall Street should take higher priority than creating jobs. That kind of Austerity thinking is what lost Sarkozy his reelection bid in France over the weekend and what has failed conservative politicians being voted out of office all over Europe.

Eric Griego is calling for massive public works projects to rebuild and modernize our country's transportation and coast-to-coast broadband infrastructure, and to lead the world in the clean energy economy. In contrast, his self-styled “progressive” opponent Michelle Lujan Grisham parroted Republican talking points by telling the Albuquerque Journal that job creation should be “maybe tied, or right underneath” the deficit and the budget.

Progressives believe in speaking truth to power. Eric Griego made national headlines last October working with several other progressive Democratic candidates for Congress to deliver over 35,000 petitions to the Speaker of the House, demanding that Boehner and the Republicans “stand with the 99%” and pass President Obama’s jobs plan. He also organized local seniors to deliver over 5,000 petitions to his Republican opponent, Janice Arnold-Jones, to get her on the record as supporting the Ryan budget plan to end Medicare and cut Social Security. Griego proudly joined other progressive legislators around the country to call on Democrats to drop their membership in ALEC. In contrast, Marty Chavez had attacked progressive U.S. Senator Tom Udall as “far to the left” and as “endangering national security."

If we call ourselves progressives, we believe in collective responsibility; that the cost of public education, healthcare, transportation, and national security that benefit all of us should be borne fairly by all. That's why Griego had sponsored legislation to close corporate tax loopholes and to increase taxes on the rich. And he not only wants to end the Bush tax cut for millionaires, but also pass the “Buffett Rule” and restore the Clinton era tax rates to restore fairness, and institute a quarter-to-half-cent tax on Wall Street speculation. While many Democrats talk about fairness and justice for the middle class, there is only one Democrat in this race for Congress who has spelled it out with such force of conviction.

If we call ourselves progressives, we believe that the elderly who have worked a lifetime and paid into Social Security and Medicare should be able to retire with dignity through these guaranteed programs. That is why Eric Griego says he will never let the Tea Party Republicans cut Social Security and Medicare, and opposes raising the retirement age or privatizing those programs. He's still the only candidate in the race who has publicly said on the record supporting removing the income cap on Social Security tax to keep the program solvent for generations. Marty Chavez, on the other hand, told the Albuquerque Journal that cuts to Social Security and Medicare “should be reviewed by Congress” and the Washington Post reported that “he’s open to entitlement cuts.”

Progressives believe in getting the right things done for the 99%. When Michelle Lujan Grisham claimed in the Albuquerque Journal on April 12th that she “has a knack for finding creative ways to get things done,” she should explain if that meant she would find creative ways to give up progressive principles to the Blue Dogs and the Republicans in the name of getting something--anything-- done. Progressives are sick of poll-driven Democrats who say they want to get things done-- but don’t (or won’t) fight to get the right things done. We’ve seen plenty of Democrats get things done-- without the public option or even a whimper for Medicare for All, without strong labor and environmental standards in trade deals, without real teeth to enforce Wall Street regulations. It’s time we send more real movement progressives like Eric Griego to Congress who will fight to get the right things done.

If we call ourselves progressives, we believe in science and that protecting the environment and creating jobs are not mutually exclusive. Eric Griego is one of only three current state legislators with a lifetime 100% rating from Conservation Voters New Mexico, and is endorsed by CVNM, League of Conservation Voters, and the Sierra Club. In the State Senate, Griego sponsored and passed a green jobs training legislation and dedicated state investments in clean renewable industries. He also led a fierce effort to successfully defeat rollbacks of state-only carbon cap and participation in the Western Climate Initiative. On the Albuquerque City Council, Griego spearheaded the city’s Water Conservation Task Force and led the passage of the Renewable Incentive Program, which attracted green jobs to the city.

Griego has the boldest pro-environment platform in the race. He has made it a top priority to fight for legislation to put a down-payment of at least $150 billion towards building a clean energy economy. He is modeling his proposal after the 2009 House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, but stronger. And while many Democrats prefer to talk in abstract about the need to move forward beyond fossil fuels to invest in clean renewable energy, Griego has been unafraid to go on the record to offer concrete positions. He would fight for a moratorium on building new coal power plants and phase out existing ones. When most Democrats were nervously looking to see which way the political wind would blow on extracting oil from tar sands, Griego opposed the Keystone XL pipeline early-- in September 2011.

Chavez also touts his green credentials and his support for investing in clean renewable energy. But according to the Albuquerque Journal, Chavez said that he would “work as an advocate" in Congress for the state’s natural gas industry while pushing to repeal tax incentives for Big Oil companies. He did not address the fact that three of the five of the five targeted Big Oil companies-- ConocoPhillips, BP and Exxon-- are New Mexico’s three largest natural gas producers by volume.” Instead of voicing his commitment to be an advocate for the state’s solar, wind, geothermal or biomass industries, it is revealing that Chavez chose to advocate for fossil fuels instead. The Albuquerque Journal also wrote on January 13, 2008 that Chavez’s claims of reducing carbon pollution as mayor was “full of hot air” and criticized him for “greenwashing” his record.

Michelle Lujan Grisham lacks a record on protecting the environment and clean energy. More worrisome is her apparent lack of interest or knowledge on the issue. She doesn't even bother to address it at all on her website’s issues page.

Progressives need an explanation from the Blue Dogs’ favorite candidate. Chavez is obviously not a progressive. Michelle Lujan Grisham should explain her credibility as a self-styled progressive when she had served in the same cabinet with Republicans Heather Wilson (who is now running against Democrat Martin Heinrich for the U.S. Senate in New Mexico) and Darren White (who ran against Heinrich for Congress in 2008) to implement libertarian Republican Governor Gary Johnson’s slash-and-privatize agenda. She must also explain why she was able to earn the endorsements of the state’s leading corporate Blue Dogs, such as John Arthur Smith, Tim Jennings, and Mary Kay Papen. These right-wing “Democrats” are in a coalition with the Republicans and ALEC to cut public education, cut Medicaid, and cut public pensions while extending tax cuts for the rich and tax loopholes for big corporations. You don't find these kinds of political hacks endorsing Griego. Chavez and Grisham split them all between themselves.

Progressives believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people-- and that corporations are not people. Eric Griego fought to pass public financing of elections to get corporate money out of politics in Albuquerque elections, and supports public financing for all elections. Griego was also in the vanguard of a national progressive effort to make New Mexico’s legislature only the second in the nation to call on Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn Citizens United. After trying desperately but failing to win the support of labor unions (such as AFSCME, AFT, CWA, NEA, the Teamsters and UFCW), environmental groups (such as the Sierra Club and LCV), and progressives (such as Blue America, Daily Kos, DFA, MoveOn, PCCC and PDA), Chavez has taken to attacking the Democratic base as “corrupt third party” groups for supporting the progressive Griego.

Progressives believe that public servants should be held to high ethical standards. That's why Eric Griego fought to create the inspector general’s office in the city of Albuquerque to investigate rampant fraud and abuse in City Hall under Chavez when he was mayor. He also sponsored bills to close the revolving door between lobbyists and politicians in the state legislature and to create an independent ethics commission to keep the politicians honest. Unfortunately, his efforts were rebuffed by conservative Blue Dog Democrats-- the same ones supporting Grisham in the current race-- who did not want to give up their access to corporate cash.

Chavez has a long and sordid history of using his office to enrich himself and his friends at taxpayers’ expense. As he was ending his last term as mayor, he gave himself thirty-seven thousand dollars in worker’s comp and put his political appointees in lower-level positions at higher salaries. He was even officially reprimanded by the city’s ethics board for creating an illegal political committee, the ABQPAC, and taking tens of thousands of dollars from city employees and contractors to pay for his family’s personal travel and unpaid loans he had made to his 1993 mayoral campaign.

Michelle Lujan Grisham also has glaring ethical flaws. She claims to have “aggressively addressed poor quality care in nursing homes” as the Director of Aging. In fact, she “censored, squelched and threatened” her agency’s independent watchdog. When her agency’s ombudsman brought concerns about a nursing home operating without a license, Lujan Grisham complained saying “don’t create a paper trail to show they are not doing their job” and that she “could lose her job over his behavior.” Lujan Grisham also restricted the watchdog’s access to state officials to retaliate for exposing her conflict of interest, because she “received a substantial portion of her household income from the long-term care industry,” including income from one of the state’s largest nursing home operators. She even eased enforcement of nursing home regulations because her Republican boss, Governor Gary Johnson, received $55,000 in campaign contributions from Sun Healthcare, the largest nursing home operator in the state.

If we call ourselves progressives, we believe that we need to increase our number in the Congressional Progressive Caucus to fight for the 99% and get the best deal possible in any legislative negotiation. Eric Griego is the one Democrat in this race for Congress whose record and passion we can count on to fight for the 99%. And he has proudly committed himself to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and has the support of both of the co-chairs of the caucus Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN).

On June 5th, we can send a real movement progressive to Congress. Please consider contributing what you can to Eric's race, here on the Blue America page.

In a blow underlining the rights of all Americans, the president completes his evolution on same-sex marriage

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years, as I talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf, and yet feel constrained, even now that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is gone, because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

-- a clip posted by ABC News from the interview
with Robin Roberts on tomorrow's Good Morning America

by Ken

As I write, we don't have an embeddable clip yet, as ABC is saving its scoop for this evening's World News With Diane Sawyer and tonight's Nightline (which would certainly make sense if ABC had done something to earn the scoop beyond being selected by the White House). Well, no doubt within a matter of hours there will be clips all over the damned place, and I for one don't mind taking a moment to read the president's remark.

(Wasn't it just the other week that Andy Borowitz was joking about the potential disaster to the president's reelection campaign of his confounding habit of speaking in actual sentences? This one's a beaut!) [For the record, the Borowitz Report in question was "Obama's Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy (Could Imperial Reelection Hopes, Experts Say," from April 28.]

The ABC News post goes on to report:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states' deciding the issue on their own. But he said he's confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters' comfort with the concept.

"It's interesting, some of this is also generational," the president continued. "You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we're talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently. It doesn't make sense to them and, frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective."

There's a certain amount of bitterness in some LGBT circles that the president finally publicly completed his famous "evolution" on the issue of same-sex marriage just too late for any possible impact on the resounding North Carolina vote in favor of the literally hateful -- since it truly isn't about anything except hate -- Amendment One, banning even civil unions in the state.

However, the North Carolina vote was always a lost cause. This in no way lessens my admiration for the people who fought so valiantly to keep the margin as respectable as it finally was. But the president has done something concrete and surely more valuable: seized control of the news cycle on same-sex marriage from the self-shaming North Carolinians. Today when the subject of same-sex marriage comes up, it's not Amendment One people are talking about.


I ALWAYS HAVE A HARD TIME EXPLAINING HOW THIS
ISN'T JUST A "GAY" OR "GAY AND LESBIAN" OR "LGBT" ISSUE

It's an issue of basic human rights, the sort of thing that's supposed to be automatically guaranteed to all Americans. And the people who are most violently against it are also the people most violently against the rights of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their often-sociopathic orthodoxies. (For a laugh, or a cry, you might check out chapter and verse in RightWingWatch's post, "Religious Right Slams Obama for Backing Marriage Equality.")

UPDATE: WELL, D'OH! I may have a hard time explaining how this isn't just a "gay" or "gay and lesbian" or "LGBT" issue, but if I'd had the common sense simply to direct you to the "first comments" (immediately following!) from Blue America-endorsed congressional candidates Trevor Thomas, Eric Griego, Darcy Burner, and Norman Solomon, they do a pretty darned good job of explaining it from their wide variety of perspectives. Rather an impressive collection of thoughts, I think -- and a long way from your standard campaign boilerplate. I hope you'll read them all.


HOWIE HAS PASSED ALONG FIRST COMMENTS
FROM BLUE AMERICA-ENDORSED CANDIDATES

I'm sure more will be coming in, but these names will be especially familiar to DWT readers. (Remember, your contributions to help send these people -- and others like them -- to Congress are indispensable in counteracting those zillions of dollars in corporate and kook cash befouling the electoral process. Please check them out here.)

TREVOR THOMAS (who's openly gay)
Michigan's 3rd Congressional District

What the president said today is that equal rights truly means equal rights for all. I believe that's what it says in the Constitution, and it's certainly what I believe in my heart. Like President Ford, who also believed in equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, we must continue to champion fairness and opportunity for everyone. Our young people still struggle with issues related to sexual orientation and many of them face bullying and harassment. I applaud the president for standing up for equal rights, and will work with the administration to make sure that America's freedoms are cherished and protected.

State Sen. ERIC GRIEGO
New Mexico's 1st Congressional District

President Obama just spoke out in support of full marriage equality for LGBT citizens. As a long-time supporter of marriage equality, l applaud his decision -- let's work to end all discrimination. Now it's time for Congress to do something about it. In Washington, I will be a part of making marriage equality a reality for all Americans.

In the State Senate, I worked to defeat the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I also led the fight to pass the Domestic Partnership Bill, HB 603, because I believed it was the first step towards ending discrimination. In Congress, I will support the passage of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act and work to fully repeal DOMA. I will also work for full separation pay for service members who were honorably discharged but had their separation pay cut in half because of Don’t Ask, Don't Tell.

DARCY BURNER
Washington State's 1st Congressional District

I am thrilled that President Obama just announced his full support for marriage equality. When two consenting adults fall in love and want to get married, we should be wishing them their happily ever afters and throwing bird seed.

The next battle is here in Washington to defend the state's new marriage equality law on the ballot. Washington could be the first state to approve marriage equality by popular vote -- but we will see tremendous resistance. The same institutions we've seen fighting against women's access to birth control are fighting to dictate who may fall in love. But our decisions about our families are personal, and shouldn't be subject to the whims of politicians or anyone else.

I am committed to do my part. I have always stood firm in support of marriage equality. Government should treat everyone fairly. Send me to Congress, and I will fight not only to repeal the blatantly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act so that all marriages are treated equally, but also to extend all federal benefits to every married couple in the country.

NORMAN SOLOMON
California's 2nd Congressional District

President Obama's endorsement of gay marriage is controversial nationwide. But new steps for human rights always are.

The first time I went on a picket line -- to integrate a whites-only apartment complex -- the concept of fair housing was controversial. That was in 1966.

Today, while some Democrats like to talk about reaching across the aisle, I advocate reaching toward the stars of our ideals.

That's how civil rights laws became reality. And that's how we can make marriage equality the law of the land.

For a long time, visitors to our campaign website have found this unequivocal statement: "All Americans should be accorded equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity."

And: "I support the right to marry for all consenting adults. The so-called Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed."

And: "I strongly support passage of an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgender workers."

If you send me to Congress, you can be sure I'll keep pushing the envelope -- with a steadfast and crystal-clear message inside -- on behalf of human rights for all.

THE DAY'S FUNNIEST (OR MOST INFURIATING) NOTE
COMES FROM CLUELESS LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS
(With honorable mention to the Unmentionable Willard Inc.)

The LCRs, you'll recall, are the organized Republicans who theoretically favor gay and lesbian rights. They're in high dudgeon today, denouncing the president for the timing of his announcement, with copious crocodile tears over the North Carolina vote:

That the president has chosen today, when LGBT Americans are mourning the passage of Amendment One, to finally speak up for marriage equality is offensive and callous," said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. "Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch. This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign's ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short."

Apart from being idiotically wrong on the facts, R. Clarke shows truly stupefying chutzpah in blasting President Obama without devoting a whisper of consideration to the man R. Clarke and his fellow LCRs will presumably be supporting in the November presidential contest. That creature, the unspeakable Willard Inc., wasted getting on the record his opposition, not just to same-sex marriage, but to civil unions.

WILLARD SEZ: "This is a very tender and sensitive topic"

Is there a dumber life form on the planet? Or is he just the shiftiest?


WOULD YOU LIKE TO THANK THE PRESIDENT?

There are bound to be a bunch of online tributes, petitions, etc. Here's a way organized by ThinkProgress to thank the president for taking his stand.

#

Among Banner Races For Congress, There's A Major One In Albuquerque

I never got very excited over the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania pitting über-reactionary Blue Dog Jason Altmire against corrupt anti-Choice, anti-gay ConservaDem Mark Critz. Critz won and he'll now face right-wing Republican freak Keith Rothfus. So another conservative vs conservative battle for the poor voters in the new 12th CD outside Pittsburgh. A case could be made that we need to support Critz because his 36.56% progressive voting score this year will be better than Rothfus' 0.00% score. An equally persuasive case can be made that that's a price to high and we're better off with Critz' corruption and his constant push towards the right inside the Democratic caucus and in the committees and subcommittees where laws get written. Critz is one of the "Democrats" Boehner and Cantor have come to depend on when they want to label one of their psychotic extremist bills "bipartisan." Mark Critz is almost always there for them. There are dozens of races like that-- pitting hideously reactionary Republicans against worthless Democrats. Blue America ignores those races.

The races Blue America gets excited about are the ones that pit progressives against conservatives-- both in the primaries and in November. I don't care about furthering the career aspirations of corrupt Democrats like Steny Hoyer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Steve Israel and Joseph Crowley and capturing the House for them isn't what we work on. We work on electing progressives. Tomorrow, for example, we'll be endorsing Wayne Powell, the progressive running against Eric Cantor. The DCCC has no interest in that race-- a race with similar dynamics to Rob Zerban's race against Paul Ryan, another one the DCCC likes to make believe is being fought in every district in America except Wisconsin's first CD.

And there are certain races this year that are shaping up to be the banner contests pitting progressives against conservatives. In the Senate, of course, we have Elizabeth Warren facing off against Wall Street shill Scott Brown. There will be a similar dynamic once Wisconsin Republicans decide which extremist monstrosity to run against Tammy Baldwin. And in November Alan Grayson's race in Orlando will probably be one of the most important anywhere, as will David Gill's in Illinois, Carol Shea-Porter's and Ann Kuster's in the two New Hampshire congressional districts, and Lee Rogers' efforts to dislodge Buck McKeon in the Santa Clarita/Antelope Valley area of L.A. County. If Patsy Keever wins her primary against some conservative party hack tomorrow, her November contest against Patrick McHenry will be huge.

But in terms of the big primaries after tomorrow's where progressives face off against conservatives, Blue America is counting on Norman Solomon (who faces off against a bevy of garden variety Democratic hacks), Franke Wilmer in Montana, Darcy Burner in Washington state, Trevor Thomas in Michigan (who's up against a virulently anti-Choice conservative, Steve Pestka, who could never beat anti-Choice Republican Justin Amash), Chris Donovan in Connecticut and, last but far from least, one of Blue America's first endorsements this cycle, state Senator Eric Griego in Albuquerque.

Eric's up against a thoroughly corrupt insider, Marty Chavez, who is tends to go in whichever direction the cash in being waved, although his record indicates he's more comfortable with conservative positions than with progressive positions. But this isn't just a race between Eric and Chavez. If it was, Eric would be packing for his new career in Congress now. EMIILY's List, which has been playing an insidious role in helping elect conservative Democrats in the last few years, has a candidate they're backing who has no chance to win but who can throw the election to Chavez, Michelle Lujan Grisham. EMILY's List is spending a boatload of money on her, money that can only result in helping nominate the conservative Chavez, who brags that he's "open" to cutting Social Security and Medicare. Is that what EMILY's List donors want their money going to? Eric Griego has a 100% record on women's issues and he's been an effective leader on this issues. Grisham is not trustworthy. When she was head of the health system in New Mexico, a federal investigation found that people died from neglect on her watch. She is both irresponsible and has this huge scandal hovering above her for Republicans to use... and EMILY's List is embracing this? What is wrong with them? It's like ever since they got behind anti-Semite Nikki Tinker they have been unable to regain their political balance or act strategically. Why don't they go spend their money helping progressive women like Darcy Burner, Franke Wilmer, Patsy Keever or Aryanna Strader?

Meanwhile in the last few weeks, Chavez, now desperate, has resorted to full-time negative campaigning, exactly the same kind of sleazy campaigning that corrupt Blue Dog Tim Holden tried against Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania last month-- and both have DCCC paw prints all over it. They've spent the past few days spamming news outlets with six different negative press releases, made robo-calls, and set up a fake blog-- all targeting only Eric. Because neither Chavez nor Grisham can compete with Eric's clear momentum, they're resorting to desperate attacks on his progressive supporters, like the Sierra Club, the American Federation of Teachers, MoveOn... the Democratic base.

The New Mexico primary is June 5th... still plenty of time to help elect a movement progressive in a banner race.

How To Make Small Political Contributions Make A Real Difference In A Political System Dominated By Wealthy Special Interests

Ilya's crucial primary in Illinois is the day after tomorrow. It looks very good for a progressive win. But that's hardly the end-- not for Ilya, who then has to go on and beat GOP hack Bob Dold-- and not for the progressive movement, which has quite a few more tough primaries against conservative Democrats between now and the general. Last month Jonathan Bernstein, sitting in for Greg Sargent at the Washington Post penned a column that flies in the face of Beltway conventional wisdom, Want to make your money count? Don't give it to Obama. Most realists recognize that, in the end, the presidential election will come down to a battle between a conservative standing up for the status quo and, in some areas trying to move it marginally in favor of the less privileged (marginally) and a reactionary, dead set on moving the clock backwards as far as he can get away with. Obama isn't my idea of a great president but Romney? Come on. In 2008 Blue America had already recognized what Obama is and, unlike virtually all of our colleagues we refused to endorse him. We knew what was coming. Better than McCain? Of course... marginally. But we concentrated our efforts on House and Senate races where there was a chance to elect a progressive who would actually work to move things in a new direction. And that's what Bernstein is counseling for this year as well:

If you’re planning on making political donations this year, and you really want your money to help the cause, here’s what you should do: Instead of sinking cash into either presidential campaign, put it where it will really matter-- into Congressional or state and local races.

Here’s why: The battle for the House and Senate may well shape up as toss ups, which means that control of Congress is hanging in the balance. This matters just as much, and in many ways more, than control of the White House. The least bang for your buck comes in presidential general elections. Your money will make a much bigger difference in practically every other type of election.

If you’re a typical donor of the $25, $100, or even $5000 variety, your money is just a drop in the ocean of the hundreds of millions of dollars that both sides are going to spend on the presidential election. But more importantly, what we know about voter behavior suggests that money is least important in presidential (general) elections. Money matters more in nomination fights-- where the candidates share a party label-- than in general elections, where most voters will use the party label as a powerful cue. Moreover, voters will pay less attention to information they hear through paid advertising when there is plenty of other information available, as is the case with high-profile presidential elections. Add it all up, and your money just matters more-- a lot more-- in lower profile contests.

If you’re a partisan, that probably means finding the most competitive House and Senate races, or state and local races, and investing your money in those. If you are ideologically driven, that may mean getting involved in primaries. I’d recommend that liberals find nomination battles with clear liberal vs. moderate lines in states or districts where Democrats should win easily in November.

He points to the Hawaii Senate race, where moderately progressive Mazie Hirono is facing right-wing corporate whore Ed Case. Not a bad idea. I'd like to suggest a lucky seven House races that matter, races where a stalwart progressive is facing at least one conservative and/or corrupt Democrat. In order of when their states vote:

Matt Cartwright (PA-17), April 24. Matt faces off against corrupt reactionary Blue Dog Tim Holden, who voted against health care reform, hysterically opposes Choice for women, supports fracking and the whole right-wing corporate agenda. Matt explained the race better than anyone else could in his announcement speech:

This is a new beginning, a new chance for working families to have a representative in Washington who will vote to put the economic well-being of the middle class first. This is your chance to elect a representative who will vote for legislation that benefits the middle class… and not the corporate special interests that fund his congressional campaign.

Working families throughout the new 17th Congressional District, like working families all across the country, are hurting. For those that aren’t struggling with unemployment or underemployment, their incomes have been stagnant. Even as we struggle to emerge from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, large corporate profits continue to go up, while middle class incomes go nowhere.

Why? Because incumbent congressmen continue to support policies and cast votes that put corporate profits over people. For too long, their priority has just been to get reelected, to protect their own jobs, so they wind up representing the deep pockets of the special interests instead of the people. It is wrong and it has to stop.

Working families in the new 17th Congressional District do not need a representative who votes against legislation making Wall Street and the big banks accountable for how they spend taxpayer money meant to prevent the collapse of our economy.

Working families in the new 17th Congressional District do not need a representative who, while the economy is still struggling, votes against legislation that helps distressed families keep their homes.

Working families in the new 17th Congressional District do not need a representative who votes for legislation that makes it harder for struggling families to get out from under crushing credit card debt.

Working families in the new 17th Congressional District do not need a representative who votes against legislation that makes medicine and health care more accessible to seniors and young adults, that allows coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and that also includes coverage for women’s preventative health care services.

To vote against legislation ensuring that taxpayer money in the TARP funds is used to benefit the economy and the middle class instead of stuffing the pockets of Wall Street executives-- that doesn’t represent middle class values or interests of working families.

To vote for legislation that makes it harder for folks to get a second chance in life… just so the credit card companies can squeeze their last nickel from them doesn’t represent the values of the middle class or interests of working families.

To side with the big banks… who helped create the economic crisis to begin with… and vote against legislation that helps avoid more home foreclosures doesn’t represent middle class values or interests of our working families.

To vote with big health care insurance companies and HMOs, doesn’t the interest of our seniors, young adults, people with pre-existing conditions and women.

I will stand up and fight for the middle class values and the interests of our working families.

If you'd like to contribute to Matt's campaign, you'll find it on the Bad Dogs ActBlue page. All of the other candidates are on the regular Blue America House page.

Chris Donovan CT-5), April 24. On the same day voters in Pennsylvania decide between Matt Cartwright and vile Blue Dog Tim Holden, voters in Connecticut will be picking a successor for Rep. Chris Murphy who is trying to regain the Joe Lieberman Senate seat for the Democrats. His opponent is a wealthy son of a sleazy lobbyist who plenty of trashy DC Democrats owe lots of favors to. Donovan is arguably the most successful state House Speaker in the entire United States, responsible for passing the kind of legislative agenda working families in the rest of America craves. In Donovan's own words:

If you dig deep in the most recent weak unemployment numbers, you’ll notice a disturbing trend. The drag on job recovery is not from lack of growth in private sector jobs but the deliberate destruction of public, government jobs. Private business added 57,000 jobs in June, while the public sector lost 39,000 jobs (bringing state and local public-sector employment to their lowest point in five years). The Congressional Republicans' goal to shrink government is working, and the result is higher unemployment and a stagnant economy. More Americans are losing their jobs due to government cutbacks, with teachers, nurses, police and firefighters joining the unemployment lines. D.C. Republicans can add stifling middle class job growth to their apparent ongoing goal to stunt our economic recovery.

Jobs in the private sector are picking up, but public-sector jobs are disappearing. This is out of line with the recoveries of the early 1990s-- in the last two economic recoveries, public-sector job growth averaged 1.7%. Since the recovery started, we have lost 430,000 public-sector jobs. If public sector job growth matched the historic average of growth during recovery, 800,000 more people would have jobs today, and our unemployment rate would drop a full half point from 9.2% to 8.7%.

But Washington Republicans are championing the loss of much-needed public-sector jobs-- a mad rush to cut the taxes of the Wall Street CEOs who put us in this mess and half-century-long ideological wars trumping the suffering of actual people. And their argument, "we can't afford it," is profoundly regressive. American families need jobs now and they will support ending tax-loopholes for the corporate fat-cats and Wall Street CEOs who created this economic morass in order to create them. We can't afford not to grow jobs by repairing our crumbling highway and bridge infrastructure. We can't afford not to grow jobs by rebuilding our aging water and sewage infrastructure. We can't afford not to grow jobs by supporting education from pre-school through college. We can't afford not to grow jobs by investing in green jobs and alternative energy sources provided by companies like PV Squared in New Britain and Litchfield Hills Solar in West Cornwall. And we certainly can't afford not to grow jobs by investing in the technology and modes of transportation of the future, projects like the electrification of the Danbury and Waterbury commuter rail lines, connecting Boston and New York through projects like the Tri-City High Speed Rail and commuter rail corridor that will pass through my hometown of Meriden, and potentially connecting Waterbury to Hartford via rail along the I-84 corridor. These projects aren't just a price tag, they are job engines and are desperately needed improvements that will relieve congestion on Connecticut's crowded highways, improve safety and public health, and create new job hubs in Connecticut's 5th Congressional district.

The American middle class, and projects like the Hoover Dam and the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system, didn't just appear. They were built, brick by brick and person by person, by soldiers returning home with a promise of new opportunities for education and health care, by immigrants seeking a new life in a new world, and by businesses, small and large, that sought American workers, required a well-educated workforce, and relied on American infrastructure. And they were built by the toil of our parents and grandparents with the collective strength forged by the unions that represented them. It's long past time to start rebuilding America, and the economic security of American families through good jobs with strong benefits, brick by brick, person by person.

Cecil Bothwell (NC-11), May 8. Having driven right-wing Blue Dog Heath Shuler out of the race (he's now soliciting jobs with shady, conservative-oriented lobbying firms), Cecil will face a Shuler political operative, Blue Dog Hayden Rogers. Cecil is likely to win the primary and the thrust of his campaign is drawing the contrast between progressive solutions and the toxic conservative agenda:

We American workers need immediate action. Our government can and must put people to work, now. The current recession will only end when unemployment levels are cut in half, and only the U.S. government has the power and obligation to make that happen quickly.

Federal law requires the government, in particular the President and the Federal Reserve, to create jobs. This legal duty comes from three sources: (1) full employment legislation including the Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978, (2) the 1977 Federal Reserve Act, and (3) the global consensus based on customary international law that all people have a right to a job with favorable remuneration to provide an adequate standard of living.

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of law.

It isn’t easy to stand up to the lies and corruption coming from Wall Street, from the multinational corporations, from Fox News and the right-wing noise machine. But we can be heroes and stand up for our families, our neighbors and the future of the American Dream!

Patsy Keever (NC-10), May 8. Before Patsy can take on diminutive neo-fascist closet case Patrick McHenry, she has to beat a conservative Democrat, Terry Bellamy, who is weak on protecting Choice, weak on LGBT equal rights and weak on standing up for working people when they're being set upon by corporate interests.

As a teacher, I have many causes, but my real passion is social justice, and public education is the path to a just society. Public education is the backbone of our democracy. The majority of my 25 years of teaching was in 8th grade social studies and language arts, although I have taught students in every grade from kindergarten to soldiers in the Army. Teaching was a career which I loved, but the lingering illness and subsequent death of my husband ended that career prematurely. He was a Vietnam veteran who was exposed to Agent Orange in 1970 and developed a very aggressive case of prostate cancer 30 years later. When I realized that he was never going to get better and that I probably didn’t have much time left with him, I left the teaching profession.
 
Although I am no longer teaching, my passion for leveling the playing field remains as strong as ever. I still fight for those children who live in poverty, whose only chance of a better life is a good education. I still care about the students who need to be challenged and those who have far too many challenges at home. As a state and nation, we need to invest in our children from a very early age all the way through college and beyond if we want to develop citizens who can and will contribute to our society.

For 25 years I have watched the Republican party pick away at our public education system. They have tried to treat our schools as a business which turns out a product. It is not a business! It is a service our government provides in order to maintain a just society. The question is how do we develop each individual to reach his or her potential to be a functioning, successful member of the community. Vouchers and charter schools are not the answer. Defunding good programs and instituting unfunded mandates are not the answer. Adding more students to each classroom while decreasing support systems for teachers is not the answer. Teachers, parents, students, businesses, elected officials and entire communities must find ways to work together for the good of all. Our lives depend on it.

Norman Solomon (CA-2), June 5. This is a solidly Democratic district and Democrats should opt for a perfect candidate, not one flawed by one-percenter conservative values and not one flawed by corporate corruption, like Norman Solomon's two primary opponents.

What's at stake is democracy-- rule by the people, as opposed to rule by big money. But I will be blunt here: Progressives must take much more seriously the necessity of gaining electoral power for the 99 percent. While we may often say and write very perceptive things, government continues to largely function in the service of large corporate interests. As an antidote to the poison of "corporate personhood," we've got to nurture genuine grassroots campaigns that are infused with progressive values.

That's what my campaign for Congress is about. We already have 850 volunteers, 3,800 individual donors and tremendous momentum, while I refuse to take a dime of corporate PAC money. In this "grassroots vs. AstroTurf campaign," voting begins in less than 60 days for an open seat in the new coastal district north of the Golden Gate Bridge. Right now, time is of the essence. How many lawn signs and brochures will our campaign be able to afford as we go to the printer later this month? In a significant way, that's up to you.

Franke Wilmer (MT-at-large), June 5. Another tough primary-- this time with the populist/progressive candidate, Franke Wilmer, facing two insiders, one very rich conservative and one compromised careerist.

“It seems like any news you get of Washington these days is either disappointing or crazy. Making pizza a vegetable was crazy, and the Super Committee failing to come to an agreement is disappointing. I think Congress may be the only place in America where you can ask 12 people to take 2 months to come up with a solution to an important problem and end up with nothing. It is unbelievable that 12 people couldn’t find $1.2 trillion in wasteful spending. Ending the Bush tax cuts just to the top 1% would be a good place to start. Or ending the tax breaks to corporations that export our jobs overseas. Don’t forget how much we are spending on wars ($1.2 trillion so far).

"Then one of the richest members of Congress, Denny Rehberg, comes out with his 'viable' option. In his mind there are really only two options-- either cut Social Security, Medicare, and Veterans Benefits or defund programs set up to help people cover outrageous health care costs. In his mind cutting the wasteful spending to defense contractors (the Commission on Wartime Contracting reported to Congress that $60 billion alone has been lost to waste and fraud in war spending) or cutting subsidies to the oil and gas companies would be insane. Insisting on cuts to Social Security is the wrong place for Republicans to draw a line in the sand. Senior citizens didn’t cause this recession. Congressman Rehberg ironically decided people can live without health care and presented his “viable” plan.

"There was a time in this country where our elected leaders governed using common sense. There was a time where the issues facing this country were more important than the next election. I am running for Congress to help restore some of those principles in Washington.”

Eric Griego (NM-1), June 5. State Senator Eric Griego has a record in New Mexico that indicates he will be a staunch and effective fighter for working families. His main primary opponent, the corrupt and conservative ex-Mayor Marty Chavez has a record too-- a really bad one for the 99%.

“We need a Democratic Congressional candidate who will unapologetically stand up for Democratic values. The current Republican leadership in Congress wants to dismantle the protections that it has taken generations to build, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We need a strong courageous advocate for working families and who has a record of taking on those who put the interests of the richest two percent of Americans and the largest corporate interests ahead of our children, our environment and our local businesses... I stand with seniors, the disabled, and the working and middle class families of New Mexico in calling on President Obama and Congress to keep their hands off Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as they negotiate a solution to the federal debt default crisis. While I support President Obama in his effort avert the catastrophic collapse of our recovering economy, any deal with Republicans that cuts Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid for New Mexico seniors and working families while failing to ensure that our nation's wealthiest are paying their fair share is entirely unacceptable."”

Do any of these messages resonate with you? Let me know here.