Pelosi Still Didn't Condemn Trump, Just His Tweets-- What Will It Take?

Auschwitz Revisited by Nancy Ohanian

Last night the House voted on this Resolution of Disapproval, condemning Trump's racist comments (though not condemning Señor Trumpanzee himself-- nor even referring to him as a racist-- since Pelosi is still absolutely determined to continue protecting him from any such thing):

RESOLUTION Condemning President Trump’s racist comments directed at Members of Congress.

Whereas the Founders conceived America as a haven of refuge for people fleeing from religious and political persecution, and Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison all emphasized that the Nation gained as it attracted new people in search of freedom and livelihood for their families;

Whereas the Declaration of Independence defined America as a covenant based on equality, the unalienable Rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and government by the consent of the people;

Whereas Benjamin Franklin said at the Constitutional convention, "When foreigners after looking about for some other Country in which they can obtain more happiness, give a preference to ours, it is a proof of attachment which ought to excite our confidence and affection";

Whereas President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists";

Whereas immigration of people from all over the Earth has defined every stage of American history and propelled our social, economic, political, scientific, cultural, artistic and technological progress as a people, and all Americans, except for the descendants of Native people and enslaved African-Americans, are immigrants or descendants of immigrants;

Whereas the commitment to immigration and asylum has been not a partisan cause but a powerful national value that has infused the work of many Presidents;

Whereas American patriotism is defined not by race or ethnicity but by devotion to the Constitutional ideals of equality, liberty, inclusion, and democracy and by service to our communities and struggle for the common good;

Whereas President John F. Kennedy, whose family came to the United States from Ireland, stated in his 1958 book A Nation of Immigrants that "The contribution of immigrants can be seen in every aspect of our national life. We see it in religion, in politics, in business, in the arts, in education, even in athletics and entertainment. There is no part of our nation that has not been touched by our immigrant background. Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life.";

Whereas President Ronald Reagan in his last speech as President conveyed "An observation about a country which I love";

Whereas as President Reagan observed, the torch of Lady Liberty symbolizes our freedom and represents our heritage, the compact with our parents, our grandparents, and our ancestors, and it is the Statue of Liberty and its values that give us our great and special place in the world;

Whereas other countries may seek to compete with us, but in one vital area, as "a beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of the world, no country on Earth comes close";

Whereas it is the great life force of "each generation of new Americans that guarantees that America’s triumph shall continue unsurpassed" through the 21st century and beyond and is part of the "magical, intoxicating power of America";

Whereas this is "one of the most important sources of America’s greatness: we lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people-- our strength-- from every country and every corner of the world, and by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation";

Whereas "thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge", always leading the world to the next frontier;

Whereas this openness is vital to our future as a Nation, and "if we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost"; and

Whereas President Donald Trump’s racist comments have legitimized fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives

(1) believes that immigrants and their descendants have made America stronger, and that those who take the oath of citizenship are every bit as American as those whose families have lived in the United States for many generations;

(2) is committed to keeping America open to those lawfully seeking refuge and asylum from violence and oppression, and those who are willing to work hard to live the American Dream, no matter their race, ethnicity, faith, or country of origin; and

(3) strongly condemns President Donald Trump’s racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants, and those who may look to the President like immigrants, should "go back" to other countries, by referring to immigrants and asylum seekers as "invaders," and by saying that Members of Congress who are immigrants (or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants) do not belong in Congress or in the United States of America.

Yesterday, before the vote, Pig-Man-Enraged went on another racist tweet-storm as soon as he woke up:

As Politico's morning team wrote yesterday, "Republicans now have to vote on whether they approve of Trump's comments. Most are likely to stick with Trump, even while they say privately he’s a boor for thinking and voicing these thoughts. It will be very instructive to see whether Republicans like Rep. Paul Mitchell (MI), a member of House GOP leadership who has criticized Trump over the tweets, end up voting with Democrats. Monday evening, senior Republicans told us they expected 10 or fewer Republicans would vote to condemn Trump. A question for Republicans to ponder: What would you tell your child if they sent those tweets? Would you say it was OK?." Noting the packed press conference AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib-- all of whom pop up on that Worthy Incumbents thermometer on the right-- he'd Monday afternoon, Politico pointed out that they "found a way to explain succinctly why they believe Trump is a racist and why he should be impeached. They were able to tie this incident to a set of immigration policies that Democrats of all stripes believe are wrongheaded and criminal. They also highlighted, perhaps unintentionally, what the Republican Party has become on Capitol Hill: a bastion of mostly white men who are unable or unwilling to criticize a white president who has targeted brown and black women."

So the resolution passed 240-187, primarily along party lines. Every single Democrat voted for it, even the worst of the Blue Dogs and New Dems who hate and fear AOC and Ilhan and wish them both all the worst.

Four Republicans voted with the Democrats-- Susan Brooks, who is retiring, Brian Fitzpatrick, who represents a swingy Philly-area district and often votes with the Democrats, Will Hurd, the Republicans' only black member and who represents a 70% Latino swing district in south Texas, and Fred Upton, who's represents a swing district in the southwest part of Michigan and senses he's all but doomed this cycle-- as did Independent Justin Amash. 6 Republicans didn't vote, including some who were in the room.

CNN analyst Ron Brownstein tried explaining why Republicans don't worry much about Trump's overt racism. The acceptance of Trump's Know Nothing approach to race and immigration "underscores his transformation of the Republican Party into a coalition centered on the voters and places in America most hostile to immigration in particular and demographic change in general."

This latest flurry of activity continues the drive by Trump and other Republicans elected mostly from the parts of America least touched by immigration to impose a restrictionist agenda on migration over the nearly undivided opposition of Democrats elected by the areas where most immigrants, both undocumented and legal, actually live. Though greeted without complaint by Republicans in Congress, Trump's promised raids provoked astoundingly open resistance from the mayors of virtually every large American city, from New York and Los Angeles to Chicago and Houston.

Trump's divisive tweets opened an equally imposing divide between the parties. Democrats were unvarnished and united in flatly describing Trump's tweets as racist and nativist, words that elected officials have rarely applied so unabashedly to the remarks of a sitting president. Only a tiny trickle of Republicans that widened slightly as Monday progressed raised objections and the vast majority tried to avoid comment altogether. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina obliquely suggested Trump "should aim higher" but then compounded the President's slur by calling the Democrats "communists" who "hate our own country" and are "anti-America."



...[A]ttitudes toward demographic, cultural and economic change have become the central fault line between the parties. Republicans mobilize what I've called a "coalition of restoration" centered on older, blue-collar, evangelical and non-urban whites who polls show are uneasy or frightened about the fundamental demographic, cultural and even economic trends reshaping America in the 21st century.

Democrats counter with a competing "coalition of transformation" revolving around the groups-- young adults, minorities, singles, secular voters, and college-educated whites, mostly concentrated in large metropolitan areas-- who are most comfortable with the change.

"Clearly we're headed down a path where there is one party for older white Americans and then there's another party for people of color and immigrants," says Carlos Curbelo, a former Republican US representative who was defeated last fall in a heavily diverse Miami-area district. "And this is very dangerous. It divides our society in a dangerous way. It paralyzes our political system."

These trends trace their roots back all the way to the civil rights revolution in the 1960s and have significantly accelerated since the closely divided election of 2000. But Trump's open appeal to the portions of white America most uneasy about cultural and social change, from immigration to gay and transgender rights and the changing role of women, have elevated these trends to an entirely new level.

The result is that hardly any Republicans at any level now represent urban constituencies with the large immigrant populations that Trump has threatened with intensified ICE enforcement or demeaned with his calls for four liberal House Democratic women, three of whom were actually born in the US, to"go back" to where they came from before criticizing America.

"I don't see any serious plan or strategy to grow the party in urban America," said Curbelo, who was one of the few House Republicans to represent a seat with large populations of immigrant and non-white voters. "And I see very limited effort to grow the party among the Hispanic community which was a major priority during the George W. Bush years and even afterwards during the Obama presidency. That is now virtually non-existent."

Instead, Curbelo said, Trump "uses cities to intensify the culture war and agitate his base."

Trump's victory in 2016, and his consistent support in polls from about 40-45% of the population, shows there is a significant audience for his hard-edged message on immigration and demographic change more broadly. But there is also a clear cost. In effect, Trump's bruising racially-infused nationalism is forcing the GOP to trade support among younger voters for older ones; secular voters for the most religiously conservative, especially evangelical Christians; diverse voters for whites; white collar whites for blue-collar whites; and metro areas for non-metro areas.

Since Trump's emergence Republicans have consolidated their control of small-town, exurban and rural communities. But that has come with significant losses for the GOP inside metropolitan areas even in red states, like Texas and Georgia.

The trade Trump is imposing on the GOP was apparent in 2016 and enormously intensified in 2018.

In 2016, Trump lost 16 of the 20 states where foreign-born residents constituted the largest share of the population and won 26 of the 30 states where they represent the smallest shares. Even in the relatively more diverse states he won, he lost the vast majority of the big urban centers where immigrants and other minorities generally concentrate. Overall, Trump lost 87 of the 100 largest US counties to Hillary Clinton by a combined margin of over 15 million votes, according to calculations by the Pew Research Center. Trump offset these losses by amassing the largest margins for Republicans in decades in small-town, exurban and rural areas.

In 2018 House races, Republicans suffered only very modest losses outside of metropolitan area districts. And they gained three Senate seats in states with large populations of white voters who are rural, blue-collar, or evangelical Christians: North Dakota, Indiana and Missouri. But the party was routed in metropolitan House seats that contained significant populations of minorities, immigrants, singles, college-educated white voters, or all of the above. After sweeping losses in suburban districts from coast to coast, the GOP under Trump has been almost completely exiled from the dynamic metropolitan areas that account for the nation's vast majority of job growth and economic output.

Democrats now hold over four-fifths of the House seats where minorities exceed their share of the national population and nearly 9 in 10 of the House seats with more foreign-born residents than average, according to a CNN analysis of census data. In the Senate, Democrats partially offset the Republican gains in older and rural Midwestern states by adding seats in the diverse, younger, rapidly growing Sunbelt battlegrounds of Arizona and Nevada. The result is that after the 2018 election, Democrats now hold 32 of the 40 Senate seats in the 20 states with the highest share of immigrants in their population while Republicans hold 45 of the 60 in the 30 states with the fewest. In 2020, the top two Democratic Senate pick-up opportuntiies are among the top 20 immigration states -- Arizona and Colorado, with Georgia, another high-ranking state, presenting a more difficult chance. Democrats are also targeting about a dozen of the GOP House members remaining in high-immigrant seats.

Because undocumented immigrants tend to flow largely toward communities with large existing immigrant communities, that means the places most threatened by Trump's threat to increase ICE enforcement are almost all places that have already demonstrated hostility to him and the party he is reshaping in his image.

The non-partisan Migration Policy Institute estimates that there are at least 70,000 undocumented immigrants in 34 US counties; cumulatively those counties account for about 5.6 million undocumented immigrants, about half of the estimated US total. (The top 10 counties alone, all of them major metropolitan areas, account for nearly one-third of the total undocumented population.) In 2016, Trump lost 31 of those 34 counties and in 2018 two of those he carried-- Maricopa, around Phoenix in Arizona, and Tarrant, centered on Fort Worth in Texas-- broke for the Democrats in Senate races.

...Trump "has been able to convince folks that their way of life has been impacted primarily by the presence of undocumented immigrants in this country and I think that that message resonates more than anywhere else with the communities that just don't have close contact with them," Elorza said. "I personally live in a community where I know for a fact there are undocumented immigrants around. I see them. And if you get to know them you see they are not a threat to you. When you are not exposed to them you are more susceptible to buying this (negative) narrative, because you have the President of the United States telling you this is the case."

Conversely, Curbelo says he sees signs that too many Democrats are abandoning the hope of forging connections in less diverse, less urban areas generally more skeptical of immigrants. "Obviously Republicans are not doing enough to change (the divide) and frankly Democrats aren't either," he says. "You hear some Democrats say we don't want a white presidential candidate; that's just as improper and scandalous. The bases of each respective party have too much of a gravitational pull."

Trump's unrelentingly divisive agenda and language-- and the sharp Democratic response it has generated-- seems guaranteed in the 2020 election to widen the chasm between diverse, white-collar, immigrant-friendly urban America, where opposition to the President is centered, and his strongholds in preponderantly white, blue-collar, heavily Christian, non-urban America.

This week's repeated use of openly racist language from the White House-- like the new policy battles over ICE enforcement and asylum seekers, and the earlier struggles over Trump proposals to measure citizenship on the census, build a border wall, separate children from parents at the border, punish "sanctuary cities," and slash legal immigration by the largest amounts since the 1920s-- show how committed the President is to mobilizing his "coalition of restoration" even at the price of inflaming the Democrats' "coalition of transformation" and potentially alienating swing voters.

The racially incendiary conflicts of the past few days have provided perhaps the clearest preview yet of what's approaching as the places that represent what America is becoming square off against the places that reflect what it has been in next year's epic struggle for control of the nation's direction.

The Republicans are trying to redefine the Democratic Party as "socialism," AOC and Ilhan and Trump's tweets reinforce that. Virtually every e-mail from Republican groups and candidates mention socialism, AOC and Ilhan. Here's one I got yesterday from some douche bag mayor of Laguna Hills campaign against Katie Porter.Republicans hate Porter because she is effective in holding banksters accountable but most CA-45 voters would agree with her on that, so instead...

We are running against an extreme AOC-backed, self-described Elizabeth Warren protege who doesn’t just whisper about being a radical liberal, she embraces it. While Porter’s campaign is stuffed with socialist cash from members like Ilhan Omar, Sedgwick’s campaign is people-powered from everyday Americans who believe in family values, capitalism and the American Dream.

"People-powered" if corporate PACs are people and "family values" if those values have been redefined as racism, xenophobia and the total trashing of Jesus' message to mankind-- with children in cages and Trump and his cronies raping children. Meanwhile, if you can stomach it, here are the clueless congressional leaders of the American Nazi Party doing a press conference yesterday before the vote, apparently trying to rally their troops and their racist base. Note the venom dripping out of the Cheney daughter's mouth:

Trump's Too Strung Out On Pills To Do His Job-- But No One Wants To Bring Up The 25th Amendment

Forget for a moment about all the Republicans who gave up their seats voluntarily to escape TrumpWorld or to avoid ignominious defeat. Just look at the ones who stood and fought— and were defeated. Or, in the eyes of the returning congressional Republicans… colleagues who were vanquished. For them these weren't just names or even just friends... this is a warning that they could be next:

• Jeff Denham (CA-10)
• Steve Knight (CA-25)
• Mimi Walters (CA-45)
• Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
• Mike Coffman (CO-06)
• Carlos Curbelo (FL-26)
• Karen Handel (GA-06)
• Pete Roskam (IL-06)
• Randy Hultgren (IL-14)
• Rod Blum (IA-01)
• David Young (IA-03)
• Kevin Yoder (KS-03)
• Mike Bishop (MI-08)
• Jason Lewis (MN-02)
• Erik Paulsen (MN-03)
• Tom MacArthur (NJ-03)
• Leonard Lance (NJ-07)
• Dan Donovan (NY-11)
• John Faso (NY-19)
• Claudia Tenney (NY-22)
• Steve Russell (OK-05)
• Keith Rothfus (PA-17)
• John Culberson (TX-07)
• Scott Taylor (VA-02)
• Dave Brat (VA-07)
• Barbara Comstock (VA-10)

And besides those 26 lying maimed and lifeless on the battlefield, another 5 are seriously wounded and not out of the woods yet: David Valadao (CA-21), Bruce Poliquin (ME-02), Chris Collins (NY-27), Will Hurd (TX-23) and Mia Love (UT-04). Over a dozen others had dangerously close calls that auger poorly for 2020.

So what lessons have been learned by the congressional Republicans? Lost comrades included both mainstream conservatives like Leonard Lance, Dan Donovan and Carlos Curbelo and far right extremists like David Brat, Steve Knight and Rod Blum— some who worshipped at the feet of Trump, like Mimi Walters and Claudia Tenney and some who tried to stand up to him from time to time, like Jeff Denham and Mike Coffman. Lisa Mascaro, writing for the Associated Press, reported that the fight for House Republican leadership, post-Waterloo, is forcing them to assess the damage and try making heads or tails out of the fresh carnage. “Frustration, finger-pointing and questions,” she wrote, “spilled over a closed-door meeting of House Republicans Tuesday night as lawmakers sorted through an election defeat that cost them the majority and began considering new leadership for their shrunken minority. Republicans complained about the unpopularity of the GOP tax law they blamed for losses in New York and other key states, some attendees told reporters after the meeting. Some in the meeting said Republicans should have tried harder to fulfill President Donald Trump’s priorities, like funding for the border wall with Mexico. They also warned that they need a new fundraising mechanism to compete with the small-dollar online donors that powered Democrats to victory.”

With the speaker’s gavel now out of reach, GOP Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Trump ally, is poised to take over as minority leader. But the Californian has struggled in the past to build support from conservatives. He faces a longshot challenge from Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus who has support from outside conservative groups and got a second-look during a nearly two-hour candidate forum Tuesday.

Trump has stayed largely on the sidelines ahead of closed-door elections Wednesday that will determine party leadership not only for House Republicans, but also for Senate Democrats and Republicans, and set the tone for the new Congress. Voting for the biggest race, Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s bid to return as the Democrats’ nominee for speaker, is later this month.

Jordan told reporters that he made a pitch to his colleagues at a sometimes-tense session in the Capitol basement based on three questions: “Why’d we lose, how do we get it back and what we’re up against.”

The former college wrestling champ said he told Republicans they need a fighter to confront Pelosi and her new majority.

“I think we’re entering a world we haven’t really seen,” he said, rattling off the names of the Democratic chairmen who are poised to investigate Trump. “It’s going to take an attitude and an intensity about standing up for the truth and fighting.”

Most GOP lawmakers, though, prefer McCarthy’s more affable approach, and he remained favored to win Wednesday. Accompanied by his wife, McCarthy entered the meeting room, telling reporters, “We’ve got a plan.”

Scalise will remain party whip and Liz Cheney will take the #3 roll, conference chair, bumping Cathy McMorris Rodgers. For all his gas lighting, Trump is simultaneously furious, nervous and depressed over the midterms. Eli Stokols reported for the L.A. Times that he’s largely abandoned the few traditional presidential duties he was doing. Although he appeared unhinged on the campaign trail, the unshackled nature of the last month or two catering to his adoring, low-info, neo-fascist fans, invigorated him. Perhaps he’s figured out the connection between his hate rallies and his party’s debilitating losses. “[H]is mood,” wrote Stokols, “apparently has changed as he has taken measure of the electoral backlash that voters delivered Nov. 6. With the certainty that the incoming Democratic House majority will go after his tax returns and investigate his actions, and the likelihood of additional indictments by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Trump has retreated into a cocoon of bitterness and resentment, according to multiple administration sources. Behind the scenes, they say, the president has lashed out at several aides, from junior press assistants to senior officials. ‘He’s furious,’ said one administration official. ‘Most staffers are trying to avoid him.’ The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, painted a picture of a brooding president ‘trying to decide who to blame’ for Republicans’ election losses, even as he publicly and implausibly continues to claim victory.” He’s all but fired Chief of Staff John Kelly and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen. The media is keeping it quiet but the rumors have been swirling that he’s drugged up on Adderall and unable to function, even minimally, shirking all duties and all pretence of being in charge of anything.

The Diplomat by Nancy Ohanian

[A]ccording to a source outside the White House who has spoken recently with the president, last week’s Wall Street Journal report confirming Trump’s central role during the 2016 campaign in quietly arranging payoffs for two women alleging affairs with him seemed to put him in an even worse mood.

Publicly, Trump has been increasingly absent in recent days— except on Twitter. He has canceled travel plans and dispatched Cabinet officials and aides to events in his place— including sending Vice President Mike Pence to Asia for the annual summits there in November that past presidents nearly always attended.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II was in Washington on Tuesday and met with Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, but not the president.

Also Tuesday, Defense Secretary James N. Mattis announced plans to travel on Wednesday near the U.S.-Mexico border to visit with troops Trump ordered there last month in what is ostensibly a mission to defend against a caravan of Central American migrants moving through Mexico and still hundreds of miles from the United States.

Trump had reportedly considered making that trip himself, but has decided against it. Nor has he spoken of the caravan since the midterm elections, after making it a central issue in his last weeks of campaigning.

Unusually early on Monday, the White House called a “lid” at 10:03 a.m. EST, informing reporters that the president would not have any scheduled activities or public appearances for the rest of the day. Although it was Veterans Day, Trump bucked tradition and opted not to make the two-mile trip to Arlington National Cemetery in northern Virginia to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, as presidents since at least John F. Kennedy have done to mark the solemn holiday.

Trump’s only public appearance Tuesday was at a short White House ceremony marking the start of the Hindu holiday Diwali at which he made brief comments and left without responding to shouted questions.

He had just returned Sunday night from a two-day trip to France to attend ceremonies marking the centennial of the armistice that ended World War I. That trip was overshadowed, in part, by Trump’s decision not to attend a wreath-laying at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, the burial place for 2,289 soldiers 60 miles northeast of Paris, due to rain.

Kelly, a former Marine Corps general, and Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did attend to honor the American service members interred there. Trump stayed in the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Paris, making no public appearances.

Other heads of state also managed to make it to World War I cemeteries in the area for tributes to their nations’ war dead on Saturday.

Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin were the only world leaders to skip a procession of world leaders to another commemoration, on Sunday, at the Arc de Triomphe. About 80 heads of state walked in unison— under umbrellas in the pouring rain— down Paris’ grand Champs-Elysees boulevard. Trump arrived later by motorcade, a decision aides claimed was made for security reasons.

Nicholas Burns, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO under George W. Bush, said the weekend events, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the end of a war in which 120,000 Americans were killed, were ripe for soaring words and symbolic gestures, which Trump failed to provide.

“Not only did he barely show up, he didn't say anything that would help Americans understand the scale of the loss, or the importance of avoiding another great war,” Burns said. “He seemed physically and emotionally apart. It’s such a striking difference between the enthusiasm he showed during the campaign and then going to Paris and sulking in his hotel room.”

He added, “The country deserves more energy from the president.”

Trump took heavy flak on social media, especially for his no-show at the military cemetery.

"President @realDonaldTrump a no-show because of raindrops?” tweeted former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, a Navy veteran. “Those veterans the president didn’t bother to honor fought in the rain, in the mud, in the snow - & many died in trenches for the cause of freedom. Rain didn’t stop them & it shouldn’t have stopped an American president.”

Nicholas Soames, a member of Britain’s Parliament and grandson of Winston Churchill, tweeted, "They died with their face to the foe and that pathetic inadequate @realDonaldTrump couldn’t even defy the weather to pay his respects to The Fallen.”

Trump, clearly feeling on the defensive days later, tried to explain himself on Tuesday, in a tweet.

"By the way, when the helicopter couldn’t fly to the first cemetery in France because of almost zero visibility, I suggested driving," he wrote. "Secret Service said NO, too far from airport & big Paris shutdown. Speech next day at American Cemetary [sic] in pouring rain! Little reported-Fake News!"

In that tweet, Trump falsely described the weather at the Sunday visit to another U.S. cemetery. Rather than “pouring rain,” photos showed him standing without a hat or an umbrella under overcast skies when he delivered remarks, though he did grasp an umbrella at one point while paying tribute at one soldier’s grave.

Just as Trump was returning to Washington on Sunday evening, Pence was heading to Asia in the president’s place, and at his first stop greeted Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Trump’s absence, experts said, is notable, and a glaring affront to many Asian leaders.

“It matters more in Asia than other regions because ‘face’ is so important,” said Matthew P. Goodman, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former White House coordinator for Asia-Pacific strategy during the Obama and George W. Bush administrations. “Your willingness to go out there is a sign you're committed and not going is a sign you're not.”

Putin is attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, looking to expand his country’s influence in Asia. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India and President Moon Jae-in of South Korea are also attending regional summits. And China’s President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang are simultaneously attending meetings across the region looking to broaden their country’s influence in the South China Sea and expand multilateral trade agreements.

Although Trump is set to meet with Xi at the Group of 20 summit of wealthy countries this month in Buenos Aires, his absence from the major Indo-Pacific meetings for a second straight year will “have some consequences for our position and our interests in the region,” Goodman continued. “Other countries are going to move ahead without us.”

What makes Trump’s perceived snub to the Asian powers more significant is that it comes on the heels of his brief European trip, which showcased his growing isolation from transatlantic allies. French President Emmanuel Macron rebuked Trump in a speech, stating that “nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism” as the U.S. president looked on sullenly.

Trump’s relations with Latin America, already strained, are little better after the White House last week announced that he was reneging for a second time on a commitment to visit Colombia. He had planned to go there later this month on his way back from the G-20 meetings.

In April, he’d sent Pence in his place to the Summit of the Americas in Peru, citing a need to remain in Washington to monitor the U.S. response to a chemical weapons attack in Syria. He’d planned to visit Bogota on the same trip.

This time around, there appeared to be no extenuating circumstances preventing a visit.

In a statement, the White House simply said, “President Trump’s schedule will not allow him to travel to Colombia later this month.”

The Day After

I know... it's too soon for this kind of speculation-- but Gabby Orr and Dan Lippman started it... so how couldI resist? And the preliminary fingerprinting began weeks, if not months ago. Orr and Lippman reported at Politico that at his rallies, Señor Trumpanzee argues that "the midterms are about one person-- Donald Trump. 'Get out in 2018,' Trump told a crowd in Missouri last month, 'because you’re voting for me!'" Privately, the illegitimate fake "president" says the exact opposite. This is the person who Gideon Rachman tried to claim is a great historical figure rather than a blundering fool and crook:

According to two people familiar with the conversations, Trump is distancing himself from a potential Republican thumping on Election Day. He’s telling confidants that he doesn’t see the midterms as a referendum on himself, describing his 2020 reelection bid as “the real election.” And he says that he holds House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell responsible for protecting their congressional majorities.

According to one person with knowledge of these talks, Trump has said of Ryan and McConnell: “These are their elections … and if they screw it up, it’s not my fault.”

Other sources said Trump is sure to lash out at perhaps his favorite bogeyman of all-- the media-- for allegedly opposing him... [I]n the event of an electoral blowout, Trump is poised to shift the blame a mile down Pennsylvania Avenue.

“Look for the White House to say something like, ‘Paul Ryan chose to be a lame duck speaker instead of leaving, which cost Congress the chance to do several things before November,’” said an aide to one GOP member who speaks with the president often.

A Democratic wave would be especially awkward for a president whose brand is success, and who boasts that his record in office is unmatched by any of his modern predecessors.

Already, hints of a distancing strategy have started to creep into Trump’s public comments, even as he continues to crow at rallies that the midterms are a “referendum” on his first two years in office. Trump told the Associated Press recently that some of his supporters have said to him, “I will never ever go and vote in the midterms because you’re not running.”

Inside the White House, aides are resigned to the fact that Trump-- as he has often done-- will follow his gut on how to message any Democratic takeover of the House on Nov. 6. Those around Trump are anticipating lots of unfiltered, early-morning tweets casting blame on everyone but the president.

“It would be a lot of shooting from the hip in early morning Twitter,” said a well-placed Republican source, who added that the White House seems to lack clear plans for post-election messaging.

The themes are already predictable.

“The arc is gonna be he wasn’t on the ballot, and people didn’t fully appreciate his policies and [candidates] didn’t tie themselves enough to him,” said a person close to the president, who was among several sources to say Trump will likely blame the media as well.

...Before he was president, Trump had a philosophy on whether leaders should accept blame: “Whatever happens, you’re responsible. If it doesn’t happen you’re responsible.”

But once in office, Trump, backed up by his communications team, has shifted blame for setbacks to others-- especially Congress.

...“The president’s rhetoric is what’s actually energized the left, so it would be hard to put it on Congress if we lost the House,” a senior GOP aide told Politico. “But it’s just classic behavior on the part of this president to not shoulder the blame if things go bad, and to definitely take responsibility if things go right.”

OK, so what will the impact of the midterms be on the Republican House leadership, post-Ryan? Trump wants mindless patsy Kevin McCarthy for the top job. But is Trump strong enough to keep McCarthy from being eviscerated by a the far right-- which claims he doesn't share any of their (fascist) values and wants a Gingrich-type disruptor? Or, how much would Trump and McCarthy be willing to give Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan and the rest of the Freedom Caucus radicals to get them to play nice? On Sunday, Lisa Mascaro asserted that "win or lose... House Republicans are at risk of plunging into a messy leadership battle... The election is likely to produce a more conservative, pro-Trump Republican lineup in the House, as most of the GOP incumbents at risk of losing hail from moderate-leaning districts and suburbs. Their defeat would probably concentrate more power in the hands of the House Freedom Caucus and its libertarian-leaning allies in rural, traditionally Republican states who doubt McCarthy’s conservative bona fides. Those lawmakers blocked the Californian’s rise when he first reached for the speaker’s gavel three years ago."

Conservatives say the House majority is at risk in large part because Republicans didn’t stand fully behind Trump. They fault their own side for failing to repeal “Obamacare,” build a wall along the border with Mexico and keep other campaign promises. If there’s a GOP wipeout on Election Day, Republicans will probably be eager to boot the current GOP leadership, which could give rise to Scalise or even Jordan’s unorthodox bid.

Trump Sees McCarthy As The Most Easy Potential Minority Leader To Manipulate

With Paul Ryan going into retirement-- thank you, Randy Bryce!-- three ambitious, careerist Republicans are running to be House GOP top dog, likely Minority Leader:

• Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA)
• Majority Whip Steve Scalise (LA)
• Crackpot Freedom Caucus Molestation Enabler Jim Jordan (OH)

All three are extremely right wing and all three are devoted Trump rubber-stamps. According to the 538 Trump Adhesion barometer, Scalise is one of the very few members of Congress who have voted with Trump 100% of the time, McCarthy has voted 98.9% of the time with Trump and Jordan-- who often votes to the right of Trump and everyone else-- has voted with Trump 85.7% of the time.

Trump, who doesn't like people who been shot and doesn't like people who only voted with him 85.7% of the time, gave an unofficial nod to McCarthy Thursday night. Trumpanzee was hosting a fat-cat fundraiser to benefit the Protect the House SuperPAC at the hotel he owns down the street from the White House. There were dozens of right-wing congressmembers at the high-dollar event and they pretty much all interpreted his remarks wishing Ryan farewell and then turning to McCarthy and saying "I look forward to working with you," as an endorsement. Fuck-Up, Jr and his girlfriend, ex-Gavin Newsom wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, agreed.

The event raised 15 million dollars. Please help offset that by contributing to progressive Democratic candidates by tapping on the thermometer on the right. Saclise must have been very disappointed after endorsing a whole weekend hunting alligators with Fuck-Up, Jr and Guilfoyle a couple of weeks ago. We're still checking out the rumors that a video exists of Guilfoyle skinning alligators.

According to the right-wing blog called the Washington Examiner, "Many people have doubts about McCarthy, worrying that he is too flexible and holds few core beliefs or principles other than that its a good idea to form political relationships. He's no policy wonk. But even his critics recognize that he is the party’s preeminent political animal in the House. He is king in the back-slapping world of grip-and-grin. He has been hyperactive. On the final months running up to the midterm elections, he is racking up frequent flier miles to campaign with beleaguered Republicans, even though few people give the GOP much chance of retaining control of the House. In the week before traveling to Pittsburgh, McCarthy’s schedule took him to Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, Ohio, Maine and New York."

[Q]uestions remain about McCarthy's second effort to grab the speaker's gavel.

McCarthy says, "I'm willing to take a risk. I'm willing to fail at things, because I think I learn from them at the same time, and I’ve always believed in constant improvement and education… I think that combination has all worked. I've always said timing was the most important part of politics. It may be on a personal level the right timing for me, but it may not be the opportunity. Am I ok with that? Yeah.”

Supporters say McCarthy was humbled by his failure in 2015 and has worked on what were weaknesses, including messaging and speaking ability. His most damaging gaffe three years ago was a comment to Sean Hannity that the special investigation of the fiasco in Benghazi that left four Americans dead was an attempt to damage Hillary Clinton's poll numbers.

...[People see H]is most visible quality, personality and relationships with members, as a main driver of his support within the conference. Friends and colleagues say McCarthy is uniquely able to recall moments and dates that are important to his 23 congressional colleagues... “He remembers members’ anniversaries better than the members remember their anniversaries. If you’re a member of Congress, your spouse is just as likely to get a ‘Happy Anniversary’ text from Kevin McCarthy as they are from their spouse,” said Gowdy, who, along with Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), another close friend McCarthy, dined with him to celebrate Valentine’s Day this year.

“His wife wasn’t here, my wife wasn’t here, and Tim Scott doesn’t have a wife,” Gowdy said with a laugh.

But have GOP conference dynamics changed enough over the past three years for McCarthy to win?

“He’s everybody’s friend, and when you’re everybody’s friend, you’re nobody’s friend. You can’t be everybody’s friend. You can’t be. I think he’s going to have some problems,” said one GOP House member, pointing to missed opportunities to get members floor time for local needs. McCarthy's team took issue with the critique, noting each GOP freshmen has had a legislative priority pass on the floor in each of the past two Congresses.

McCarthy will face opposition from the Freedom Caucus. Despite an improved relationship with Rep. Mark Meadows (NC), the group’s chairman, there are still questions and doubts about what kind of deal McCarthy would have to strike a deal with the right-wing group, which is expected to have about 40 members if Republicans retain their majority.

According to another House Republican, McCarthy has had “general discussions” with various factions to broker a deal, but McCarthy himself demurs, saying his talks, including those with Meadows, range across many topics.

“Not from a point where you need this or that," said McCarthy, describing his haggling with Meadows, "We’ve had conversations and we’ve had that prior to the scenario of [Ryan] departing. How do we work more as one? Meadows and I get along well and we work well together. Now can we get everybody to work well together?”

Rep. Jim Jordan, who says he is running for speaker to win the job, not as a ploy to increase the influence of the Freedom Caucus, is especially concerned about about the concentration of power in the Steering Committee, a source close to Jordan said.

Trust by Chip Proser

What Right Wing Former Wrestling Coach Jim Jordan Is Up To Now

UPDATE: After being turned down flat and mocked from every direction they turned yesterday, Jordan and Meadows threw up their hands, raised the white flag and buried their own absurd, self-serving resolution to impeach Rod Rosenstein. Now they're going to try to get a vote holding the Department of Justice in contempt.


Randy @IronStache Bryce frightened Paul Ryan out of his reelection plans and he's retiring from Congress instead. But Ryan is working hard now to make sure his party isn't obliterated in November. It's no longer a question of keeping power in the House-- that's long-- but of how many dozens of seats the GOP is going to kiss goodbye. Trump is an albatross and the Republican generic poll numbers are murderous. This week Ryan was looking at numbers for his own state where just 36% of likely voters say Trump is doing a good job-- the same number who say that in Michigan, two states that the Kremlin stole for Trump in 2016.

Ryan picked a clone (a corporate lawyer who used to be his driver) to try to defend the seat against Bryce. Ryan's superPAC, Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), isn't getting anywhere and instead is spending money to push an unelectable minor candidate against Bryce, last week by releasing a fake poll pretending the Democratic primary was tied, and this week was in the field with a push poll promoting the weak Democratic candidate who backed Hillary in a district that was firmly in Bernie's corner.

Meanwhile, Ryan is trying to contrast the mainstream of the House GOP with the extremists. He's using the extremists' latest call to impeach Rod Rosenstein to do that. One top GOP staffer told me that the 11 Republicans behind the move are "mostly seen as psychos... and pests." The leader of the pack is Ohio Republican Jim Jordan who's embroiled in 2 cases, spanning decades in which he protected child molesters who were having their way with under-age boys under his care. So far Jordan himself hasn't been accused of sexual relations with under-aged boys but almost a dozen men who were on a wrestling teach he coached have come forward to say he protected the man who was molesting them. In the other case, his staffer, Wes Goodman, was eventually forced to resign from the Ohio state House when it came out, so to speak, that he was having sex with young conservative boys who were impressed with his closeness to Jordan.

When he went on the attack against Rosenstein-- nothing more than a protected way to obstruct justice and derail the Mueller investigation-- Jordan complained about evidence being withheld. "Enough is enough," he whined. "It’s time to hold Mr. Rosenstein accountable for blocking Congress’s constitutional oversight role."

The same GOP House staffer who told me the whole bunch of them are considered "psychos" and "pests," also suggested I look into who exactly was working with Jordan on this. Scott Desjarlaid, a Tennessee doctor who used to drug his female patients and have sex with them when they were semi-conscious, was another misfit behind the push to destroy Rosenstein. "Given many opportunities to cooperate with Congress," he said in a statement, "Rod Rosenstein has demonstrated a chronic inability to answer questions important to our investigation of alleged criminal abuses of intelligence services under the previous administration. Even under subpoena, the Deputy Attorney General has refused to produce necessary documents, because they implicate top Department of Justice and FBI officials, including himself. His own role in fraudulent warrants and wiretapping the President’s campaign is a major conflict of interest that renders him unfit to oversee the Special Counsel or DOJ. Removing Mr. Rosenstein from office is the only option left to Congress."

Ryan made light of their caterwauling by noting to the media that Rosenstein's behavior doesn't rise to the status of a "high crime or misdemeanor," and is basically laughing at them. He told reporters he has no intention of allowing a vote on it. Jordan-- the ex-wrestling coach (like Denny Hastert-- who was eventually put in prison for raping underage boys after denying it for decades, as Jordan has so far)-- is running for the top Republican in the House. In fact, many Republicans say this unserious attempt to impeach Rosenstein-- if they really wanted to do it, it would have been a "privileged motion"-- accomplishes 2 things for Jordan:

1- diverts attention away from his sex scandal
2- helps him promote his bid to replace Ryan in the leadership

One member of Ryan's team, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), who would like to run for Ryan's job himself but is afraid he won't be able to overcome Kevin McCathy, is gambling on backing the far right extremists on this one. He announced yesterday that he supports Jordan and Meadows on impeaching Rosenstein.

Wrestlin' by Chip Proser

Yesterday, in a column in the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin came right to the point-- the top take-away from all this is that The GOP Isn't Fit To Govern "[T]here has been," she reminds her readers, "no finding that Rosenstein is in contempt of Congress or that he has broken any regulation or law. The impeachment resolution is pure piffle. (“A Justice Department official said Wednesday that only one committee request has been formally denied-- a demand to see the unredacted Justice Department memo detailing which Trump associates are under investigation by Mueller and for which potential crimes. Officials declined that request because, they said, providing it could compromise ongoing investigations.”) Not even House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) thinks that the resolution has merit."

Indeed, former Justice Department officials and legal scholars have fretted that Rosenstein has been too accommodating to congressional requests. “The ironic thing about this push is that Rosenstein has done far more to satisfy what are really inappropriate requests from House Republicans than DOJ has ever done before,” former Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller says. “It’s been clear from the beginning that Meadows and company weren’t interested in anything other than shutting down the Mueller investigation, and this ridiculous move makes it even more obvious.”

The damage here is being done not by Rosenstein, but by irresponsible, hyper-partisan congressmen. Former White House ethics counsel Norman Eisen and Fred Wertheimer, founder of Democracy 21, recently wrote about the impeachment gambit:

Key House Republicans are abusing their offices and the public trust to blindly provide protection for [President] Trump. They are doing so instead of working to get to the bottom of the worst foreign attack on American elections in our history.

They need to be called on their scandalous efforts to undermine the Mueller investigation and ignore Russia’s cyber invasion of our democracy. A bipartisan outcry greeted Trump’s Helsinki betrayals. We should be hearing protests at least as loud and bipartisan in response to this parallel-- and equally unmerited-- attack on American law enforcement right here at home.

It is not Rosenstein who should be removed from office, but rather, the House Republican members who are obstructing an ongoing investigation of the Republican president and his cronies. While their actions are protected (most likely) under the "speech or debate" clause (preventing criminal prosecution or civil suit for actions that would otherwise be actionable), their pattern of conduct (cooking up a misleading memo about the FISA warrant application for Carter Page’s surveillance, exposing a confidential intelligence source, smearing the FBI) amounts to multiple blatant attempts to thwart an entirely legitimate investigation. If anyone in the White House is conspiring with them to interfere with the investigation, such individuals could be investigated for obstruction of justice.

“This is a cynical, corrupt effort to kneecap the legitimate investigation of Jordan’s and Meadows’s ally, the president,” Eisen tells me. “Their gambit is entirely divorced from the reality of Rosenstein‘s compliance with congressional requests , which has been quite good on his part. For that reason, it is highly likely to fail.” He observes that a similar effort with “the same actors previously tried the same ploy with another set of baseless allegations, against IRS Commissioner [John] Koskinen. They were defeated by an overwhelming bipartisan vote and the same thing will likely happen here.” He concludes, “Unfortunately, real harm will be done to an outstanding public servant and to law enforcement itself in the process. Jordan and Meadows surely know that and are proceeding anyhow to protect the president. What a betrayal of their oaths-- and their country.”

...Ironically, Republicans have been arguing that if Democrats ever get control of Congress, they will tie the place up with bogus impeachment hearings and create gridlock. No, Republicans are doing that all on their own. “It’s a PR stunt that nobody who knows anything about impeachment could take seriously,” says constitutional scholar Larry Tribe. “But it will do great harm anyway by contributing to the degradation of the impeachment power, making it harder to use when it is truly needed to rein in a would be-dictator.” Referencing his book with Joshua Matz, To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment, Tribe tells me this is why he and Matz argue that “casual and frequent impeachment talk can damage the already frayed fabric of our dangerously polarized polity.”

Trust Jim Jordan? by Chip Proser

Time For New Congressional Leaders? Sure, But Better Ones, Not Worse Ones

Years of targeting by right-wing media have made Nancy Pelosi one of the most unpopular politicians in America. Democrats like her though-- and especially her own constituents, Her congressional district had the biggest primary turnout of any congressional district in California... by far. In some cases turnout was double that of other districts! And she won in a landslide. But the Republican attacks actually have penetrated one group: Democratic politicians-- both congressional incumbents and especially candidates. Incumbents are so ready to throw her overboard that many are pledging to support former New Dem chieftain, Joe Crowley, the single most corrupt Democrat in the House, completely a creature of Wall Street, who may lose his primary to a 28 year old political novice, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday. If you've been reading DWT for the last decade you know I'm not a big Pelosi fan-- but she's far better than Crowley any day of the week.

On Wednesday, Politico reported that a boatload of Democratic challengers have publicly rejected her on the campaign trail, some viewing to vote against her. "If Democrats win the House by a narrow margin, the 78-year-old leader could lose only a handful of lawmakers' support and still secure the 218 votes needed to clinch the speakership in a floor vote. In that scenario, Pelosi would face a freshman class with a significant bloc of Democrats who are on record promising to oppose her or calling for new leadership. Of the more than a dozen Democratic candidates who have survived their primaries and rejected Pelosi, most are in districts that top the list of targeted 2018 seats. Whether those statements translate into ‘no’ votes against Pelosi-- when she’ll have enormous sway over new lawmakers’ committee assignments and other perks, and a presumably fierce whip effort on her behalf-- is impossible to know."

Clarke Tucker’s first general election ad [above] for an Arkansas-based House race tries to defuse one of the GOP’s most potent attacks: “I’ve said from Day One,” the Democrat declares, “that I won’t vote for Nancy Pelosi.”

Tucker, an Arkansas legislator who’s running against Rep. French Hill (R-AR), is one of at least 20 House Democratic challengers who’ve publicly rejected the minority leader on the campaign trail.

A trend that started in earnest with Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA), who won a special election deep in Trump country, has spread rapidly to encompass a growing cadre of candidates-- many in must-win districts for Democrats-- that threatens Pelosi’s nearly sixteen-year grip on the party’s leadership.

The Democrats disavowing Pelosi cross ideological and geographical lines, hailing from districts that the party must win in 2018 to eliminate its 23-seat deficit in the House. Eleven of the candidates already are on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Red to Blue” program, a list of top-tier candidates in highly targeted races.

Gil Cisneros got a $2 million boost from the national Democratic Party in his Southern California primary but told Politico that he won’t be voting for Pelosi because “new leadership is needed.” Danny O’Connor is airing ads in a House special election in Ohio declaring that he won’t support the leader. Max Rose, who’s running for a coveted Staten Island-based seat, also said he wouldn't back her.

Cisneros is a worthless Republican pretending to be a Democrat. He bought the Democratic nomination with money he won in the lottery and was actually pushed by Pelosi's DCCC over far better candidates. He's a stinking pile of crap and if he provides the final vote to take her down, she'll probably deserve it-- though the country won't, not if we wind up with Hoyer or Crowley. Danny O'Connor is another conservative who is unlikely to win his race and Max Rose is an outright, admitted Blue Dog who will probably be as bad a member of Congress --if he manages to beat progressive Michael DeVito on Tuesday-- as Dan Donovan, the Republican incumbent. Rose, who doesn't have a single qualification to hold political office: "If the Democratic Party is going to earn back the trust of the American people then we need to show them that we are serious about changing our politics-- and that means we need a change in leadership." O'Connor's ad:



I dread the idea of seeing a coward like this in Congress. He's the kind of crap that has ruined the Democratic brand and made the Ohio Party absolutely worthless.

So far, there’s been no retribution for the candidates who’ve snubbed Pelosi. DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Lujan said that the committee “trusts our candidates” on how to address Pelosi in their districts. The DCCC has reserved millions in TV ads for candidates who don’t support her.

Pelosi is one of the biggest-- if not the biggest-- drag on Democrats running for the House, according to some Democratic pollsters. Republicans have happily exploited that weakness, raining down Pelosi-themed TV ads on special election candidates in Georgia, Montana and Pennsylvania.

“With very few exceptions, the biggest hurdle, the biggest vulnerability for Democratic candidates is Nancy Pelosi, and the strongest card the Republicans can play is attaching a candidate to Pelosi,” said a Democratic pollster, who works with some House candidates who have disavowed Pelosi. The pollster, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy, added: “Most of this is about mitigating and diluting the effectiveness of that attack.”

But the public polling on Pelosi’s effect on candidates is mixed. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in April found that 60 percent of voters don’t think a position on Pelosi is important to their congressional candidate choice, while an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released earlier this month found that 45 percent of voters said they were less likely to support a House candidate if they backed the leader.

Democrats often point to Lamb, who won a special election in southwestern Pennsylvania in March, as the blueprint for addressing the Pelosi problem. Lamb weathered $10 million in Republican attack ads casting him as a stooge of the Democratic leader. Lamb responded with a TV ad of him speaking directly into the camera and calling the attacks “a big lie. I’ve already said on the front page of the newspaper that I don’t support Nancy Pelosi.”

...Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY) last week joined a small group of House Democrats who have publicly said they would not support her in November.

“I have members who have come up to me since [the story broke] and said, ‘I’ve got to do this.’ By me taking a kind of aggressive approach, I create some space, I guess, for those members,” Higgins said in an interview. “I have one vote and I have one voice but so does everybody else.”

A message to idiot Democrats in the House: by all means, dump Pelosi, but not for someone worse. Get a better leader, not a worse one. Joe Crowley is worse, much, much worse.

By the way, this probably with party leaders who have worn out their welcomes is not just a Democratic Party. Mitch McConnell has afar worse favorable rating from the public than Pelosi does. He's hated by Democrats and Republicans. And not off the hook from his own base in Kentucky. He may have more problems from Kentucky votes than from Senate Republicans. In an interview with the Lexington Herald Leader crackpot Governor Matt Bevin (R) said he does not rule out a bid against against him. He was whining that McConnell hasn't repealed ObamaCare.

Bevin said he had heard that Republicans were worried that re-visiting the failed effort would "put a tempest in the teapot" and dampen voter enthusiasm in November.

"Trust me, they will if we don't address this," he said.

Senate Republicans turned to taxes after the collapse last year of their effort to repeal Obamacare. McConnell has said he wants the Senate to spend this summer working on spending bills and presidential nominees. 
...He warned that the Affordable Care Act will only get harder to repeal as time goes on.

Bevin put $1,239,648 of his own money into a primary challenge against McConnell in 2014. He riled about right-wing extremists and was able to spend $4,485,900 in the primary-- and had his ass handed to him:

• McConnnell- 213,753 (60.2%)
• Bevin- 125,787 (35.4%)

Of course Bevin is much better known now than he was in 2014... and McConnell is much more disliked than was back then. It would be a wonderful race to watch-- at least for Democrats.