Cheri Bustos And Hakeem Jeffries Bring Civil War To The House Democratic Caucus

As always, Hakeem sides with the establishment

After AOC shook the political establishment to its foundations by defeating "the next Speaker of the House," unsavory Queens Machine boss Joe Crowley-- already a sleaze bag K Street lobbyist-- the top House Democratic leadership-- all close to being octogenarians working to preserve the status quo-- or, at best, the status quo ante-- had to find another "next Speaker." As Politico noted yesterday, they seem to be settling for Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Another contender, they warn us is tone-def conservative Blue Dog, Cheri Bustos, a Rahm Emanuel protégé from northwestern Illinois.

Jeffries, first and foremost, a careerist, represents an all blue Brooklyn/Queens district that goes from Hamilton Beach and Howard Beach into Bed-Stuy, Canarsie, Flatlands, and then a narrow strip along the Belt Parkway into Manhattan Beach all the way to the tip of Coney Island. There are some right-wing Russian Jews in the district and Trump won 13.5% in 2016, but that's no threat to Jeffries. Only 22.1% of the district's voters are white and the PVI is an unassailable D+36. Jeffries was elected in 2012 with 90% of the vote, reelected in 2014 with 92% and for 93.2% in 2016. Last year he won with 94.2%.

What about his voting record? It's good. (Bustos' is really bad-- Progressive Punch rates her an "F" and her lifetime crucial vote score-- 52.04%-- is even worse than Dan Lipinski's putrid 57.93%.) By the book, Jeffries is the 49th most progressive voter in the House (92.48%) with a nice solid "A-- about the same numbers as Maxine Waters and Jared Huffman... and slightly better than another progressive up-and-coming leader, David Cicilline and a couple points better than Joe Kennedy III. So why is it that so many CPC members have told me he's a "faker" and a "fraud?"

Everyone I spoke with agrees the progressives "dodged a bullet" when AOC took out Crowley. "Jeffries would be much better than Crowley," was something I heard over and over again. But... he's a "calculating, self-promoter" and "always thinking about what's it going to do for him-- not that unusual in Congress," but not always attractive in a leader. Inside the caucus, all the calculations about him revolve around identity politics and there's an inevitability now about his rise. Members are beginning to ask him for favors, fostering client/patron relationships.

One member told me he's kind of a "fun guy, genuinely liked, fun to be around... good sense of humor, liked by everyone in the Congressional Black Caucus." He's widely seen as the natural successor to the now doddering Jim Clyburn-- someone who Pelosi reckons can deliver New York and African-American votes in Congress, especially important with a sense that's developed in the caucus that Californians have too much power.

All well and good, but why is there a feeling of inauthenticity and why do so many members of the CPC sense he's just a careerist in it for himself with no devotion to any ideology. One explained it by saying his socialization was as a "$600/hour Paul, Weiss corporate lawyer serving the master called 'money.' The fact that he took on Barbara Lee [in a leadership battle] indicates that he's more about personal power than ideology." A very observant congresswoman told me "he recognizes who his constituents are and what the ideology of New York City is... He used to want to be mayor but doesn't see that as his destiny any longer. He doesn't want a fight with his constituents, so he votes his constituency but not out of conviction-- he represents them by voting his district."

Another just dismissed him as someone on the take from Wall Street. The point is, though, that he's not vulnerable to a Republican challenger and not vulnerable to a primary challenge the way Crowley, who had totally lost touch with his district, was. Which means that-- unless House members themselves just say no (unlikely)-- he's on a pathway that could lead to the speakership. And if it really does come down to Jeffries vs Bustos... people will be rushing to vote for Jeffries.

Ironically, this week, he was busy doing something that a)- defended Bustos and b)- reinforced many of the reasons progressives don't trust him. As caucus chair, he puked out Pelosi's insipid and misleading party line everyone's supposed to repeat in front of the media:

"[T]he reality is the DCCC has a singular mission, which is to protect and preserve the majority."

OK, I'll accept that. But what does that have to do with primaries in deep blue districts? Let's rev up the old time machine and go back a couple decades where an ambitious 30year old Hakeem Jeffries challenged an entrenched Democratic incumbent, Roger Green, claiming he had become inattentive to the needs of the constituency and preoccupied with the pursuit of higher office and then slamming him on TV for being "a practicing Muslim and I grew up in the Cornerstone Baptist Church." Jeffries lost by 18 points. Two years later Jeffries tried again-- running an even more vicious primary against Green-- and losing 52-38%. Finally, in 2006 Green retired and Jeffries won his state Assembly seat. Now, remember that Brooklyn-Queens congressional district we mentioned above... the one with the D+36 PVI? Jeffries ambitions quickly outgrew the Assembly and in January of 2012 he announced that he would be primarying the Democrat who represented that safe blue seat, 30-year incumbent Edolphus Towns, a sleazy establishment character. Jeffries immediately and decisively outraised Towns (a huge chunk of it from Wall Street banksters and their lawyers) and Towns announced his retirement 2 weeks after the first quarter fundraising reports were made public. That's how Hakeem Jeffries came to be Pelosi's heir-apparent and why it was so awkward yesterday to see him defending Bustos' anti-primary bullshit.

Yesterday, The Hill reported that "Marie Newman, a Democratic activist who came within 2,100 votes of knocking off Rep. Daniel Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL) in 2018, said the DCCC’s stand was influencing her as she considers whether to take another run at the Chicago Democrat. 'We are weighing that right now. It’s a consideration. If the [DCCC] is going to move in this direction, I’m not going to lie, it’s concerning to me. So that’s one of the final decision points,' Newman told The Hill. 'When you’re going to those lengths to ensure that incumbents, no matter who they are, stay in office, that feels like overreach. The policy feels like overreach to me, because it doesn’t feel like it’s entirely democratic, small d.'" You can contribute to progressives running primaries against corrupt conservative Democratic incumbents being protected by the DCCC by clicking on the ActBlue thermometer above.



Mike DeBonis and Rachael Bade, from for the Washington Post reported that Bustos-- with Pelosi's encouragement-- has dug in her heels. She snarled at Mark Pocan, Pramila Jayapal and Ro Khanna, "We’re not changing it."

The defiance comes amid a direct challenge from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who told her 3.8 million Twitter followers Saturday-- a day before a key end-of-quarter fundraising deadline-- to “pause your donations” to the DCCC in protest and instead donate directly to select Democratic incumbents.

  Three days later, the results of the informal boycott remain unclear. A DCCC official not authorized to publicly discuss the committee’s fundraising said the group had not seen “measurable downticks” in giving because of the tweets. Meanwhile, two lawmakers promoted by Ocasio-Cortez said they each saw a more than $30,000 boost from the online call-out-- a significant but not game-changing total.

As always, AOC sides with the oppressed

But the tensions among Democrats are certain to persist. “Well, some are upset, some are not,” said Pelosi, who was briefed on the policy and approved it before the rollout last month.

According to interviews with nearly a dozen Democrats, the policy will probably stand as praise from House incumbents who want more protection has drowned out the criticism from a handful of liberal lawmakers and left-wing groups.

“Attempting to engage in intraparty campaigns is counterproductive-- period,” said Rep. Jim Costa, a California moderate who called Ocasio-Cortez’s boycott inappropriate. [I checked their reporting very carefully and regret too say there is absolutely no moderate in the state of California named Jim Costa. There is however a filthy very far right Blue Dog from California, who hires underage prostitutes and votes with the GOP and his name is also Jim Costa. They probably meant him.]

“I just raised about 330-something thousand dollars for the DCCC, so why are we going to reward companies that are going to be going after folks that have paid their dues?” asked Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), a moderate who represents a largely Latino border district. “I totally support Cheri Bustos.”

Again, I carefully checked and found that there is no moderate congressman from Texas named Henry Cuellar. Bade and DeBonis need to do their homework better. I think they must have meant a far right Blue Dog also named Henry Cuellar, formerly known as "George Bush's favorite Democrat, who represents a district very much like the one they described-- TX-28, which has a 78.5% Latino population, gave Hillary a 20 point win over Trump, and has a PVI of D+9. He has a solid "F" ProgressiveVote score, has a default position on crucial issues that takes him across the aisle on roll call votes more than almost any Democrat in Congress and that his 56.9% Trump adhesion score makes him the most Trump-friendly Democrat in Congress. Aside from 3 Blue Dog freshmen who seem to be on a suicide mission bent on turning Democrats against them-- Van Drew, McAdams and Cunningham-- Cuellar has the worst voting record in Congress. Anyway, he supports Bustos because he's primary target #1 for every progressive group in the country and he's the one her wrong-headed policy was designed to protect.

"Henry votes with us less than Brian Fitzpatrick and Justin Amash" [two Republicans] another House Democrat told me in confidence. "I understand why you guys want to replace him with a real Democrat... It's a shame Cheri is tearing up the party to try to protect someone like him."

The backlash from the party’s left was immediate. Justice Democrats, a group with close ties to Ocasio-Cortez that has targeted incumbents, told its social media followers that the DCCC “prefers protecting conservative Democrats . . . over ushering in a new generation of bold progressive leaders.”

The need to protect the House majority, the critics argued, was not being threatened by challenging incumbents in deep-blue districts where Republicans had virtually no chance of victory.

But the new policy was written largely respond to those very lawmakers, who have complained for years about how they are expected to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in party dues but, because they are rarely in a competitive general election contest, are unlikely to see any DCCC investment in their races. It’s a particularly sore subject for many minority lawmakers, who argue it is more difficult to raise those dues in their relatively poor districts. Rep. Don Beyer (New Dem-VA), a DCCC finance co-chairman, said the hard feelings were understandable. “It’s really hard to go say . . . ‘Please pay your $150,000 dues or your $300,000 dues, and we may use it to hire vendors who are going to run against you in a primary,’” he said. “That’s an impossible ask to make.”

That tension has been exacerbated by a push on the left to unseat a handful of veteran Democrats in safe districts. Two incumbent Democrats lost last year to more-liberal challengers-- Crowley and Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-MA)-- and several others faced unusually potent challenges, including Reps. Yvette D. Clarke (NY.), William Lacy Clay (MO) and Daniel Lipinski (IL). Outside groups that backed those challengers, such as the Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress, and pledging to do the same in 2020.

This is about us working as a team,” he said, while also issuing a threat: “To me, there are people on part of Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, who are trying to devastate this party. . . And they want to come back again this year? That’s fine. I’m gonna kick their [posterior] again, okay?”

The tensions over the new policy broke into the open last week after Bustos met privately with three members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus-- co-chairs Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), as well as Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), a liberal firebrand who beat veteran Democrat Mike Honda in 2016.

According to multiple Democrats, the DCCC’s traditional role of standing on the sidelines during primaries has been a sore subject since at least 2014-- when Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) faced a challenger advised by a top Democratic pollster, Celinda Lake, who was simultaneously doing work for the DCCC.

Clay, who beat challenger Cori Bush last year by 20 percentage points, praised Bustos for the new policy in an interview, calling it a matter of “fairness.”

In the meeting, the liberals argued that Bustos’s new policy risked alienating the party’s energetic left and excluding potential Democratic stars, pointing to former congressman Beto O’Rourke (TX) as well as Reps. Eric Swalwell (CA), Ayanna Pressley (MA) and Seth Moulton (MA)-- all of whom beat veteran incumbents.

Bustos listened and clarified misconceptions about the policy, but didn’t budge, according to two people familiar with the conversation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss the talks. Khanna left furious and immediately began publicizing his opposition to reporters, as liberal outside groups including Democracy for America and Our Revolution waded into the fight, sending letters to their supporters calling them to protest the policy.

Jayapal and Pocan, meanwhile, are hewing to a less confrontational approach. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has yet to take an official position on the DCCC policy, and many of its roughly 90 members are wary of promoting any boycott.

"We don't want to blow up the caucus around this," Jayapal said Monday. We want to come to a resolution.

...Privately, the liberal lawmakers opposing the policy are discussing some sort of compromise they could offer Bustos. Some liberals have also contacted Democratic presidential candidates to try to get them involved in the internal dispute, hoping outside pressure could move the conversation in their direction. O’Rourke would be nowhere, they argue, if the DCCC had hindered his challenge of incumbent Rep. Silvestre Reyes in a 2012 primary.

I wouldn't wait around for Beto to take a stand on this-- unless someone from Team Beto runs focus group tests and they turn up to be wildly popular among likely voters.

Oh God! A Speaker From Brooklyn?

Manny and Hakeem

The way Brooklyn was divided up into congressional districts when I was growing up was different back then. I mostly grew up on East 16th street and Avenue P, the exact border (depending on which side of the street you lived) between what is now Yvette Clarke's 9th district and Dan Donovan's/Max Rose's 11th district and then in Atlantic Towers in Sheepshead Bay, where, today Hakeen Jeffries 8th district meets Yvette Clarke's 9th. Back in the day, it was all Manny Celler's district. Celler's was a legendary figure who, when he died in 1981 (age 92-- born in 1888), the NY Times called "one of the most influential New Yorkers who ever served in the House." He served during the administrations of 7 presidents starting with Warren G. Harding. Over the course of his 50 years in Congress his district was numbered and renumbered NY-10, NY-15, NY-11, NY-10 again and finally, NY-16. But it was always, basically, the most Jewish and most liberal part of Brooklyn.

His first blockbuster move in the House-- in 1924-- was to lead the opposition to an ugly xenophobic immigration bill proposed by Rep. Albert Johnson (R-WA) and Senator David Reed (R-PA) that sought to severely limit the number of Jews, Italians, Greeks, Poles, Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgarians, Serbians, Ukrainians, Muslims, Japanese, Koreans and Chinese immigrants and to deport large numbers who were already in the U.S. Despite Celler's strenuous efforts, H.R. 7995 passed the House, 323-71, and was signed by Calvin Coolidge on May 24, 1924. It wasn't until 1952 and 1965 that these restricts were eased. During World War II, Celler led the fight to force FDR to relax the restricts on refugees fleeing the Nazi Holocaust.

In 1950 Celler was the lead House sponsor of Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver's bill to strengthen anti-trust legislation and protect consumers from monopolies. At the same time, he was one of the only members of Congress willing to take on McCarthyism. "Deliberately and calculatedly, McCarthyism has set before itself the task of undermining the faith of the people in their Government," he thundered at the 1952 Democratic National Convention. "It has undertaken to sow suspicion everywhere, to set friend against friend and brother against brother. It deals in coercion and in intimidation, tying the hands of citizens and officials with the fear of the smear attack."

As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from 1949 to 1973 (except for a brief break in 1952 when the GOP controlled the House for 2 years), Celler was involved in drafting and passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1965, he proposed the 25th Amendment, which might help us get rid of Trump. 50 years in Congress... a stunning record of accomplishment and no talk of any advancement beyond that.

I want to compare that to someone who sits in part of his seat now, 48 year old Hakeem Jeffries, basically an unaccomplished political hack and self-promoter who lost his first race after accusing his opponent, Assemblyman Roger Green, of being a Muslim. Six years later, in 2006, Green retired and Jeffries grabbed the seat. In 2012 he decided to take on corrupt Congressman Edolphus Towns but Towns announced his retirement instead and Jeffries beat a more progressive city councilman, Charles Barron, in the primary-- spreading around talking points that he was the "Barack Obama of Brooklyn" and that Barron was anti-Semitic and would not protect Israel. Jeffries was heavily supported by Wall Street banksters, hedge fund managers and charter school interests, refused to debate and went on to win the seat. [So far Jeffries has taken $982,984 from the financial sector. 48.71% of his campaign cash comes from PACs and only 1.28% from small individual contributors.]

He's generally considered a Wall Street Democrat and an AIPAC Democrat and he successfully got himself labeled a "rising star." On November 28 he celebrated the dubious distinction of defeating-- with the help of conservative Democrats-- Barbara Lee to become Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, following in the footsteps on another corrupt Wall Street shill, Joe Crowley, widely touted as the "next Speaker" until Alexandria Ocasio defeated him in a primary earlier this year. And now he's spreading the word that he's the "next Speaker." Politico, of course, bit-- hook, line and sinker: ‘What Obama had, he has that’: Jeffries’ stock rises as Pelosi successor. Heather Caygle, Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan reported that Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA), one of the most corrupt and conservative Democrats in Congress and a Jeffries backer, crowed after Jeffries beat Barbara Lee that "What Obama had, he has that. I call it lightning in a bottle. I do think he’s somebody that could, with a few breaks, become our speaker and also our president. He has that talent." Vargas-- who was considered the worst member of the California legislature when state Dems backed his congressional bid to get him out of Sacramento-- wouldn't recognize talent if it bit him in the ass.

More than a few Democrats see Jeffries’ youth and Brooklyn swagger-- he’s been known to quote rapper Biggie Smalls on the House floor-- as the antidote for a caucus long ruled by a pack of old-school septuagenarians. But the speakership is far from guaranteed.

With Nancy Pelosi’s grip on the gavel likely secure for at least the next two years, Jeffries, 48, would first have to elbow aside others on a leadership team that’s suddenly brimming with young upstarts. He also must navigate some of the same land mines that tripped up his fellow New Yorker, outgoing Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley.

Crowley, too, was often whispered about as the heir apparent to Pelosi’s throne. That is, until he was ousted in a primary upset by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in June. And now Ocasio-Cortez reportedly has Jeffries in her cross hairs, as she and some of her liberal allies consider trying to take him out in 2020.

Caygle, Bade and Bresnahan laughably construct a future race for Speaker as one being between conservative "rising stars" Ben Ray Luján (NM), crediting him with winning the 2018 midterms, Blue Dog Cheri Bustos, a Rahm Emanuel protégé, who has never accomplished anything and progressives Katherine Clark (MA) and David Cicilline (RI), a good voter but, unfortunately, a bit of a stiff, who may have trouble holding onto his seat after Rhode Island loses one of its two House seats in 2022.

“In terms of whether or not I am as progressive as Barbara Lee, I plead guilty as charged,” Jeffries said. “Neither are 434 members of the United States House of Representatives.”

Jeffries pointed to his voting record to push back on the notion that he’s a moderate in any sense of the word: “My record, based on what outside groups have determined to be the case, places me squarely within the top 25 most progressive members of the United States Congress. The record speaks for itself.”

Jeffries has supporters at the ready to fight for him. After Politico reported that Ocasio-Cortez and leaders of the progressive Justice Democrats were toying with the idea of supporting a primary challenger to Jeffries, multiple lawmakers came to his defense.

“[S]he’s helping stir enthusiasm for the domestic agenda that’s really been blocked for years by Republican leadership, but the reality is these are the same policies that my best friend Congressman Jeffries has been a leader on for years,” Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana said of Ocasio-Cortez. “She has been rightly calling for people to give her a chance, not to prejudge her leadership and potential. I hope that she gives the same courtesy to Congressman Jeffries.”

Added New York Rep. Kathleen Rice [another corrupt Wall Street New Dem]: “This whole concept of ‘if you do not subscribe to the 15 principles of the Justice Democrats, you’re not a Democrat,’ it flies in the face of what I think is the best thing about the Democratic Party, which is we are truly a big tent party.”

Jeffries’ allies also argue that just because he’s an effective legislator doesn’t mean he’s not a true-blue progressive. Jeffries has had seven bills passed in a GOP-controlled House, four enacted into law. That record, they say, shows he knows how to get things done.

...Jeffries credits House Democrats’ romp to winning 40 new seats on election night to a strategy he, Bustos and Cicilline crafted as co-chairs of House Democrats’ communications arm: ignoring Trump and adopting a tunnel-vision focus on pocketbook issues, including protecting people with pre-existing medical conditions and hammering the GOP’s “tax scam.”

Throughout the campaign cycle, the trio reminded lawmakers on a weekly basis to stay on message, even printing little note cards displaying their talking points to reinforce that strategy.

“Now this so-called tax cut is more unpopular than tax increases that have been enacted by the United States Congress!” Jeffries boasted. “We lost the legislative battle. We won the messaging war.”

But it’s more than just a having a simple message. Jeffries says Democrats have to avoid getting in the mud with Trump when he goads them.

“Trump is Trump, but you have to make a strategic decision. Are you going to take the bait or not?” he said. “Don’t take the bait. Don’t take the bait.”

One person unlikely to stand in Jeffries’ way if he ultimately goes for the speaker’s gavel? Clyburn, currently the highest ranking African-American in Congress and a veteran politician who had previously toyed with the idea of running for speaker himself.

“I think that Hakeem Jeffries has everything it takes to be the speaker of the House,” Clyburn said. “I look forward to being around, if not inside the Congress, hopefully from the clubhouse at the Santee Cooper Golf Course when he takes his next step up.”

Jeffries is an avid self-promoter and, basically a follower of the crowd... not a leader. So, of course, don't be surprised that he hasn't signed onto the Green New Deal. I'd be surprised if he even understands what it is, although when most Democrats back it, he will too. There have been 54 House speakers since the office was created in 1789. Two were New Yorkers-- John Taylor (Albany) in 1820 and again in 1825 and Theodore Pomeroy (Syracuse) in 1869-- and none have ever been from Brooklyn, not even the great Manny Celler.

The Best Primary Targets For The 2020 Cycle-- And Blue America's First 2020 Congressional Endorsement

Blue America loves a good primary battle against a stinking incumbent-- and we've been involved with them when other Democrat groups were still looking askance at them... as though incumbents somehow "owned" the seats they were representing and and primary was an affront. We worked on primaries against some of the worst Democrats in Congress-- Rahm Emanuel (New Dem-IL), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL), Steny Hoyer (MD), John Barrow (GA), Darren Soto (FL), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL-- see you soon, again, Dan) and the successful ones against Joe Crowley (New Dem-NY), Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA), Silvestre Reyes (TX) and Al Wynn (MD). One thing I've learned is that among all the necessary components to a successful primary you need a solid villain and you need a driven, compelling candidate. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Matt Cartwright, Beto O'Rourke and Donna Edwards are classic examples of winning primary candidates.

I talked to potential candidates against Crowley for years and never came up with the right one. Ocasio-Cortzez was a self-starter, who wasn't waiting for anyone to give her permission. The Democratic political establishment hates primaries against incumbents and they come down on challengers like a ton of bricks, as they did against her and against Cartwright, O'Rourke and Edwards, none of whom buckled in the slightest.

Persuading voters that their congressman is a villain is never easy. Never. But I've put together a short list of the best Democratic primary targets in the House for the 2020 cycle. It's based on how much the incumbent deserves a primary and takes into account how winnable the primary would be with a good, solid challenger. Left out are even the worst freshmen since none of them have a relevant record yet. Yet.

• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)- workin' on it- D+6
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- D+9
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- workin' on it- D+9
• Frank Pallone (NJ)- workin' on it- D+9
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- R+12
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- R+3
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)- D+7
• Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY)- workin' on it- D+4
• Tony Cárdenas (New Dem-CA)- D+29
• Al Lawson (New Dem-FL)- D+12
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)- D+37
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- D+6

Yesterday there was a minor fuss online over Hakeem Jeffries, a Wall Street hack from Brooklyn with tremendous ambition. Politico reported that Alexandria Ocasio and the Justice Democrats are planning to primary him. He's far from my favorite Democrat but I don't know he rises to the best target. His voting record is good ("A" from ProgressivePunch) and it would be really to successfully paint him as a villain in that district (where I used to live). The PVI Is D+36, so obviously there's no worries about defeating him and seeing a Republican grab the seat, which is exactly what would happen after a successful primary against Collin Peterson. (The district starts at the tip of Coney Island, moves east through Sheepshead Bay, north through Flatlands, Mill Basin, Canarsie, East New York, Howard Beach, Ozone Park, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Clinton Hill and west into Downtown Brooklyn.)

I think they may be overstating Ocasio's role in this. But, who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. According to Politico, "The person who spoke with Ocasio-Cortez and her team, who asked for anonymity to discuss a private conversation, called Jeffries the 'highest priority' primary target of Ocasio-Cortez." Seems silly to me when there are far better targets like Lipinski in Chicago and Greg Meeks right there in NYC. Politico: "Challenging Jeffries would open an audacious new front in Ocasio-Cortez’s efforts to steer the direction of the Democratic Party, pitting her and allies against a rising-star African-American Democrat seen by some as a potential future speaker of the House. It would also set off another intra-party New York City brawl-- Jeffries’ Brooklyn district is just a few miles south of Ocasio-Cortez’s Bronx-and-Queens seat-- that would peak just as Democrats hope to rally around a presidential nominee in mid-2020."

The fact that a corrupt corporate Democrat beholden to Wall Street is being talked about in establishment circles as a future Speaker is actually a good reason to consider short-circuiting his career now. I know for sure that Crowley fund-raising was easier because he had been picked by the establishment to follow Pelosi in the role.

Jeffries has sparked the ire of Justice Democrats for several reasons. The group feels Jeffries takes too much money from corporate interests, a key litmus test, and is overly friendly with banking and pro-charter school interests. But Ocasio-Cortez is also unhappy that a campaign donation to her from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) was allegedly used in a whisper campaign against Lee before her narrow loss to Jeffries in the recent race for Democratic caucus chair-- a charge those allegedly involved have called a complete falsehood.

“It’s personal for Ocasio,” said the person who spoke with Ocasio-Cortez and her staff. "And she’s going to go all out to take him out.”

...Jeffries, a former state legislator who was first elected to Congress in 2012 after running an aggressive primary campaign against former Rep. Ed Towns, forcing him into retirement, represents a majority-black Brooklyn district that’s 23 percent white and 18 percent Latino. Voters there went against Ocasio-Cortez’s preferred candidates for governor and attorney general in 2018 primaries-- Cynthia Nixon and Zephyr Teachout-- instead backing Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Attorney General-elect Letitia James.

Jeffries has climbed the ranks of Congress while working across the aisle, and he is on the cusp of seeing the First Step Act, which he co-sponsored, become law. It would be the fourth bill he's shepherded through the House to be signed into law. The sweeping criminal justice reform measure is expected to pass the Senate this week after years of haggling in both chambers. It reforms prison sentencing, reducing the “three strikes” penalty for drug offenses and giving judges latitude to make exceptions to mandatory minimum guidelines.

Jeffries’ allies said he will be well-prepared to defend his seat-- the former corporate lawyer for CBS and Viacom has more than $1 million on hand after the 2018 cycle, according to OpenSecrets.

"There is no one who knows their district better than Hakeem Jeffries," said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY). "Hakeem is and will continue to work the district, and he will continue to win by large margins, so, ultimately, whoever primaries him will be wasting their time and their money."

...Justice Democrats-backed primary challenges could sprout elsewhere around the country, too. Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, a Blue Dog Democrat who in the past has won endorsements from the conservative Club for Growth and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is also on Justice Democrats’ early target list, according to the person with knowledge of the group’s plans.

Justice Democrats said that in 2020 it hopes to challenge more Democrats who, like Crowley, it considers too closely aligned with special interests and it says don’t demographically reflect districts that are minority-white.

“We’re going to double down on primary challenges and look at some of these white, male corporate Democrats similar to Joe Crowley," said Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats. "Many of these places are majority or plurality people-of-color districts that don’t demographically or policy-wise reflect the diverse working class communities they often serve.”

Rep. Scott Peters (New Dem-CA), a leader of the moderate New Democrat Coalition, which has been a target of criticism for progressives, voiced frustrations with Ocasio-Cortez’s push to primary Democrats.

"This majority was made by New Dems and Blue Dogs,” Peters said, referring to a second Democratic caucus considered more centrist than the New Democrats. "It was not made by turning seats from blue to blue. It was made by those people who turned seats from red to blue. If we want to keep the majority, those are the people we should be listening to."

"We should not be listening to people who don’t represent that mainstream voter who’s given Democrats the majority," Peters added.

Peters is far from the mainstream of the Democratic Party. He votes against anything progressive as a reflex. His ProgressivePunch "F" grade shows him with the 9th most Republican crucial vote lifetime score of any Democrat in the House. He would certainly be on everyone's list of primary targets except for the fact that he's leaving Congress two run for mayor of San Diego, selling his seat to someone who seems much better-- policy-wise-- than Peters is, his pal Paul Kerr, who ran for Congress in a different district and self-funded his campaign with a $5,912,728 personal check (98% of his campaign funds). All that money and he came in 7th in the primary, behind 3 other Democrats and 3 Republicans.

Anyway, next month Blue America will be revealing our first couple of forays into 2020 primaries. First though, as of this morning, we have our first congressional endorsement: Kara Eastman. Kara, who came very close to defeating Republican incumbent Don Bacon last month, just announced she is seeking a rematch in 2020. The margin between them was less than 2%, just 4,945 votes. Perhaps this time the DCCC will actually give her a hand instead of leaving her to the tender mercies of the GOP congressional SuperPAC and their smear campaign. This morning, Kara told her neighbors in Omaha that "Running for Congress to represent the Nebraska 2nd was the greatest honor of my life. I am proud of our campaign and the enthusiasm we ignited in the district. Donald Trump and Don Bacon continue to fuel the incredible partisan divide in our country. Nebraskans deserve an independent voice who can bring people together and fight for the things we all need and deserve. All Nebraskans should be able to get ahead when they work hard; that means having a living wage, healthcare, and affordable, healthy housing. They also deserve a representative who will fight against the corruption we are seeing in DC and stop the outsized corporate influence in our political system. The recent court ruling to overturn the Affordable Care Act is just another example of the Republican effort to strip healthcare away from Americans without a policy to replace it. Bacon even opposed Medicaid expansion, which passed by more than seven percentage points in our state. He continues to demonstrate that his extreme positions are out of touch with those of his regular working-class constituents. I spent the past two years introducing myself to the Nebraska 2nd, now I am excited to give everyone a chance to really get to know me. I am ready to roll up my sleeves again, talk to voters, and earn their votes in 2020."

If you'd like to join us in welcoming Kara into the 2020 election fray, you can do that right here.

Yes, Let's Have A Big Tent-- While Not Stinking It Up With Anti-Choice Dirt-Bags And Racists

Yesterday, Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), speaking at Boys and Girls High School in Brooklyn, noted how the supporters of the Jim Crow laws that the 60s generation was still fighting are very much alive and well inside the Republican Party, particularly inside the Trump Regime. Thankfully, at this point, we've mostly driven them out of the Democratic Party. Hopefully, forever. "While Jim Crow may be dead, he's got some nieces and nephews that are alive and well. And a few of them are running around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," explained Jeffries to an appreciative audience. Too bad Elijah Cummings and Tom Perez weren't in it.

When I was growing up, the members of Congress who prevented civil rights legislation from passing-- many of them untouchably powerful committee chairmen-- were Democrats, mostly, though not entirely, from the South. Someone should ask Elijah Cummings if he'd want them to be part of his Big Tent too... because I can't imagine many of them would be interested in being in a tent with him if he's being treated equally. Cummings was on Morning Joe yesterday extolling the virtues of the big tent and how fabulous the Blue Dogs-- like the Trumpists, the nieces and nephews of Jim Crow-- are. "Because it's one thing to say, 'OK, I don't want to be bothered with these folks.' It's another thing to say, 'Let's pull them under the tent, so we can be effective and efficient in getting something done.' Period." Tom Perez was on ABC News and very much on the same page: "If you’re going to be a big tent party as we are, and you're going to help elect Democrats who have generated support in their communities ... the will of those voters is the will that we must respect."

They were both talking about anti-Choice Democrats. I don't want to kill them or hurt them or say they can't register as Democrats and vote for Democratic candidates. They're more than welcome to. But they can't be leaders of the party and they can't drag the Democratic Party backwards towards the bad old days. After all, that's what we have a Republican Party to represent. The Democratic Party is a pro-Choice party, the same way the Democratic Party is a pro-equality party. Cummings and Perez might need a little refresher course.

That poll PPP released yesterday showing a mammoth 2018 enthusiasm gap developing for the Democrats is not because the Democrats want to welcome racists and anti-Choice freaks into the party leadership. "Democrats," reports PPP, "lead the generic Congressional ballot 47-41. But what's more notable is the enthusiasm imbalance. 63% of Democrats say they're 'very excited' about voting in the 2018 election, compared to only 52% of Republicans who express that sentiment. When you look at the 2018 House picture just among the voters most excited about turning out next year, the lead for Democrats grows to 19 points at 57-38. Republican leaning voters are comparatively disengaged, with the GOP holding advantages only among voters who are 'somewhat excited' (48- 40) and 'not that excited' (46-31)... One reason for the comparative lack of Republican excitement may be the continued unpopularity of Donald Trump. Only 43% of voters approve of the job he's doing to 50% who disapprove. The core promise of Trump's campaign was to 'Make America Great Again,' but only 35% of voters actually think he's accomplished that goal to 55% who think he hasn't... One finding that may best sum it all up when it comes to how down voters are on Trump: by a 42/40 spread, they have a higher opinion of United Airlines than they do of him."

Ryan and McConnell, tied to the Republican Party's despised anti-Choice and racist policies, are colossally unpopular. Who wants to invite that stinking pile of garbage into the Democratic tent? Oh, right: Elijah Cummings, Tom Perez and, of course, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. If the Democratic Party doesn't stand for something besides coddling Wall Street campaign donors, it will wind up as hated as the Republican Party-- and deservedly so.

Momentum Grows For Iran Deal-- Despite Schumer/AIPAC Threats

AIPAC whore Chuck Schumer has cemented his alliance with Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) and other reactionaries who want to lead the U.S. into a war with Iran, by working the phones-- not just Senate colleagues, but frightened House Democrats as well who are being threatened with political extermination by AIPAC bullies. Many minority members recall vividly how AIPAC was able to use its money and influence to wreck the political careers of African American Democrats Cynthia McKinney (GA) and Earl Hilliard (AL). Members of color are particularly susceptible to AIPAC threats, especially when a corrupt powermonger like Chuck Schumer and henchmen like Eliot Engel and Steve Israel are spewing them. Yes, the vile Steve Israel is helping Schumer whip against the Iran deal-- this Steve Israel:

My "Representative" Steve Israel is more than someone with whom I disagree with politically. He is a man with the moral fiber to stiff a Synagogue out of thousands of dollars when he decided to move (a debt that was eventually paid by an anonymous donor when a member of the Synagogue's board threatened to release the info to the press-- yes that was me).

This morning PPP released a new survey showing that Israel's, Engel's and Schumer's attempts to stampede minority congressmembers in New York, like Hakeem Jeffries, are based on pure bullshit:

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds that there’s broad support for the Iran deal among voters in New York City and that Democratic elected officials will benefit politically, particularly within their party base, if they support the agreement.

Key findings from the survey include:

• 58% of New York City voters support the Iran deal, compared to only 35% who oppose it. Democrats (61/28) and independents (62/34) both give it strong support.

What’s particularly noteworthy is how consistent support for the deal is along various demographic lines. Women support it 59/32, and men support it as well at 55/39. African Americans (73/17) give it resounding support and so do majorities of Hispanic voters (54/37) and whites (52/44). And voters in every age group from young voters (62/20) to seniors (57/31) give it their backing too.

• Only 33% of voters in the city want to see their members of Congress block the agreement and prevent it from being implemented, compared to 59% who want their members to let the agreement go forward. Strong majorities of both Democrats (64/27) and independents (61/32) think their members should vote for the deal to proceed.

• There’s no risk of backlash from constituents for Democratic members who vote to let the deal move forward- in fact if anything they’re likely to benefit. 47% of voters say they’d be more likely to vote in the future for someone who supported the Iran agreement, compared to only 30% who say they’d be less likely to vote for someone who supported it.

Most notably though among Democratic voters who are the ones that matter in primary elections, 54% are more likely to vote for someone who supports the agreement to only 25% who say they’d be less likely to. No one is going to risk a primary challenge by supporting the deal.

The politics on the Iran agreement in New York City are pretty clear-- voters strongly support the agreement, they want their elected officials to move it forward, and if there are any future political ramifications for New York area Democrats who support the deal, they’re positive ones.

Also this morning, Al Franken, a Jewish senator from Minnesota, released a statement explaining why he is backing the Iran deal.

After careful review, I have decided that I will vote in support of the agreement the United States and our international partners reached with Iran last month.

It's not a conclusion I came to lightly. Since the deal was announced, I've consulted with nuclear and sanctions experts inside and outside government; Obama administration officials, including Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz; ambassadors from the other countries that negotiated alongside us; advocates for Israel on both sides of the issue; my constituents in Minnesota; and, of course, my colleagues in the Senate.

Many have expressed reservations about the deal, and I share some of those reservations. It isn't a perfect agreement.

But it is a strong one. This agreement is, in my opinion, the most effective, realistic way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon anytime in the next 15 years. It does so by imposing a series of physical limits on Iran's nuclear program, especially its production of the fissile material it would require to make a bomb. The agreement's verification provisions are extremely strong: 24/7 monitoring of, and unfettered access to, Iran's nuclear sites and ongoing surveillance of Iran's nuclear supply chain.

That means: In order to make a nuclear weapon in the next 15 years, Iran would have to reconstruct every individual piece of the chain-- the mining, the milling, the production of centrifuges, and more-- separately and in secret. The regime would have to run the risk of any of these steps being detected by international inspectors or our own comprehensive intelligence efforts. It would risk losing everything it gained from the deal, and the re-imposition of sanctions.

You don't have to trust the regime's intentions to understand the reality it would face: Attempting to cheat on this agreement would carry an overwhelming likelihood of getting caught-- and serious consequences if it does.

We'll still have work to do to diminish the threat Iran poses to our national security and the safety of our allies in the Middle East, beginning with Israel. As sanctions are lifted, the non-nuclear threat to the region may grow, and we'll need to bolster our support to regional counterweights such as Saudi Arabia, and increase our support of and cooperation with Israel, accordingly. And, of course, we'll need to maintain our terrorism-related sanctions, which are unaffected by the deal.

But there's no doubt in my mind that this deal represents a significant step forward for our national security.

It's worth noting that many of the restrictions in the deal expire after 15 years-- leading some to express concerns about what might happen in year 16.

There will still be major checks on Iran's nuclear program after that date, including continued heightened monitoring and permanent, specific prohibitions on several of the steps necessary to build a bomb. Iran must never, ever have a nuclear weapon-- and we will still have every option we currently have, up to and including the use of military force, to prevent that from happening.

But we also must begin now to make the case to the world that the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear weapon will not expire in 15 years-- and remind Iran that, should it begin to take worrisome steps, such as making highly enriched uranium as that date approaches, we stand ready to intervene.

That said, we don't know what the world will look like in 15 years. As long as this regime holds power, Iran will represent a dangerous threat to our security. But it's possible that, by 2031, Iran may no longer be controlled by hard-liners determined to harm our interests. More than 60% of Iran's population is under the age of 30. These young Iranians are increasingly well-educated and pro-American.

We don't know how this tension within Iran will work out. But we do know that backing out of a deal we've agreed to will only embolden the hard-liners who insist that America cannot be trusted.

Indeed, while critics have eagerly pointed out what they see as flaws in the deal, I have heard no persuasive arguments that there is a better alternative. All the alternatives I have heard about run the gamut from unrealistic to horrifying.

For example, some say that, should the Senate reject this agreement, we would be in position to negotiate a "better" one. But I've spoken to representatives of the five nations that helped broker the deal, and they agree that this simply wouldn't be the case.

Instead, these diplomats have told me that we would not be able to come back to the bargaining table at all, and that the sanctions regime would likely erode or even fall apart, giving Iran's leaders more money and more leverage-- and diminishing both our moral authority throughout the world and our own leverage.

And, of course, Iran would be able to move forward on its nuclear program, endangering our interests in the region-- especially Israel-- and making it far more likely that we will find ourselves engaged in a military conflict there.

Some critics seem to lust after such a conflict, with one of my colleagues suggesting that we should simply attack Iran now, an exercise he believes would be quick and painless for the United States. But this is pure fantasy, at least according to what our security and intelligence experts tell us. And it's certainly not the lesson anyone should have learned from the disastrous invasion of Iraq.

In March, 47 of my Republican colleagues took the unprecedented step of sending a letter to Iran's leaders just as these sensitive negotiations were nearing an accord. It was a clear attempt to undermine American diplomacy-- and a signal that they would oppose any deal with Iran, no matter its terms.

It's not surprising that these critics now oppose the finished deal. But it is disappointing that they refuse to acknowledge, let alone take responsibility for, the dire consequences that would almost certainly result from killing it.

Diplomacy requires cooperation and compromise. You don't negotiate with your friends; you negotiate with your enemies. Indeed, no one who's for this deal has any delusions about the nature of the Iranian regime, any more than American presidents who made nuclear arms agreements with the Soviet Union had delusions about the nature of the communist regime there.

For a long time, it has looked like our only options when it came to Iran would be allowing it to have a nuclear bomb or having to bomb the country ourselves. This agreement represents a chance to break out of that no-win scenario.

And to take the extraordinary step of rejecting it-- because of clearly unrealistic expectations, because of a hunger to send Americans into another war, or, worst of all, because of petty partisanship-- would be a terrible mistake.

Monday, former and future Senator Russ Feingold told popular Wisconsin radio host Sly Sylvester that he's supporting the Iran deal. "Frankly, I think the President is doing a good job on the fundamental point," said Feingold.

I do agree that we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon, but we're not giving up any options by being in this agreement. If it's broken by them, we can do what we need to do... It appears to me from my reading that it moves us in the right direction rather than in the alternative that is to be potentially going to war to deal with this problem... [T]here are always going to be concerns when you're dealing with a regime like the Iranian regime. To not have concerns would be irresponsible. On the other hand, it is completely irresponsible to not try to do something about it. Just sit back and say it's a bad deal and I have no alternatives. 

Feingold's opponent, right-wing extremist Ron Johnson, is eager to foment a war with Iran. He's on board with Schumer.

ugghhhh

Symbolic Gestures Are Nice-- Voting Records Are More Important-- Meet Hakeem Jeffries

Tuesday evening Chris Hayes had Hakeem Jeffries on his show. Jeffries is one of three Members of Congress who represents the Brooklyn neighborhood I grew up in, along with Yvette Clarke and Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm. Jeffries, a well-spoken former corporate lawyer for Viacom. He drove corrupt conservative incumbent, Ed Towns into retirement by announcing a primary largely backed by progressives who couldn't wait to see the last of Towns. But instead the primary was Jeffries versus a candidate considerably to the left of him, Charles Barron, who the Democratic Establishment abhors. Jeffries, who has been heavily backed by Wall Street banksters and by the charter school interests he supports, decisively beat Barron in 2012 and then the random Republican in the general. This cycle, the GOP didn't bother running anyone against him. He's as good as they're likely to get in a bizarrely gerrymandered district that includes Bedford-Stuyvesant, East New York, Coney Island, Sheepshead Bay, Manhattan Beach, Mill Basin, Canarsie, Fort Greene, Flatlands, Ozone Park, Lindenwood, and Downtown Brooklyn.

Chis had him on because he was one of four African-American congressmen who raised their hands-- "Hands Up, Don't Sheet"-- in solidarity with Ferguson protesters. The other three were Yvette Clarke, also from Brooklyn, plus two Texans Sheila Jackson Lee (downtown Houston) and Al Green (south Houston). Hayes caught Jeffries unawares when he asked him if he regretted voting against Alan Grayson's amendment last summer that would have demilitarized the local police. Watch the video above. Jeffries was stunned to be caught out-- and lied about it: "I believe that the amendment actually was designed to repeal the program and I believe that I supported that amendment." He didn't. And I blasted out this tweet immediately:

Hayes was one of the may people who retweeted it. I might add that the three other "Hands Up" sympathizers also voted against Grayson's amendment. Four for four. Here's the list of the only Members of Congress who actually did vote for it:

• John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)

• Earl Blumenauer (OR)

• Bruce Braley (IA)

• Tony Cárdenas (CA)

• Matt Cartwright (PA)

• Kathy Castor (FL)

• Judy Chu (CA)

• John Conyers (MI)

• Donna Edwards (MD)

• Keith Ellison (MN)

• Alan Grayson (FL)

• Raul Grijalva (AZ)

• Rush Holt (NJ)

• Mike Honda (CA)

• Hank Johnson (GA)

• Barbara Lee (CA)

• John Lewis (GA)

• Dan Maffei (NY)

• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)

• Doris Matsui (CA)

• Jim McDermott (WA)

• Jim McGovern (CA)

• Jerry McNerney (CA)

• George Miller (CA)

• Jerry Nadler (NY)

• Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA)

• Beto O'Rourke (TX)
• Frank Pallone (NJ)

• Ed Perlmutter(CO)

• Mark Pocan (WI)

• Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog-CA)

• John Sarbanes (MD)

• Jan Schakowsky (IL)

• Bobby Scott (VA)

• Jose Serrano (NY)

• Louise Slaughter (NY)

• Adam Smith (WA)

• Jackie Speier (CA)

• Mark Takano (CA)

• John Tierney (MA)

• Paul Tonko (NY)

• Nydia Velázquez (NY)

• Maxine Waters (CA)

When someone like Hakeem Jeffries sees a vote building with Members like Barbara Lee, Donna Edwards, Jose Serrano, Alan Grayson, Jan Schakowsky, Mark Pocan, Matt Cartwright, Judy Chu, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Jerry Nadler, Jon Conyers, John Lewis and Mike Honda all lining up on one side, maybe voting with Republicans and Democratic corporate whores is a position worth reexamining.