Useless Conservative Democrats Like New Dem Elissa Slotkin Keep Attacking Progressives And Then Start Screaming And Wailing When Progressives Punch Back

 

Freshman Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI) is aggressively anti-progressive. In the 2018 anti-red wave, she ousted Republican Mike Bishop 172,880 (50.6%) to 159,782 (46.8%), despite Trump having won the district 2 years earlier by 7 points. The Oakland-Ingraham-Livingston counties district has a PVI of R+4 and she just won her reelection bid 217,929 (50.9%) to 202,519 (47.3%). She out-raised her opponent $8,329,945 to $1,950,832. Trump's base turned out and he won Slotkin's district again.

Generally speaking, she's been a lousy member-- unless you like conservative Democrats. ProgressivePunch gave her a strong "F" and it's worth noting that she's the furthest right of any Michigan Democrat in Congress and that there are 217 members of Congress with more progressive voting records than hers, including several odious Blue Dogs like Stephanie Murphy, Tom O'Halleran, Max Rose, Jim Cooper, Brad Schneider, Dan Lipinski, Charlie Crist, Kurt Schrader... yeah, she really stinks.

Yesterday, Politico ran a puff piece by Tim Alberta on her, Elissa Slotkin Braces for a Democratic Civil War. She whined to Alberta that she watched some of her fellow right-of-center pals in Congress lose their jobs and how she listened to fake fellow faux-Dems "blame the party’s left wing for polluting the Democratic brand and watched progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez critique the centrists [corporate shills like Slotkin] as stale and outdated in their approach." Here's Slotkin's own stale and outdated approach:

“It’s not just that [Trump] eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind of simplistic language-- he doesn’t use complicated, wonky language, the way a lot of Democrats do. We sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious enough. They aren’t thoughtful enough. They aren’t ‘woke’ enough. They aren’t smart enough or educated enough to just understand what’s good for them… It’s talking down to people. It’s alienating them. And there’s just certain voters who feel so distant from the political process-- it’s not their life, it’s not their world. They hate it. They don’t like all that politics stuff. Trump speaks to them, because he includes them.”

Alberta wrote that she worries that the Democratic Party is now "fundamentally unwelcoming to anyone with supposedly retrograde views of the world around them. This is not merely about race and racism. The schisms go far deeper, to matters of faith and conscience, economic freedom and individual liberty. Indeed, for the heavy losses Trump sustained among affluent college-educated whites, he nearly won a second term because of his gains with Black and brown voters. That these Americans were willing to support Trump, often in spite of his rhetoric, reveals an uncomfortable truth for the left. There are millions of voters-- working-class whites and working-class minorities-- whose stances on social controversies put them out of touch with the Democratic Party. It’s a truth they might be willing to overlook, if only the party could do the same." She seems to be afraid that people "feel looked down upon." And she feels like she's too unhip to be part of the in-crowd. Between her two twitter accounts the former CIA agent only has 111.5 followers-- a far cry from fellow Michigander Rashid Tlaib (1.2 million), let alone AOC's 10.3 million followers. Her jealousy of AOC is mind-boggling.

"What bothers me a little bit is that we have this false dichotomy-- either you’re young and bold and have big ideas and you’re passionate, or you’re old and moderate and boring and pragmatic. I hope this bench of leaders that are coming up in the freshmen class, my closest peers, are going to just explode that stereotype. Because I’m as passionate as the next person. I believe deeply in change on the issues I care about. I don’t think I’m that boring and I don’t consider myself that old. So, we have to break through that. But in the meantime, you represent your district. Don’t tell me how to represent mine when you come from New York or California."

...“If we are classifying Tuesday as a success from a congressional standpoint, we will get fucking torn apart in 2022,” Spanberger shouted.

With a few hundred ears now perked up, the Virginia Democrat proceeded to slam her progressive colleagues for flirting with two fads-- “defund the police” and democratic socialism—that she said cost the party multiple seats and threatened to doom those who did survive in their future campaigns.

“When we want to talk about funding social services, and ensuring good engagement in community policing, let’s talk about what we are for,” Spanberger beseeched her colleagues. “We need to not ever use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. Because while people think it doesn’t matter, it does matter. And we lost good members because of it.”

Unfortunately, Spanberger, a far right Blue Dog with an even worse voting record than Slotkin's-- and Slotkin's best friend in the House-- survived, albeit barely. With 98% of the vote counted, Spanberger has 232,995 votes (50.9%) to neo-fascist crackpot Nick Freitas' 224,679 (49.1%). What if the Republican Party wises up and runs someone next time who isn't an actual Nazi?

Meanwhile Alberta reported that Slotkin "fired a warning shot at anyone who might pressure the Biden administration to chase big progressive policies out of the gate."

“I will not be voting for Nancy Pelosi,” Slotkin told me. “I have no idea if people are gonna run against her, or who might run against her. And I will of course have this conversation directly with her. But I believe we need new leadership. I would love to see more Midwesterners, because if you look across the leadership. … I respect these people, but it’s New York and California.”

To translate: “New York and California” isn’t simply code for liberalism. In this case, rather, Slotkin is hammering a perceived aloofness in the leadership-- a perception that spans the party’s ideological divides. Both Slotkin and her like-minded moderates, as well as AOC and her insurgent progressives, believe Pelosi and her lieutenants treat them with paternalistic condescension, insisting they know what’s best for them and for the party. Sometimes this approach has helped the center at the expense of the left, such as when Pelosi slow-walked impeachment proceedings. Other times, however, particularly over the past year, Pelosi’s refusal to engage in real negotiations with the White House has left moderates fuming.

When the speaker slapped down a bipartisan Covid-19 relief package this summer-- then gave a bizarre interview on CNN in which she insulted a member of her party who was pushing for it (and Wolf Blitzer for even bringing it up)—inboxes and cellphone screens lit up across the House Democratic Caucus. Even some of the members who backed Pelosi’s strategy of not moving from her initial offer were vexed by her imperious tone. In hindsight, given the closeness of the presidential election, Pelosi’s allies may have been politically astute to refuse any concessions that would have given Trump a timely victory at a time when his campaign was flagging. On the other hand, this gets to Slotkin’s basic point about the Democratic Party: It has spent the past four years defining itseleves by what it is against, and it very likely cost it on Election Day.

Slotkin isn’t sure how many other Democrats will join her in rebelling against Pelosi’s quest for a fourth term as speaker.

Also writing for Politico yesterday, Sarah Ferris, Heather Caygle and Ally Mutnick reported that many in the party are warning that the biggest priority for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee must be overhauling its message. They say it needs to craft a proactive campaign that counters GOP attacks on everything from Medicare for All to fracking-- if they have any hopes of keeping their majority in 2022." The "defund the police" ads the GOP used to attack Democrats did several conservatives in. Unable to intelligently defend themselves, Blue Dogs like Max Rose, Anthony Brindisi, Collin Peterson, Xochitl Torres Small and Kendra Horn are as against "defunding the police" as any Republican. But none are talented political leaders with the ability to persuade voters of anything. It's not tragic that they're gone; it's tragic that the DCCC will start working forthwith to recruit conservaDems just like them to run in 2022.

Democrats Lose When They Try To Be Republican-Lite... That's Why Blue Dogs Kendra Horn, Max Rose, Xochitl Torres Small, Joe Cunningham Were Defeated

 

I spoke with a friend of mine who I knew before he was elected to Congress a few years ago. He's pretty conservative for a Democrat but he's a nice guy and pretty smart and he helps me wunderstand what's going on in Congress. He was reelected and called him to congratulation him and ask him why so many Democrats in his state lost while he won. He said it was because Democrats are seen as leftists and he avoids that label. "But you are part of the left and they advertised you the same way they advertised every other Democrat-- a socialist. He said it couldn't stick to him. "I’m a traditional left. I’m not Bernie. Not Democratic Socialist. Not defund police. Not abolish ICE. Not anti Israel. I am pro-environment, pro-labor, pro-civil rights, pro-police reform, pro-immigration reform-- I am not burn the mother down."

That's an exact quote. The problem is that:

a- not a single Democrat who lost in his area is anything like what he just described and
b- he's using a Republican worldview to think of "the left."

Many Democrats have that Fox News trap embedded in their minds. They come from a place that "the left" is bad. That mindset ruins the Democratic Party because every decision the leaders make flows out of it. Ted Lieu does not have that mindset. AOC does not have that mindset. Pramila Jayapal does not have that mindset. Jamie Raskin does not have that mindset. Rashida Tlaib does not have that mindset. Andy Levin does not have that mindset. Jamaal Bowman does not have that mindset. Cori Bush does not have that mindset. Mondaire Jones does not have that mindset. Ro Khanna does not have that mindset. Barbara Lee does not have that mindset. Bonnie Watson Coleman does not have that mindset. How do I know? I've talked to every one of them and tried to see if they do. They don't. They see the Democratic Party as a vehicle for the legitimate aspirations of working families and as a vehicle for having the government make things better.

That's why I was so sickened yesterday by the House Democratic leadership-- that is so totally imbued with that mindset-- warning the House caucus to not run on core Democratic issues, just to run on the tepid non-messaging that lost the Democrats so many congressional races on Tuesday. An old warhorse who should have been put out to pasture years ago, majority whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC), told them that if "we are going to run on Medicare for All, defund the police, socialized medicine, we're not going to win," referring to the Georgia Senate runoffs. Why not just play Fox News for them? I'd like to see George Lakoff have a nice straight-forward talk with this troglodyte. In Moral Politics (2002), Lakoff argued that one of the reasons liberals have sucked so bad since the '80s is that they have not been as aware of their own guiding metaphors, and have too often accepted conservative terminology framed in a way to promote the conservatives' strict father metaphor. Progressives have to stop using terms like partial birth abortion, tax relief, socialized medicine and defund the police because they are manufactured specifically to allow the possibilities of only certain types of opinions. Tax relief for example, implies explicitly that taxes are an affliction, something someone would want 'relief' from. To use the terms of another metaphoric worldview, Lakoff insists, is to unconsciously support it."

To prevent an even worse catastrophe in 2022, these congressional leaders just have to go. It would be suicidal for the House Democrats to reelect Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn again. The Democrats need leadership that revels, even swims, in Democratic values, not "leaders" who want to hide those values in the attic to accommodate Republican-lite members who represent Republican-leaning districts like Anthony Brindisi and Abigail Spanberger.

There Really Is A Reason We Have Primaries-- Too Bad So Few People Use Them

Do you watch the Humanist Report much? If not, maybe you should. In the video above, host Mike Figueredo successfully explains why progressives need to show some spine when it comes to dealing with foot draggingly corporate careerist Democrats, especially in leadership. As you know, Marianne Williamson has endorsed Shahid Buttar, who's running against Nancy Pelosi, Mckayla Wilks, who is running against Pelosi's top lieutenant, Steney Hoyer, and Jen Perelman, who is taking on faded party leadership figure Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Look at Marianne's list of candidates; 14 of them are taking on entrenched Democratic incumbents.

One senior congressional Democrat, a progressive, didn't agree that anyone can lump Pelosi and Hoyer together. "It's like apples and hand grenades," he told me. "And to have this video come out within 24 hours of her calling Trump a "fat fuck" is bad timing. Would anyone else call Trump a "fat fuck!"

Yesterday Shahid Buttar told us that he's "incredibly grateful for Marianne Williamson's support. Having seen her as a voice encouraging empathy at the highest levels of our national politics, I'm eager to build a brighter future together with her-- finally putting people and communities, rather than corporations, at the center of our public policy. Often, it takes a voice like hers, from the outside of politics, to see so clearly what the root of the problem is in Washington-- entrenched Democratic so-called leaders like Nancy Pelosi who are our immediate hurdles to progress. I'm impressed by Marianne's courage in joining me to take on the top brass of political corruption, and I hope other figures in the Democratic Party have the strength to follow in her footsteps."

Well, one of those figures is Eva Putzova who served on the Flagstaff City Council and as a Bernie DNC delegate. Now she's running for Congress in a district (AZ-01) held by former Republican state legislator Tom O'Halleran, who now bills himself as a Blue Dog. He opposes everything the Democratic Party stands for. Eva told us that she "became a U.S. Citizen in 2007 and the day after the naturalization ceremony I registered to vote as a Democrat because I am a democrat. Then in 2016, I went to the DNC as a delegate for Bernie Sanders, which opened my eyes to how the party leadership at both national and state levels is enmeshed with corporate interests and how the only way we can reclaim Democratic Party for democrats is to replace those who are bought by corporations. So many young people we talk to on the campaign trail are turned off by conversations about policies because they are turned off by the corrupted politics. I'm challenging the most Republican Democrat in Arizona precisely for these reasons: his votes and inaction on the most enormous challenges we face, like climate change, are a direct reflection of his support of the corporate agenda. The top Democratic Party representatives in Congress lost their ability to lead with courage and to drive transformation because they are out of touch with the people of this country and because they accepted and institutionalized corruption. They have to go because they are no longer Democrats."

All the details are here: https://secure.ngpvan.com/DAR1YEp-bkWTNtpHzgUd7A2

Michael Owens is a former Democratic chairman for Cobb County, which went blue under his leadership. He knows the party inside and out and he's taking on one of the last of the Georgia Blue Dogs, David Scott. He was very happy to have received an endorsement from Marianne. "Her willingness to suppprt progressive candidates," he said, "is a breath of fresh air, in what can often be the caustic environment of primary politics where challengers are running against establishment Democrats. The true strength in moving the progressive movement forward is through down ballot candidates."

Jan Perelman is the progressive Democrat running for the south Florida seat that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is sitting in-- opposing everything remotely progressive other than gay rights and abortion. When it comes to working families' interests, she's a baby step from being a Republican. "I'm always so amazed that I'm considered the 'left,'" Jen told us last night. "I have been a Democrat since I registered to vote in 1989. I am pro-labor, pro-environment, and anti-war, which are not radical positions. It was the Democratic Party that 'left' me when it was taken over by corporate interests and stopped representing working people. We cannot move forward as a country as long as entrenched corporate Democrats remain beholden to special interests. As a primary challenger who takes zero corporate money, I am going to do everything in my power to bring the Democratic party back to its roots as the party of the people."

Robin Wilt is also challenging an old school corrupt political hack, Joe Morelle, in Monroe County, New York. Robin was very enthusiastic about Marianne endorsing Shahid and told me that "not only proved that her run for the Presidency was not borne of vanity, but of integrity; but she has also demonstrated the type of political leadership and courage that the left wing of the party has long been lacking. As Democrats, as long as we remain complicit in supporting leadership within the party that does not advance an agenda that centers those most impacted by the deleterious policies that have produced the massive inequities that we witness today, we can no more say that we care about marginalized communities and the plight of the disenfranchised than can Republicans make that claim."

Continuing, Robin said that "It is disingenuous and craven to claim that you support universal health care, and then support leadership that blocks Medicare for All at every turn. It is disingenuous and craven to claim that you care about wealth and income inequality, and then support leadership that preserves a tax structure that benefits only the top 1% and accepts massive amounts of money from corporate interests. It is disingenuous and craven to claim that you care about climate justice, and then support leadership that thwarts implementation of the Green New Deal. It is disingenuous to claim that you care about housing justice and then support leadership that will not advance a Federal Homes Guarantee. In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King warned us about the well-meaning moderate that compromised his/her principles for the sake of pragmatism. King understood that whenever we compromise with a lie about who people are, and barter the human rights of the people we serve for our own comfort, we empower the political forces that have exploited our divisions to maintain power. The politicians who are blocking the expansion of healthcare to all Americans, abiding corporate polluters, increasing investment in the war and mass incarceration and detention economies, all while slashing our nation’s safety net and denying workers the right to earn a living wage are the selfsame politicians who are blocking a progressive agenda. Our silence is enabling their deceit. It is time that we follow Marianne Williamson’s courageous lead, give voice to the voiceless, and unabashedly support true progressives that adhere to the principles we hold dear."

Hector Oseguera, the New Jersey progressive running for a seat held by party hack Albio Sires, told us this morning that "It's an absolute honor to be part of Marianne Williamson's movement to bring the Democratic Party back to earth. This is a party that's supposed to represent the working-class people of this nation, but has gotten way too comfortable with their corporate sponsors. When you look at my race, you'll find that I'm the only Democratic candidate in this Democratic primary. The incumbent has an abysmal record on immigration, corporate welfare, and mass surveillance. Whether it's the environment, healthcare, or affordable housing, my opponent is to the far right of the average voter in my district, relying on a network of political cronies and corrupt big money interests to keep him in power. He's received dishonorable mentions in books like the Soprano State and the Jersey Sting, covering his history of corruption and ethics violations that have contributed to New Jersey's reputation as a politically corrupt state. This progressive movement, which owes a lot to Marianne's leadership, is working to dismantle the facade that corporate Democrats offer much substantive difference from their Republican colleagues."

In the Oklahoma City congressional district, Tom Guild is running against one of the most conservative Blue Dogs in the House, Kendra Horn. Tom noted yesterday that "Marianne Williamson is showing exemplary leadership in endorsing, raising money and fighting for progressive congressional candidates throughout America. My opponent opposes Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, raising the minimum wage to $15; she voted against labor’s major legislative initiative in Congress in 2020, voted against Sen. Tim Kaine’s and Ro Khanna's resolution to restrain Donald Trump from taking military actions that could start another endless war in Iran, and recently met remotely with lobbyists for Big Insurance Companies who were seeking money to bail out COBRA in the HEROES Act. That’s just a small sampling of her support for Republican-lite regressive policies. On the CARES Act she voted for the rule to let the bill proceed to the floor of the House to be debated and voted on, then she voted no on the bill. Go figure. Unless progressives oppose Nancy Pelosi’s DCCC gravy train and their support for Republican-lite members of the House running as Democrats, we essentially have two big corporate parties corrupted to the hilt by Wall Street and special interest campaign money. That may be one of the big untold stories as to why so many Americans choose to opt out and not vote every year. They see little structural and substantive difference between the two major parties on issues important to them. I thank Marianne for her support for our campaign and commend her for her integrity in grabbing the bull by the horns and supporting, Shahid, Pelosi’s primary challenger. Marianne has the guts of a government mule and that’s exactly what it will take for progressives to rule the roost. Progressives need to be tougher and stick out their necks to support fellow progressive candidates even when it’s hard to do and not convenient for them. I’m happy that I promoted Marianne to help her make the presidential debates and encouraged people on Facebook and Twitter to donate to her campaign. I was all in for Bernie, but saw that progressives needed all the help we could get in the primaries and in the debates. We need to GO BIG, GO BOLD, or GO HOME!"

Pelosi And Schumer Fail To Extract Any Concessions To Protect Americans From Trump As They Give Him Another $400 Billion To Spend

What bullshit!

Trump is taking a gamble that voters want social distancing to end and that ending them won't explode the infection rate-- at least not among his base. But a new poll released yesterday by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal show how shaky that bet is. "Nearly 60 percent of American voters say they are more concerned that a relaxation of stay-at-home restrictions would lead to more COVID-19 deaths than they are that those restrictions will hurt the U.S. economy," wrote NBC's Mark Murray. That's the consensus among normal people anyway. Among greed-driven members of the Republican Death Cult, there is no consensus.

Most Americans disapproval of how Trump has handled the national response, but 44% still think he's doing a satisfactory job with the pandemic even though only 36% of voters say they generally trust what Trump says about the coronavirus. They trust Pence slightly less-- and Biden even less than that!

The NBC News/WSJ poll also shows how the past month has changed Americans’ attitudes about the coronavirus.

In March, 53 percent of voters said they were worried that someone in their immediate family would catch the disease. Now it’s 73 percent.

Also in March, a combined 26 percent said the coronavirus has changed their day-to-day life in a “very” or “fairly” major way. Now it’s 77 percent.

And in a CNBC poll conducted in early April by the same polling firms, 27 percent said they personally know someone infected by the coronavirus. Now, just more than a week later, it’s 40 percent.

“Socially and economically, we have seen a sea change in attitudes in just a month,” said Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates.

All that said, Pelosi and her team completely wimped out in negotiations with the White House over the next phase of the bailout. This one is a $400 billion small business loan program that Congress plans to pass tomorrow. The Washington Post's Erica Werner and Jeff Stein reported that "The deal would add around $300 billion to the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses that was swamped by demand in the three weeks since Congress passed it as part of a $2 trillion coronavirus rescue bill. It also would add $60 billion to a separate emergency loan program for small businesses that also is out of money, Schumer said. The agreement also would include $75 billion for hospitals and $25 billion for testing, which have been major Democratic demands. Some of the money in the small business program would be directed specifically to rural and minority businesses... Another major Democratic ask-- money for cities and states-- appeared left out of the deal, though talks remained fluid, and Schumer said some items were still being discussed. Congressional aides cautioned that the deal was not final... Democrats had also been demanding an additional $150 billion for cities and states whose budgets have been decimated by the economic toll of the coronavirus. But Republicans have opposed that, insisting it was not the federal government’s job to make up for state budget shortfalls."

It looks like an incredibly unpopular and barely legitimate president-- who few believe no matter what he's lying about-- rolled the sad sack Democratic leadership, which gets no money for local government-- which will lead to a collapse of government services. And what happened to protecting democracy with voting reforms and to protecting the postal service?

Last time the Democrats tried to exercise even minimal oversight on the 2 trillion dollars they gave him, he ignored their concerns and the law and started spending-- and likely stealing-- the big pot of money immediately. Kevin Robillard wrote that "When Congress passed the largest spending law in American history, a $2 trillion outlay aimed at offsetting the economic damage wrought by the coronavirus pandemic, it set up three different ways to look after the enormous sums and root out corruption or mismanagement of the cash. Three weeks later, none of the three options-- a special inspector general appointed by President Donald Trump, a council of existing inspectors general, or a special oversight panel set up by Congress-- are active. Sabotage by the Trump administration, combined with congressional apathy and gridlock, means the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve are spending hundreds of millions of dollars with no real watchdogs. The special inspector general appointed by Trump has views of executive power that have alarmed Democrats, and stands little chance of confirmation until May. Trump shoved aside the leader of the council of existing inspectors general. And the congressional oversight panel’s roster remains unfilled. Meanwhile, the government program to loan money to small businesses to keep workers on the job has already burned through more than $300 billion, and the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department have unveiled a slew of programs to push trillions more into the economy."

Strangling Democracy by Nancy Ohanian

Trump Is Blowing Up The Republican Party-- Who Will Blow Up The Democratic Party?

In a mea culpa yesterday, longtime Mississippi Republican operative Stuart Stevens wrote in the Washington Post that Republicans who supported-- and continue to enable-- Trump are responsible for the tanking of their party and the inevitable mess he made of America. What about our party? Luke Savage on Wednesday: Dealing With Coronavirus Requires Bold Action. The Democratic Leadership Won’t Take It. "The Democrats," he wrote, "have an opportunity to push for desperately needed, sweeping economic change in response to coronavirus. Instead, they’re letting themselves be outflanked by Republicans." Not enough Democrats in public office seem to have read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine and realized the dangers and the opportunities. Remember, if Trump and Pence die before November, Pelosi becomes president. It's conceivable she could do as bad a job protecting the country from COVID-19 as they have.

Savage explained that "there's nothing better to shift our collective perceptions of what’s possible than a major crisis. During World War II, the severely underregulated economies of the pre–Great Depression era gave way to sweeping state control over industry, full employment, and industrial policy unprecedented in human history." But what we're looking at now is "a confusing and uneven patchwork of measures and proposals. Though events continue to move quickly, it can safely be said that the official response of the Democratic leadership (and centrist Democrats in general) has fallen dangerously short of what will be necessary given the scope of the crisis-- raising the tragicomic prospect that the country’s nominal liberal opposition will find itself outflanked on the left by a right wing GOP led by Donald Trump. An early sign of complacency came last weekend as Nancy Pelosi trumpeted a plan to guarantee sick leave to American workers during the pandemic. The problem? The legislation came with so many caveats and exemptions that it actually covered only 20 percent of the American workforce-- leaving out big companies such as Amazon and McDonald’s entirely. As CNN reported, the outcome was the result of a nonconfrontational position on the Democrats’ part, despite their majority in the House of Representatives. Summing up the absurdity of this posture, commentator Kyle Kulinski accurately observed: 'Instead of passing a bill through the House giving all working [people] paid time off and forcing the GOP to vote against it, Dems agreed that 20% of the population can have it and then bragged about it.'"

If only to further weaken confidence in their capacity to navigate the crisis, the Democratic-led House actually scaled back paid-leave provisions-- significantly rewriting and watering down an existing bill on Monday. According to the Wall Street Journal, the move came “following pressure from businesses worried about financial burdens.” Moreover, under the revised legislation:

For the next 10 weeks paid leave would be limited only to workers caring for a child whose school or day care had been shut. Healthcare providers and emergency responders, as well as workers who had been in quarantine or caring for a family member affected by the virus, wouldn’t be eligible for the additional 10 weeks of leave.

There is, it should be said, no liberal monopoly on either complacency or dogmatism, and there’s every reason to believe both will remain proudly bipartisan traditions throughout the remainder of the crisis. For their part, conservative ideologues Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Steve Forbes today released a statement calling on the government not to “expand welfare and other income redistribution benefits like paid leave and unemployment benefits that will inhibit growth and discourage work.” The White House, meanwhile, is clearly hoping to leverage the moment to pass another round of tax cuts, having treated the initial phase of the crisis with an attitude that can only be called criminally negligent.

Nonetheless, centrist Democrats are also in the process of bungling the rapidly evolving debate around direct cash transfers-- set to become urgent over the next few weeks, amid layoffs and the inevitable slowdown of economic activity, and already being floated by the Trump administration. Though House Democrats like Ilhan Omar and Ro Khanna are touting more ambitious proposals, there has seemed little appetite for direct, no-strings-attached cash transfers among the Democratic leadership thus far. Yesterday, Politico reported that none other than Nancy Pelosi “essentially shot down” the idea at a private caucus meeting last week-- potentially positioning the leadership of America’s liberal opposition to the right of former Republican presidential nominee Senator Mitt Romney.

A statement released by Pelosi’s office yesterday that, among other things, makes reference to “expanded refundable tax credits,” suggests the conservative posture currently favored by the Democratic leadership is unlikely to change any time soon.

Failure to change course could prove catastrophic. Now, more than ever, the most vulnerable sections of the US population need an opposition willing to defend their interests decisively and without hesitation. This would necessitate a more confrontational and overtly political posture toward the incumbent administration and its many glaring failures. But it would also require a more adversarial attitude toward big business and other constituencies keen to put their own interests ahead of the general public’s as the situation worsens.

Continued refusal to act more decisively will put ordinary people at risk. But it will also cost the Democrats politically as key races for the House, Senate, and presidency are held across the country later this year. The Republican Party, chaotic and destructive as it tends to be, has historically proven adept at politicizing tumultuous occasions to gain advantage and further its agenda. As in 2009, centrist Democrats are letting a crisis go to waste-- and potentially handing Donald Trump a major victory in the process.

Shaniyat Chowdhury is a super-progressive running for the House seat in southeast Queens occupied by corrupt New Dem Gregory Meeks. This morning Chowdhury told us that "Malcolm X said it best. Neoliberals of the Democratic Party are like foxes. They’ll smile at you and pretend to be friendly and we’ll run towards them anyways knowing we’ll be eaten. While Republicans are like wolves. They’re not afraid to show their true colors so it makes it easier to run away from that danger. I don’t think the establishment understands that whether Bernie stays in or drops out, it’s not up to him to unify the party. Bernie’s campaign was cultivated by millions of people throughout the country, creating a movement like we’ve never seen before. Everyday people are tired of the two party status quo. That is how we got 2016 and Trump. If Biden is so electable, then it’s up to him, his campaign, and the party to draw in the more progressive voters. As far as I’m concerned, as long as there’s Dark money in politics, no Medicare for All, or no Green New Deal, the party is writing is own death bed."

Let’s say in Biden is the nominee-- either he defeats Trump or not, Bernie and supporter will not get the credit or will be blamed. Also, the party had every chance to move primaries dates and yet Tom Perez threatened states with penalties if they did so. There been so many instances of voter suppression throughout the country already! Why should we conform to a party that does not care about the values of working people?

There’s no difference between a Biden and Trump presidency. Both have poor immigration records, won’t ensure every person has access to healthcare, both support Dark money and billionaires running the system, poor on criminal justice and foreign policy records. This is just to make a few. The only difference is Biden says nicer things sometimes but we’ve seen him time and time again disrespect voters in their faces. Like most people, we don’t want sprinkles. We want meaningful change.

As far as I’m concerned, because I live in NY and my vote won’t count electorally, I will be writing in Bernie Sanders in November. I encourage swing state voters to vote their conscious and no one should have to be shamed for it. I’m tired of working people being blamed for the establishment’s lack of incoherent and corrupt behavior. Even Bernie cannot save the party if Biden is the nominee. The people will decide that. My focus will just be on down ballot races because we see that progressives like Marie Newman can win and that’s exactly what I’m going to do in June. I’m doing to defeat the king of corruption that is Gregory Meeks. I’m not okay with the status quo. I am more motivated than ever. It’s how I got here form 2016 and will continue to fight onward.

Not only does Biden not have any policy to stand on, he has no plan on defeating Trump. If they believe they can count on enough people risking Trump and stump in counties where it matters, then it’s just laughable.

  Trump is atrocious, but he has a following that only Bernie can defeat. Right now, Trump’s followers think he will save the country during this pandemic and blindly so, with $1000 checks. The premise alone depicts he’s trying to do something. What does Biden stand for? God knows, but 2020 is going to be another learning curve for all of us and I hope more for the establishment. 

Apparently Chowdhury isn't the only progressive thinking that. Over 65,000 Twitter users voted in this poll:

And Common Dreams writer Eoin Higgins noted on Wednesday that Pelosi's Reagan era conservative approach is driving progressives mad. "Progressives erupted with frustration and anger Wednesday over days of reporting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not consider cash payments for Americans without means-testing despite the ongoing coronavirus outbreak that has ground the U.S. economy almost to a standstill... Direct cash payments would be a salve to the gaping wound left in the U.S. economy by the pandemic. 'We are the wealthiest nation in human history, and have the lowest borrowing costs of any major government on the planet, and thus, can easily afford to contain the pandemic and keep our people well provisioned simultaneously,' Eric Levitz wrote Tuesday for New York Magazine. 'All we need is for Congress to overcome its superstitions about deficits, and supply the economy with the many trillions of dollars in stimulus that even many center-right economists say we need.' As the crisis has deepened, the political ground on cash payments has shifted substantitally, with bipartisan Congressional support for the proposal... 'Nancy Pelosi is officially to the right of Tom Cotton on economic support for American families,' HuffPost reporter Zach Carter tweeted on Sunday. 'This is a total failure of Democratic Party leadership.'"

Meanwhile, Bernie's proposal is for a $2 trillion package including direct payments to Americans. Let me put a Wednesday tweet storm by Walker Bragman is narrative form:

Trump, who bungled the early response to coronavirus, is starting to take actions resembling Bernie Sanders' proposals-- monthly checks to everybody, ramping up production via the Defense Production Act, freezing foreclosures and evictions... All while Democratic leadership is pushing [tepid and ineffective, weak proposals] like tax rebates. Baffling. The Democrats really are ceding populism to the right and that's terrifying... Trump 1) didn't push for early testing out of fear that high reported cases would be bad politically, 2) didn't accept test kits from the World Health Organization, 3) downplayed the threat. And yet, if his response is big enough now, it may not matter in November. Democratic leaders have been pushing visionless, technocratic 'pragmatism' as the path forward for years. But if ever there were a time for big spending and big programs, it's now as we face the COVID-19 pandemic. Democrats are at risk of missing what should be their moment. Many Dems cannot imagine how Donald Trump, who ignored COVID at first and who has facilitated war crimes/genocide, separated families, thrown people in cages without medical care, and pushed cuts to entitlements can win. But Dem leaders are making it more likely.

Shahid Buttar is the progressive running for the San Francisco congressional seat still occupied by Nancy "asleep at the wheel" Pelosi. Yesterday he told me that "It's preposterous that Pelosi stands so far to the right that she risks getting outflanked by the likes of Tom Cotton, and even Trump himself. This is no time to place the interests of capital and corporations before the needs of families struggling to provide for their basic needs in a time of dire crisis. I support Bernie Sanders' proposal to legislate an emergency program to distribute a basic income of $2,000 per month to every American, at least as long as the COVID-19 outbreak lasts." He was just getting going...

It would be bad enough for Pelosi to stand in the way of direct cash payments, had she also not previously refused to bring Rep. Pramila Jayapal's Medicare for All bill to the House floor for a vote. Pelosi remains dedicated to predatory corporate for-profit "healthcare," ignoring the mounting evidence that healthcare has massive economic externalities, rendering it foolish to distribute as if it were a commodity. If ever the American public were presented with a teaching moment, it is now: the Coronavirus offers a lesson in why we all share an interest in public health. The risks of contagion render it downright idiotic to keep people from seeing doctors and getting medicine whenever they need.

Not only has Pelosi failed to embrace UBI at a crucial time and stood in the way of universal healthcare, she has also bragged about an emergency relief package that extended paid sick leave to only 20% of the American workforce. Her concessions to corporate interests-- even in the face of a mounting pandemic placing the lives of millions of Americans at risk-- are simply disqualifying.

Our communities need solutions, and I'm happy to embrace them. In addition to UBI, universal healthcare, and universal sick leave, I've also called for a suspension of ICE enforcement operations to allow immigrants to get care and testing without being forced to hide in the shadows, placing public health at further-- and unnecessary-- risk. To the extent UBI proposals are not implemented, we must at least impose a national rent and mortgage freeze to keep families in their homes and stop a wave of preventable evictions.

Cheri Bustos Stokes An Anti-Progressive Civil War Inside The Democratic Party

The Republican wing of the Democratic Party

House Democrats have a long, ugly history of choosing the worst among them as their leaders. The excuse has always been that the best among them have been too busy working on policy to get into the money-chase and grubby bare-knuckle politics that Democrats have used to assess leadership ability. When minority whip Nancy Pelosi stood up to right-of-center corporate whore minority leader Dick Gephardt and persuaded a majority of Democrats to oppose his cooperation with Bush in launching the Iraq War, it looked like a great change was coming. Unfortunately the change was in Pelosi, not in the quality of congressional leadership.

Thank God, Pelosi's designated heir, Joe Crowley-- a New York sewer pol-- had his career ended by a young lady bartender from the Bronx in 2018. An even greater catastrophe for House Democrats was averted when Obama pulled Rahm Emanuel out of House leadership (for White House service, where he did plenty of damage). Now one of the contenders to succeed Pelosi is an Emanuel protégée, Cheri Bustos (D-IL). Like Emanuel once was, she heads the DCCC, a job she gave up her membership in the Blue Dog caucus for-- although she's still a member of the New Dems... and certainly hasn't stopped voting alongside the Blue Dogs. Progressive Punch rates her a very solid "F" and her voting record is the furthest right of any of Illinois' 13 Democrats-- worse than Brad Schneider (Blue Dog), worse than Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog) and worse than Bill Foster (New Dem), the 3 most conservative shitheads-- other than Bustos-- in the Illinois delegation.

Last week, she used an old Rahm Emanuel trick to block her Democratic primary opponent, Spanky Edwards, president of the Peoria Chapter of the ACLU and the chairman of the Youth Works Committee of the Illinois NAACP, preventing him from getting on the ballot. While Bustos was busy trying to undermine progressives nationwide-- undercutting campaigns for Morgan Harper, Marie Newman, Jessica Cisneros, Rachel Ventura-- she used Rockford alderman William Rose-- a member of her shady political machine, the so-called Build a Bench Program-- as the official objector to Edwards' petitions. Chicago hired gun Amy Zimmerman, was the lawyer who had him kicked off the ballot for Bustos by, in effect, challenging the right of poor people to participate in elections. But that's what Republicans do, not Democrats, right? Well... depends how you define "Democrats." (Now Edwards is running as a write-in candidate and challenging the very corrupt petition process. "A resident of the district ," he said the other day, "should be able to sign a petition regardless if they're registered at their current address. Poor people have a high mobility rate, we move often. This makes no sense because people can register and vote at the same time.")

On Friday, Politico establishment stenographer Ally Mutnick wrote up a DCCC press gaggle with Bustos and her new executive director, Lucinda Guinn, from the previous day, giving her an opportunity to brag about big fundraising numbers and a chance to lay out the House battleground plans. Mutnick's reporting is always an opportunity to see what the DCCC is thinking. She reported, for example, that shitty conservative candidates-- Gina Ortiz Jones (TX-23), Betsy Dirksen Londrigan (IL-13) and Dan Feehan (MN-01)-- in key pickup districts are top priorities while outstanding progressives in key pickup districts-- Kara Eastman (NE-02) and Dana Balter (NY-24) are "less formidable." Imagine if Politico ever considered hiring someone with a brain to cover politics, instead of someone to parrot DCCC and NRCC bullshit.

Bustos also dished on committee efforts to help members in tough primaries. DCCC officials sat down with Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), who Bustos said is “facing the toughest race she’s faced since she was first elected in 2012,” to offer advice and resumes for potential campaign staff. (Beatty was outraised in Q3 by challenger Morgan Harper.) When pressed, Bustos and Guinn declined to rule out field or ad expenditures for other members in primary battles, like Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and Henry Cuellar (D-TX), but they didn’t sound enthusiastic about the prospect. “Look, we’ve got to hang on to the majority, and we have 42 Frontliners. That is our priority,” Bustos said.

Several progressive icons within the Democratic House caucus-- including Jan Schakowsky (IL), AOC (NY), Ro Khanna (CA) and Pramila Jayapal (WA) have begun endorsing progressives in primaries, progressives who Bustos and her slime ball team-- many Bustos people were recently fired for being caught out in overt racism and homophobia; she's wasn't fired but was supposed to attend psychiatric counseling instead-- are working furiously to undermine.

There was a big hubbub this week because the DCCC has been whining all over town that AOC raises immense amounts of money-- way more than hated figures on the party's far right fringe like Bustos-- but that she won't hand any of it over to the DCCC (so that Bustos can use it to destroy the progressive candidates AOC backs). She's donating money directly to candidates who stand for Democratic values and principles, not the Bustos candidates who are virtually all next in line to mimic Jeff Van Drew and pledge fealty to Trumpism. Congress' 3 top money-raisers for 2019:

• Schiff- $4,377,168
• Pelosi- $3,717,762
• AOC- $3,354,732

One of the worst of the anti-AOC scumbags always happy to push the DCCC further right is personification of corruption, bribe cultivating New Dem Gregory Meeks, Queens Democratic Party machine boss-- he took over when AOC beat Crowley. He went to Fox News to say, "Sometimes the question comes: 'Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority?' And do you want to be part of a team?" Who would want to be on a team with Meeks, who is likely to wind up in prison some day soon? The progressive candidate running against him, a former AOC campaign staffer, is Shaniyat Chowdhury. Please consider contributing to his campaign by clicking on the 2020 Primary A Blue Dog thermometer on the right.

Although Fox News refused to identify another potential Jeff Van Drew who whispered his anti-AOC poison to Fox, everyone knows it was Oregon conservative Blue Dog Kurt Schrader, who is facing a tough primary from Milwaukie mayor Mark Gamba.

Another Democrat was less diplomatic: “Deadbeat Cortez should pay her bills,” complained the Democratic source. “She’s always whining about people paying their fair share and here she is leaving her friends with the bill.”

Their gripe is that Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t given any money to the DCCC, the party arm with the sole job of electing Democrats to the House. Records obtained by Fox News show the New York Democrat has failed to pay any of her $250,000 in “dues” to the DCCC.

Her goose egg of a contribution is no accident. Ocasio-Cortez says she has beef with the DCCC and she'll withhold her money in protest of how the Democratic Party won't back insurgent progressive primary candidates, like herself, in the name of protecting incumbents.

“For me personally, I’m not paying D-trip dues,” said Ocasio-Cortez, using slang for the DCCC and citing a “myriad of reasons.”

“One, I don’t agree with the policy around blacklisting groups that help progressive candidates,” she said, referring to a DCCC effort to sideline vendors who assist challengers to members of Congress. “I think we need to evolve as a party and make room for that.”

Instead, Ocasio-Cortez is ramping up her donor base with the help of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) whom she endorsed for president in October, to funnel money directly to progressive candidates.

Through social media posts and email solicitations, she's activated her donor network to support her hand-picked candidates. In 2019 alone, she funneled more than $300,000 to candidates she’s endorsed by hosting online fundraising campaigns for them, according to records obtained by Fox News.

“I want to help frontline members by putting that money straight into their pocket,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

Bucking the Democratic Party line, Ocasio-Cortez led online fundraisers for at least two progressives who are trying to defeat sitting Democratic members of Congress.

She solicited nearly $18,000 in donations for Marie Newman, who is taking on current Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, a conservative Democrat who opposes abortion. She also gave Newman an additional $5,000 directly from her campaign account. Ocasio-Cortez also raised nearly $35,000 in online donations for progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros, who is trying to defeat Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX).

“Certainly, these are new times,” Cuellar said of his colleague's effort to oust him,  “which is something that we certainly don't agree with.”

Cuellar said Democrats should be focused on the larger goal of beating Republicans and retaining the House majority. “To have people try to purify the caucus because they don't agree with them-- 100 percent, I certainly don't agree with that.”

“Hopefully, we will start to get away from this circular firing squad," said Cuellar, who paid all his dues to the DCCC, records show.

Ocasio-Cortez views herself as a vehicle to help candidates who wouldn’t ordinarily have access to DCCC resources and “to really bring in people from outside the traditional political process,” she said.

Yesterday, AOC announced the formation of her new leadership PAC: Courage to Change. "When community leaders, activists, and working-class candidates try to run for office," she wrote, "organizations like the DCCC discourage them. These potential progressive leaders are asked: 'Can you raise $300,000 from your friends and family? If not, don’t bother trying.' ... [D]oes that surprise you? When you think about how broken Washington is-- and so many of our representatives are wealthy elites-- it makes sense... As we speak, the DCCC still blacklists all progressives running against incumbents. It doesn’t matter to them if those incumbents support Trump, vote for a regime of deportation, ask the Supreme Court to allow bans on abortion, or stand with the NRA. That’s the DCCC’s choice. And this is ours-- we will not support candidates who do not reflect the values of the Democratic party. And together, we will fight to elect people who will stand up for the nation we all deserve."

Cheri Bustos is working towards becoming the next Speaker of the House. She and her allies are ingratiating themselves with the right-of-center members who they expect to help elect her. Just think about that, the way Debbie Wasserman Schultz appears to be in the photo of the two of them below.

Is It Fair To Point Out That Pelosi Is An Accessory To Trump's Crimes?

Thursday evening, Washington Post reporter's Nick Miroff and Josh Dawsey wrote that the Trumpist Regime is "considering a plan to again divert billions of dollars in military funding to pay for border barrier construction next year, a way to circumvent congressional opposition to putting more taxpayer money toward the president’s signature project." The criminal fake "president" needs $18.4 billion to finish 500 miles of photogenic wall before the 2020 election.

Planning documents obtained by the Washington Post show the cost of building 509 miles of barriers averages out to more than $36 million per mile. The documents also show that the government would need to obtain-- either by eminent-domain claims or purchases-- land that lies under nearly 200 miles of proposed barrier.

At a Sept. 11 meeting at the White House led by adviser Jared Kushner, senior officials discussed a plan that would press lawmakers to backfill-- or reimburse-- $3.6 billion of Pentagon funds that the administration diverted this year to pay for fence construction, the officials said.

Trump is forcing the Army Corps of Engineers to bypass regular contracting processes in order to steer all work to North Dakota-based Fisher Industries, a company whose top executive, Tommy Fisher, is a GOP donor and frequent guest on Fox News. North Dakota's crooked senator, Kevin Cramer-- who has received over $10,000 in bribes from the Fisher family-- is the bag-man on the project and has been "deputized" by Trumpanzee to make sure Fisher builds the wall and Republicans and the Trump campaign get appropriate kicks backs.

In short, Trump forces the Pentagon to hand over money appropriated by Congress for specific projects so he can build his vanity project expressly prohibited by Congress, and then the Pentagon goes crying to Congress that they have to have the money for those projects or it will be a disaster.

House on Fire

Apparently, Pelosi finds this aberrant behavior less distasteful than impeaching Trump, making her an accessory to his crimes, from concentration camp funding to the building of this useless monument to his disgusting xenophobia. Yesterday, in his Bloomberg column, Jonathan Bernstein let Pelosi off easy, claiming there's only so much Democrats can do about Señor Trumpanzee's increasingly bold misconduct, by asking How Long Will Republicans Tolerate Trump’s Lawlessness?. The answer is obvious: for as long as their constituents allow them to. He claims it isn't Pelosi, but the Republicans "who have the real decision to make." Bernstein's bullshit line in 3 short sentences: "Because the truth at this point is pretty obvious: If they could be assured of even a smattering of Republican votes, Democrats would almost certainly impeach the president. If they had enough votes to ensure his removal in the Senate, you could remove that 'almost'-- Trump would be gone very rapidly. It’s all up to the Republicans."

What utter bullshit. Pelosi-- who has given up all pretense of governing on behalf of the people rather than on behalf of a tiny, electorally vulnerable Blue Dog fringe within her caucus-- could easily pass David Cicilline's assault weapons sales ban. There are 210 Democratic co-sponors to the bill, one Republican co-sponsor (to give her bipartisan cover if she wants it-- which she doesn't) and at least a dozen members on both sides of the aisle who say they will vote for it on the floor but not co-sponsor it. Pelosi needs 218 to pass it. She has at least 225 votes now. She's full of shit-- and so is Bernstein. He wants to dwell on Trump's criminal behavior-- which is fine-- but excuse Pelosi for allowing it.

We still have only limited information about the emerging whistleblower scandal. But we do know (from what Rudy Giuliani has bragged about) that the president’s lawyer has pressed another country to investigate a Democratic candidate for alleged corruption. That’s on top of the original Trump campaign’s dozens of contacts with a nation attacking U.S. democracy; several documented instances of the president obstructing the investigation of that attack; violations of the emoluments clauses of the Constitution and regular use of government resources to enrich the president’s businesses; and assertions of invented presidential privileges to prevent congressional oversight.

Republicans have been okay with all this, presumably because they’re getting what they want on policy. Or perhaps out of pure partisanship. Or maybe because they’re so deep in the conservative information-feedback loop that they’ve convinced themselves none of it is real. But they should be taking stock now of just how much lawlessness they’re willing to tolerate. At this point, it looks like the whistleblower’s story involves Trump attempting to offer U.S. policy favors to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

I’ve said all along that there’s a middle ground where the evidence may justify impeachment and removal of the president, but not demand it. Well, the evidence has long since established that impeachment is justified. Now we’re tiptoeing up to the line where it demands removal. At some point, we may wind up clearly over that line by any reasonable definition. If Republicans choose to stick with Trump then, he’ll correctly conclude that he’s above the law.

Democrats can’t do much about this by themselves. Sure, they can attempt to convince the public that Trump’s actions demonstrate that he’s unfit for office, and it’s reasonable to consider every method of doing so, including a partisan impeachment ending in a party-line acquittal in the Senate. They should also continue their investigations, even though much of the case against Trump has been public from the beginning.

But we know how public opinion works. As long as Republicans choose to stay relatively united, either in denying evidence of Trump’s malfeasance or claiming that there’s nothing wrong with it, then Democrats will be unable to generate enough constituent pressure to change their minds. Whatever evidence is turned up, Republicans probably can brazen it out if that’s what they really want, regardless of the damage it does to U.S. democracy. So that leaves one question for them: Is this really what you want?  

"A president is sitting in the Oval Office, right now, who continues to commit crimes. He continues because he knows his Justice Department won’t act and believes Congress won’t either. Today’s news confirmed he thinks he’s above the law. If we do nothing, he’ll be right."- Elizabeth Warren