Is The Corrupt DC Democratic Establishment Trying To Take Over Your State's Democracy? It Is In Ohio

At tonight's SisterGiant/BlueAmerica progressive candidates forum (6pm, PT; 9pm back East), Marianne is interviewing congressional candidates Mike Noland from Illinois and Mike Manypenny from West Virginia. Last night she spoke with Rep. Ted Lieu (CA), Carol Shea-Porter (NH) and Rubin Kihuen (NV). That link just above allows you to watch the brand new interviews and the archived ones as well. Yesterday Bob Cesca brought a different race into focus in making a point Marianne has been making as well-- despite all the commotion about the presidential race and the Trumpf flying penis circus, campaigns for the Senate and House are absolutely crucial and shouldn't be overlooked. Cesca illustrates his point with a look at one of the Blue America Senate candidates, P.G. Sittenfeld in Ohio, who Chuck Schumer and the corrupt Democratic establishment have been working hard to sabotage.

In Ohio, probably the most important swing state in the country, there is also a race going on for the U.S. Senate, one of maybe four or five that will determine who controls the upper chamber of Congress. The Republican, Rob Portman, is exactly the Jeb-like stooge you'd expect. He's George W. Bush's former trade negotiator and budget guy, someone who thinks defunding Planned Parenthood, opposing a minimum wage increase, blocking universal background checks on guns and refusing to do his job as laid out in the Constitution, to put a new justice on the Supreme Court.

But the real race here right now is in the state's Democratic Primary. While I'd rather not attack a Democrat, there is just too much of a difference between the young, urban-based, future-looking campaign of P.G. Sittenfeld, and the Blue Dog-ish, uninspiring, ghost-like campaign of the one-term former governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland. The former can beat Rob Portman, the latter simply has no chance, and will lose like he did his reelection campaign in 2010.

P.G. is a progressive's progressive in the mold of former senators John Glenn and the late Howard Metzenbaum, as well as current U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown. He's for scrapping the cap on Social Security. He supports universal background checks on guns, as well as forward thinking measures like microstamping of ammunition. He's for paid family leave, a $15 minimum wage and bold measures to do all we can to ameliorate the climate crisis. He's also fully, proudly and loudly pro-choice.



The DSCC endorsed Ted Strickland attacked Rob Portman rightfully for disrespecting Article II by refusing to support a new Supreme Court Justice, while refusing to debate his primary opponent. This is not a D-rated NRA supporter, like Bernie Sanders, but an A-plus rated NRA booster, who voted against every single gun-safety measure ever placed before him. He thought guns in bars were a good idea. And Stand Your Ground. And immunity for gun companies.

Strickland fought against paid sick leave; wouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy as governor because he said it would hurt the economy (so he cut mental health funding and library funding instead); he voted to get rid of Glass-Steagall, and got a 30 percent rating from NARAL at one point in Congress (which is considered anti-choice); and recently said he'd support a Supreme Court Justice who is anti-choice. Before having his spokesperson walk it back. He wanted a "pause" in Syrian refugees, opposes a $15 minimum wage and was a friend of coal as governor, who when asked about Keystone refused to take a position because it was "controversial."



Is this what Democrats think counts as leadership? Do Ohio progressives think this kind of cautious, hide-and-go-seek approach to important issues is what will inspire people? There are also the matters of he fact that Strickland is not someone who can sit in this seat for numerous terms, as someone who would be 75 years old when sworn in. And the fact that while P.G. is vivacious and charismatic, Strickland is halting and awkward.

This might be why the only two-term Democratic governor in the past 50 years in Ohio, Dick Celeste, has endorsed P.G. It honestly couldn't be clear who will be a better Senator, and he has a chance of getting there, unlike his opponent. More of the same isn't selling this election season.

This is too important a national race to let slide by without getting engage. Progressives should support P.G. Ohio Democrats must vote for him. We should all contribute what we can. He is the ascendant Obama coalition; let's make sure he ascends right now.

Best yet, P.G. Sittenfeld received the endorsement of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul actor Jonathan Banks.

This race is another example of Schumer trying to tell locals who he and his paymasters on Wall Street want in the Senate. He's doing the same thing to Democrats in Pennsylvania, in Illinois, in Maryland and in Florida, and in every case he is dictating that THE Democratic candidate will be a less progressive, more "easily managed" inside-the-box thinker. Just this morning, Alan Grayson in Florida wrote to his supporters that the establishment in Washington doesn't want anyone else like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Senate. That's why they're trying so hard to defeat us."

Last May, as Reuters reported, big Wall Street banks-- specifically, Citigroup, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America – were so concerned about Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s call to break up the big banks that they threatened to cut off their campaign contributions to Senate Democrats.

You didn’t hear Wall Street deny the story. How could they? And you didn’t hear Senate Democrats say that they would ignore the threat. How could they? They’re hooked on Wall Street sewer money. Chuck Schumer, for instance, the would-be Senate Democratic Leader, has taken $23 million in cold, hard cash from Wall Street all by himself.

Well, Senate Democrats couldn’t get rid of unbought progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who had already won their seats in the Senate. But they could appease their Wall Street masters by making sure that no new unbought progressives joined their ranks.

You know, someone like me.

And if they could elect someone like Patrick Murphy instead-- someone who has taken more sewer money from Wall Street during his time in Congress than any other House Democrat-- well, that would be a twofer.

Let’s face the facts. The corrupt, mendacious Democratic Establishment in Washington has promised Wall Street “no more Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders types in the U.S. Senate.” That’s why they have gone all-out to drag empty-suit Wall Street errand boy Patrick Murphy across the finish line.

...When we win, it will curtail the omnipotence of the Democratic Establishment, the billionaires, the multinational corporations, and the special interests who are dominating the priorities in Congress. They know it. And they fear it. That’s why they keep coming after me and my family with ridiculous attacks that have no basis in reality. And the stenographers posing as reporters in the corporate-owned lapdog media are more than happy to act as conveyer belts for their “oppo dump.”

To hell with them. To hell with them all. Because when I have your help, they are powerless. With your help, we will win, we will wash them away, and we will make America a land of justice, equality and peace.

Grayson's description applies in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Illinois as much as it does in Florida. Schumer has gotten his bankster buddies to help finance the Schumercrats he promises them will balance out Elizabeth Brown, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley and Sherrod Brown. This is what the Schumercrats have taken from the Finance Sector so far this cycle, amounts that are rapidly rising:

• Patrick Murphy (FL)- $872,350
• Chris Van Hollen (MD)- $390,807
• Ted Strickland (OH)- $365,530
• Tammy Duckworth (IL)- $274,264

Please consider be part of some grassroots power to send Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards and P.G. Sittenfeld to the Senate instead.

Are The National Democrats Imitating House Of Cards Or Is House Of Cards Imitating The National Democrats?

I've nearly finished watching all of Season 3 of House of Cards. No spoilers' alert here; I'm not going to give away surprises. I keep asking myself-- and my fellow House of Cards fans-- why we like Frank and Claire Underwood. Apart from the fact they they are dangerous psychopaths-- and let's not forget that Frank is a cold-blooded murderer and that Claire is an accomplice-- there's the substance behind the his politics. I hate everything about his politics. Frank Underwood is the kind of fake Democrat-- a South Carolina Blue Dog or New Dem-- we are always railing against here at DWT. The center of his political raison d'être is America Works-- AmWorks-- a jobs program which seeks to tar Social Security and Medicare as entitlements and gut both. This week, the (real-life) Washington Post went so far as to actually ask if America Works could actual work.

There aren't too many details about the program. (Yes, this is a TV show and details on policy proposals are sparse.)

Here's what we do know about AmWorks:

1. Unemployed people register with the government to receive a job.

2. New jobs are created by the government in infrastructure, maintenance, repair, defense...

3. ...and through the private sector, which can receive up to $45,000 from the government to go towards salaries for each new position created.

4. The costs are covered by cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

5. It's expected to cost $500 billion.

6. It's expected to create 10 million jobs.

...I spoke with Stan Veuger, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, about how AmWorks would play out in reality. Basically, not very well, he said.

"Socialist countries typically have something like that," he said.

AmWorks would be "similar to raising the minimum wage to stratospheric levels," Veuger added, noting that such a move would lead to "wage-driven inflation." Paying for the program out of entitlements could also push people out of Social Security and back into the workforce. "I think overall, it's a terrible idea," he concluded.

Whether or not the 50,000 jobs created by AmWorks' limited run in the District of Columbia will convince the voters in Underwood's America otherwise will be a question for House of Cards season 4.

RJ Eskow went even further at HuffPo the day before. "Who knew," he asks, "that the show itself-- not the characters, but the show-- had a hidden agenda? Eschew blames one of the show's consultants-- no, not President Clinton-- Third Way co-founder Jim Kessler.

It's already taken on teachers. Now comes the anti-"entitlement" tirade from Frank Underwood in Episode One of the new season. Frank, despite his evil ways and means, has an ambitious dream, which is introduced during a lengthy scene in which he lectures his staff, and the audience, on some highly misleading "facts."

How did that happen? How did the "AmericaWorks" fictional plot point come to be built on real-world lies?

Here's a clue: Episode One's credits list Jim Kessler as a consultant. Kessler is, as his IMDB biography notes, the co-founder of Third Way. That's a Wall Street-funded, so-called "centrist" Democratic organization with a mission: to promote neoliberal economics and make the world safe (at least financially) for its wealthy patrons.

Third Way has consistently misrepresented the financial condition of Social Security, misdirected the public debate about Medicare, and generally promoted the socially liberal but fiscally conservative worldview of its patrons.

Kessler and co-founder Jon Cowan carefully tiptoed their way through the minefield of public opinion for years, pretending to be technocrats rather than de facto lobbyists for powerful interests. They finally lost their balance last year. When confronted with the rise of Elizabeth Warren and the populist wing of the Democratic Party, they lashed out at Sen. Warren with an intemperate Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Frank's a Democrat, like all Third Way members, and his rant is filled with exactly the kind of misinformation and manipulation that we've come to expect from that corporatist crowd. "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, every entitlement program that is sucking us dry," says Underwood in his rant, "I want it on the table... "Entitlements are bankrupting us," he concludes.

Except that they're not. Social Security accounts for 24 percent of the Federal budget, but it is forbidden by law from adding to the overall deficit. What's more, its trust fund is currently holding $2.8 trillion dollars in reserves. The statement is meaningless.

Then Frank says his chief of staff has conducted a poll in which seventy-four percent of voters said they agreed with this statement: "Doing what's best for my country means doing some things that I don't like."

"Now, what does that tell us?" Underwood asks. "We have to do the things that people won't like. And even when we do, three out of four of them will go along with us."

This is exactly the kind of poll the real-life corporate crowd loves to conduct-- so general as to be meaningless. When asked specific questions, most voters-- including Republicans, Dems, and independents-- don't want cuts to Social Security or Medicare. 76 percent of self-described Tea Party members objected in one poll. And they'll punish any politician who tries.

Voters want millionaires and billionaires to pay the same payroll tax rate as other Americans (the tax is currently capped at approximately $118,500 per year of income). They want Social Security's benefits increased, which makes sense, since retirement benefits have been decimated in this country and our benefits don't fare well when compared to those of other industrialized nations. And they're willing to step up and pay for these increases with higher taxes, according to a poll from the National Academy for Social Insurance.

That's more than the Third Way's financiers are willing to do.

The Third Way crowd loves to present itself as young, bold, and visionary, and their opponents as "special interests." House of Cards sticks to this script by employing an aging political apparatchik as the voice of liberalism.

"The programs that you want to scale back or dismantle are the bedrock of the American dream," says the gray-haired, soft-hearted cliché. "You work hard, you pay your taxes--"

Underwood interrupts. "No, I'm sorry, they were the bedrock of the American dream. But they're not anymore. Certainly not for the ten million people who are out of work."

In Episode Two, Underwood gives a "bold" speech outlining his plan. It begins:

For too long, we in Washington have been lying to you. We say we're here to serve you, when in fact, we're serving ourselves. And why? We are driven by our own desire to get reelected ...

That's another favored trope: that the corporate politicians are courageous (as if it's brave to serve the wealthy and powerful!), while their opponents are cravenly pandering to the voters-- by representing them.

"That ends tonight," says Underwood. "Tonight, I give you the truth."

There's that idea again, that the corporate version of reality is "fact" or "truth." We're told that "the root of the problem" is "entitlements"-- a favorite word in the corporate crowd because it has negative connotations.

"Let me be clear," adds Underwood. "You are entitled to nothing ... "  Just like real-life Third Way types, Underwood is trying to cancel our nation's social contract.

At least Underwood wants to use the money to create jobs, which is more than most corporate Dems are willing to do. That's a little disturbing: Real-life Third Wayers seem less responsive to the public than a fictional sociopath.

Whether you watch House of Cards or not, you should be aware of where this danger lies in the real world. And in the U.S. Congress that would be the New Dems and the Establishment careerists. Yesterday Chris Van Hollen, one of the architects of Simpson-Bowles (which would have cut benefits for seniors under Social Security and Medicare) declared he's running for the U.S. Senate. I guarantee you, he won't be running around Maryland telling voters they are entitled to nothing and bragging about his work on Simpson-Bowles. Basically the New Dems are garden variety Republicans who-- for one reason or another-- have wound up inside the Democratic Party. They consistently vote with the GOP and consistently work to worm their way into positions of power and influence. Several of the worst New Dems-- Maryland's John Delaney, Illinois' Bill Foster, and Florida's Patrick Murphy, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Gwen Graham-- are looking to move up into the U.S. Senate. Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi cheered on these Frank Underwood types within her own caucus when they introduced their nausea-inducing, very coded agenda-- an agenda conspicuously devoid of any vision for ordinary working families or for labor. New Dems believe that the strengths of the United States come from technology, capital markets, and the military. They believe that the U.S. projects power and stability by promoting our multinationals and by ensuring that the dollar is the global currency, rather than just the U.S. currency, and they see organized labor and small businesses as problematic potential obstacles to this projection of power. They try hiding this in coded language so voters identify them as Democrats. It even worked on Pelosi:

“The New Democrats are a strong entrepreneurial voice within our Caucus, bringing innovation and energy to House Democrats’ work to create prosperity for every American family.

“Today, the New Democrats have released a bold plan for the future of our country, the American Prosperity Agenda.  Economic growth, equality of opportunity, and a government that works for middle class families-- these principles are at the heart of our shared mission as Democrats.

“Only by laying a firm foundation for growth, based on ambitious goals for our future, can we secure a vibrant middle class and keep American number one.  Together, Democrats will continue to work to reignite the American Dream and step into a new era of prosperity for every American family.”

Just How Furious Is The US Surveillance State At Russia Over Ed Snowden's Asylum?

Early in the third season of House of Cards, Russian President Victor Petrov has the Russian security police arrest American gay rights activist Michael Corrigan in Moscow, which causes a disturbance in U.S. domestic politics (and international relations). It would have been far more complex for Beau Willimon to write Ed Snowden's sojourn to Russia into the series instead.

There are people who believe the CIA aggression in Ukraine was, at least in part, pay back for Putin's grant of asylum to Snowden. In his book, The Edward Snowden Affair, Michael Gurnow doesn't get into that specifically, only that "the fallout was catastrophic."

After declaring on July 19, “We [the White House] call on the Russian government to cease its campaign of pressure against individuals and groups seeking to expose corruption, and to ensure that the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of all of its citizens, including the freedoms of speech and assembly, are protected and respected,” Press Secretary Jay Carney produced the U.S. government’s first official response to Snowden’s asylum shortly after Russia granted the whistleblower his freedom. Washington’s fatigue and exasperation was obvious. Carney issued the subdued statement, “[ ... ] we are extremely disappointed by this decision by Russian authorities” before glibly inserting, “This move by the Russian government undermines a longstanding record of law enforcement cooperation.”

Various U.S. senators went on record. Charles Schumer announced, “Russia has stabbed us in the back.” Former presidential candidate John McCain proclaimed, “We cannot allow today’s action by Putin to stand without serious repercussions.” Lindsey Graham stood by his previous call to boycott the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, if Snowden wasn’t returned to the United States. The latter two congressmen also suggested ignoring America’s nuclear disarmament agreement with Russia. They called for the completion of the last phase of America’s European missile-defense program. In anticipation of Russia providing Snowden safe harbor, several politicians had already begun to pressure the president to cancel his meeting with Putin, which was scheduled to take place before the commencement of the G20 Summit in Moscow on September 5 in Saint Petersburg. Carney reported that the White House was now “evaluating the utility” of a pre-summit conversation.

Last House of Cards episode I watched-- #5-- UN Ambassador Claire Underwood had quietly moved from targeted financial sanctions against Russian officials to threatening to blow up planes and trucks and ships. The Obama Administration is still primarily sticking to sanctions-- even if their efficacy are still much-debated.

Economic sanctions, which most forecasts assume will continue this year, are having less impact that many in the West would like to believe. Sergei Tsukhlo of the Gaidar Institute estimates that the sanctions have affected only 6 percent of Russian industrial enterprises. "Their effect remains quite insignificant despite all that's being said about them," he wrote, noting that trade disruptions with Ukraine have been more important.

Granted, there's no avoiding a significant drop in Russians' living standards because of accelerating inflation. The economics ministry in Moscow predicts real wages will fall by 9 percent this year-- which, Aslund wrote, means that "for the first time after 15 years in power," Russian President Vladimir Putin "will have to face a majority of the Russian people experiencing a sharply declining standard of living." So far, though, Russians have taken the initial shock of devaluation and accompanying inflation largely in stride. The latest poll from the independent Levada Center, conducted between Feb. 20 and Feb. 23, actually shows an uptick in Putin's approval rating-- to 86 percent from 85 percent in January.

It's time to bury the expectation that Russia will fall apart economically under pressure from falling oil prices and economic sanctions, and that Russians, angered by a drop in their living standards, will rise up and sweep Putin out of office. Western powers face a tough choice: Settle for a lengthy siege and ratchet up the sanctions despite the progress in Ukraine, or start looking for ways to restart dialogue with Russia, a country that just won't go away.

Ted Cruz Has Plans For A Republican-Controlled Congress

Do fascists now control the Senate GOP? Curtis Haas and Ted Cruz

Former Colorado congressman and virulent racist Tom Tancredo wrote on some fringy, far right website that if the GOP captures the Senate today the GOP leadership should move immediately to impeach President Obama. So? Who cares what a crackpot like Tancredo, a private citizen with absolutely no mainstream credibility, has to say? How about if someone just as unhinged was saying the same kind of stuff but from inside the U.S. Senate? Did you watch House of Cards? If so, do you recall the "Tea Party bullhorn," a far right, obstructionist and neo-fascist senator named Curtis Haas? He was modeled on... real-lfe far right, obstructionist and neo-fascist senator Ted Cruz... from Texas.

So with many of today's crucial Senate races polling within the margin of error-- Quinnipiac has Braley and Ernst in a 47-47% dead heat in Iowa, for example-- that even the biggest optimists in the country are coming to grips with the fact that the Republicans could take over the U.S. Senate, which will give them-- thanks to Steve Israel's grotesque incompetence and corruption-- control over both Houses of Congress.

Although the Republican senators and candidates have by and large campaigned as "bipartisan" and mainstream, the party will be in thrall to the demented ideological extremism of Ted Cruz, in the same way that the House of Cards Republicans were effectively controlled by Curtis Haas. Sunday evening Sebastian Payne and Robert Costa, interviewed Cruz for the Washington Post. They reported that "Cruz made it clear he would push hard for a Republican-led Senate to be as conservative and confron­tational as the Republican-led House."

Piggybacking on what House leaders have done, Cruz said the first order of business should be a series of hearings on President Obama, “looking at the abuse of power, the executive abuse, the regulatory abuse, the lawlessness that sadly has pervaded this administration.”

Cruz also would like the Senate to be as aggressive in trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act as the House, which has voted more than 50 times to get rid of the law.

Republicans should “pursue every means possible to repeal Obamacare,” Cruz said, including forcing a vote through parliamentary procedures that would get around a possible filibuster by Democrats. If that leads to a veto by Obama, Cruz said, Republicans should then vote on provisions of the health law “one at a time.”

And when asked whether he would back Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky for Republican leader, Cruz would not pledge his support-- an indication that there are limits to how much of a partner he’s willing to be.

At the heart of Cruz’s shift from the insular approach that defined his first year in office is a belief that he can use his popularity with conservatives to expand his influence in the Senate and improve his standing as he considers a 2016 presidential campaign.

Cruz’s desire to turn his party further right in the coming months is one of the challenges already facing McConnell should Republicans regain the Senate, with tea party leaders inside and outside the Capitol spoiling for a number of hard-line moves.

“Senator Cruz has been rather quiet over the past few months,” said Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Trent Lott when the Mississippian was the Senate Republican leader. “That time seems to be coming to an end. I understand why he’s eager to go after Obamacare. But the reality is that it’ll take 60 votes to repeal it and Republicans will have nowhere near that amount. If Obamacare remains the focus, he will certainly get the base jazzed up about what he’s doing, but he won’t get rid of the law.”

Cruz has gained some traction in terms of shaping the contours of what a Republican Senate would do, in part because McConnell and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) have not offered their own definitive vision of what a Republican-led Congress would look like.

Two weeks ago, Cruz wrote an opinion piece in USA Today laying out 10 conservative priorities he thinks Republicans should pursue, including moving toward a flat tax and drawing a hard line on illegal immigrants. In the interview here, Cruz reiterated some of those points, such as approving the Keystone XL pipeline.

...Cruz should be able to count on a handful of new friends, if not allies, when the Senate convenes next year. In recent weeks, he has campaigned for Senate contenders who beat Cruz-admiring insurgents in Republican primaries, from businessman David Perdue in Georgia and state Sen. Joni Ernst in Iowa to Sullivan and Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas’s embattled incumbent.

If she wins, Ernst is poised to be a powerful player in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, the first nominating contest in the 2016 race for the GOP presidential nomination. Perdue, who has weak ties to his red state’s GOP base, could hew close to Cruz on some votes to keep conservatives in Georgia at bay. Sullivan, for similar reasons, could do the same.

Right wing sociopaths are going to back Cruz and vote for his candidates. Can he be stopped by "normal" voters today-- ones who aren't brainwashed by Fox and Hate Talk Radio? Yes, if independent voters in Iowa, Colorado, Maine, South Dakota and Alaska, break strong for Bruce Braley, Mark Udall, Shenna Bellows, Rick Weiland and Mark Begich, Cruz will be back in his sandbox howling at the moon for the next two years.