Eliot Cohen Pronounces The Dissolution Of The Bond Between The GOP And Conservatism

Republican Values by Nancy Ohanian

Other than Jeff Flake, he wrote Sunday, "There was not a profile in courage to be seen. Not one." Eliot Cohen is a professor at Johns Hopkins and a neo-conservative thinker who worked for Condoleezza Rice at the Bush State Department. He was one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century and is the author, most recently, of The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power and the Necessity of Military Force. He's a real war-monger and has been an unrelenting champion of going to war against Iraq and Iran. A Putin-hater, he was also a prominent Never-Trumper. Last year, he wrote in The Atlantic that "Many conservative foreign-policy and national-security experts saw the dangers last spring and summer, which is why we signed letters denouncing not Trump’s policies but his temperament; not his program but his character. We were right. And friends who urged us to tone it down, to make our peace with him, to stop saying as loudly as we could 'this is abnormal,' to accommodate him, to show loyalty to the Republican Party, to think that he and his advisers could be tamed, were wrong."

Over the weekend he published a new piece at The Atlantic, The Republican Party Abandons Conservatism. He's correct, but he doesn't identify the Republican Party with the fascism it has turned to. Maybe next year. He re-registered as an independent in 2016 after Trump occupied the White House. "Being a conservative," he wrote, "has always meant, to me, taking a certain view of human nature, and embracing a certain set of values and virtues. The conservative is warier than her liberal counterpart about the darker impulses and desires that lurk in men and women, more doubtful of their perfectibility, skeptical of and opposed to the engineering of individual souls, and more inclined to celebrate freedom moderated by law, custom, education and culture. She knows that power tends to corrupt, and likes to see it checked and divided. Words like responsibility, stoicism, self-control, frugality, fidelity, decorum, honor, character, independence, and integrity appeal to most decent people. They come particularly easily to the admirers of thinkers from Edmund Burke to Irving Kristol. The GOP threw frugality and fiscal responsibility away long ago, initially in the Reagan years, but now on a stunning scale involving trillion-dollar deficits as far as can be forecast. It abandoned most of its beliefs in fidelity and character when it embraced a liar, cheat, and philanderer as its nominee and then as president. But something else snapped this week." I guess you can imagine now that Cohen is no fan of Brett Kavanaugh nor of any of the Trump enablers like Kavanaugh.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy as expressed in various statements and conclusions was, for the most part, pretty standard conservative fare, save for one tell-tale element: his ascription of very high levels of immunity and discretion to the executive. In this respect what passes today for conservativism is anything but. Where traditionally, conservatives have wanted “ambition to check ambition” as Alexander Hamilton put it, Republicans are now executive-branch kinds of people. It is not surprising that Kavanaugh himself worked at a high level in a Republican White House. The disdain of many contemporary Republicans for congressional power and prerogative makes them indistinguishable from liberals who (as recently as the Obama years) turned to sweeping uses of executive power to circumvent a balky House of Representatives and Senate.

It was, however, in the epic clash over the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford that the collapse of conservatism in the Republican Party became most evident. Eleven men, most of them old, hid behind a female prosecutor wheeled in from Arizona because they could not, apparently, trust themselves to treat a victim of sexual assault with consideration and respect. So much for courage. Their anger at Democratic shenanigans was understandable, but virtually without exception, when they did summon up the nerve to speak (during Kavanaugh’s turn) their questions consisted almost exclusively of partisan baying at the opposition. Genuine conservatives might have snarled initially, but would, out of regard for the truth, tried to figure out exactly what happened to Ford 35 years ago, and whether the character of the man before them was what it was said to be.

Perhaps the collapse of modern conservatism came out most clearly in Kavanaugh’s own testimony-- its self-pity, its hysteria, its conjuring up of conspiracies, its vindictiveness. He and his family had no doubt suffered agonies. But if we expect steely resolve from a police officer confronting a knife-wielding assailant, or disciplined courage from a firefighter rushing into a burning house, we should expect stoic self-control and calm from a conservative judge, even if his heart is being eaten out. No one watching those proceedings could imagine that a Democrat standing before this judge’s bench in the future would get a fair hearing. This was not the conservative temperament on display. It was, rather, personalized grievance politics.

Real conservatives have always prided themselves on their willingness to stand up to their own kind in the name of moral principle. Think of Senator Robert Taft opposing the North Atlantic Treaty, knowing that those positions could destroy his political career. Taft was wrong in his views, but he was principled, he was courageous, and he went down speaking truth as he saw it. William F. Buckley took on the John Birch Society in the middle of the 20th century, and the anti-Semites in the conservative camp later on. In 1993, when Buckley had to choose between loyalty to Joseph Sobran, his long-time protégé and colleague at the National Review, and rejection of bigotry, principle won and he fired his friend.

During the Ford and Kavanaugh testimonies, Americans watched the cranky maunderings of Senator Chuck Grassley and the spitting, menacing fury of Senator Lindsey Graham. The combination of calm strength and good humor that characterized the modern conservative icon, Ronald Reagan, was nowhere to be found. But that spirit, the spirit of a president who celebrated America as a city on a hill that was generous abroad, welcoming to newcomers, and self confident at home, has been replaced by the sour meanness of a party chiefly of men, who build walls to keep the world out, erect tariffs to destroy free trade, despise the alliances that keep Americans secure, and sanction the deliberate plucking of babes from their mothers’ breasts in order to teach illegal immigrants a painful lesson. In such a world, decorum and courtesy are irrelevant.

There was always been a dark side to American conservatism, much of it originating in the antebellum curse of a society, large parts of which favored slavery and the extermination of America’s native population, the exclusion of immigrants from American life, and discrimination against Catholics and Jews. Many of us had hoped that the civil-rights achievements of the mid-20th century (in which Republicans were indispensable partners), changing social norms regarding women, and that rising levels of education had eliminated the germs that produced secession, lynching, and Indian massacres. Instead, those microbes simply went into dormancy, and now, in the presence of Trump, erupt again like plague buboes-- bitter, potent and vile.

The last twitches of conservative independence consisted of Senator Jeff Flake securing a week-long FBI investigation of Ford’s charges. For the rest, there was not a profile in courage to be seen. Not one.

It is impossible at this moment to envisage the Republican Party coming back. Like a brontosaurus with some brain-eating disorder it might lumber forward in the direction dictated by its past, favoring deregulation of businesses here and standing up to a rising China there, but there will be no higher mental functioning at work. And so it will plod into a future in which it is detested in a general way by women, African Americans, recent immigrants, and the educated young as well as progressives pure and simple. It might stumble into a political tar pit and cease to exist or it might survive as a curious, decaying relic of more savage times and more primitive instincts, lashing out and crushing things but incapable of much else.

Intellectuals do not build American political parties. Politicians do. The most we can do is point out the truths as we see them, and cheer on those who can do the necessary work. It is supposedly inconceivable that a genuinely conservative party could emerge, but then again, who thought the United States could be where it is now? And progressives no less than bereft conservatives should want this to happen, because the conservative virtues remain real virtues, the conservative insights real insights, and the conservative temperament an indispensable internal gyro keeping a country stable and sane. “Cometh the hour, cometh the man” runs the proverb. The hour is upon the country: conservatives wait for the men (or more likely women) to meet it.

While conservatives wait for a messiah to rescue them from Trumpism, may I humbly suggest that you help us rid our country of the unfettered power Trump now exercises with the connivance of his congressional rubber-stamps and enablers, like Drunken Hunter (CA-50) and Chris Collins (NY-27), the first two members of Congress to endorse him, both currently awaiting trial for dozens of personal enrichment fraud charges. See this thermometer on the right? That's a 2018 ActBlue congressional thermometer for heavily vetted progressive candidates devoted to our country and to a sense of integrity and truth. Even if you're a conservative through and through-- and believe in conservative values-- we all need to keep our eyes on the ball: checking Donald Trump's authoritarian nature. Click the thermometer and you'll find congressional candidates who will help do just that. Please contribute what you can to their campaigns. You'll be happy to know that none of the money you contribute goes anywhere near the DCCC or the DNC or to any crooked consultants. 100% goes right to the candidates of your choice.

Two crucial Senate seats are slipping out of the GOP's grasp. They have been desperate to hold onto Dean Heller's seat in Nevada and were certainty could win Claire McCaskill's seat in Missouri, a state with a PVI of R+9 (same as Indiana and Mississippi), which Trump won 56.77% to 38.14%. A pair of new SSRS Research polls, released this afternoon by CNN, show the Democrats ahead in both:

What's the common denominator? The toxicity of Señor Trumpanzee doesn't really tell the full story. Among likely voters in red Missouri 51% of likely voters approve of the way Trump is handling his job compared to 45% who disapprove. But among likely voters in purple Nevada 51% disapprove and just 45% approve when asked the Trump question; the exact opposite. McCaskill is fighting a successful uphill battle to present herself as a Missouri candidate above the national fray. Jacky Rosen, pretty much a nothing candidate, looks like she'll just washed into office in the anti-Trump/amti-red wave.

New Polls In Florida, Ohio, New Jersey And Arizona Show Trump Is Toxic Enough To Flip Congress

Voters do NOT want Trump enablers and rubber stamps

The Democrats have some really weak-- even repulsive-- candidates. But it may not matter. Kyrsten Sinema, for example, is literally the worst Democrat in the House. Chair of the Blue Dogs, her ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is a dismal 35.44, the lowest "F" of any Democrat. But Schumer recognized a kindred spirit and gave her the nomination. And she's probably going to win anyway. Jacky Rosen-- another crap candidate of Schumer's (and Reid's)-- isn't as bad, because as soon as she was told she could be a senator, she started voting like a Democrat. But she's still plenty bad. She also has an "F" but her score is 53.51%, just between Blue Dogs Filemon Vega (TX) and Conor Lamb (PA). Polling consistently shows even the worst, useless Democrats, like Sinema and Rosen, are going to win anyway. Independent voters are freaking out over Trump and they want a Congress that will act as a check on his excesses and psychosis. And they've seen that Republicans are too scared of him-- or worse-- to do anything but behave as enablers and rubberstamps, even in red-leaning state.

Yesterday, Carrie Dann, writing for NBC News reported on recent polls in Arizona, Florida and Ohio (all states Trump won in 2016). Only a third of voters think Trump should be reelected and voters are going to take it out on Republicans in November. Florida's PVI is R+2. Ohio's is R+3 and Arizona's is a very red R+5. Republicans in Congress deserve what's headed their way.

In Arizona, 52 percent of registered voters say they’ll use their vote to send a message that the country needs more Democrats to serve as a check on Trump, while 36 percent said the nation needs more Republicans to pass his agenda.

While Trump won the state of Arizona by four points in 2016, he’s underwater now when it comes to his approval rating in the state. His job approval rating among registered voters in Arizona is 41 percent approve, 47 percent disapprove. And just 35 percent say definitively that Trump deserves to be re-elected, while 57 percent disagree.

In Florida, another key swing state that’s home to one of the marquee Senate races of the cycle, 49 percent of voters favor a Congress that serves as a check on Trump, while 40 percent want lawmakers to assist Trump in passing legislation. The president’s approval rating among voters in the Sunshine State is the highest of the three states surveyed by NBC and Marist-- at 45 percent approve and 46 percent disapprove. But a majority-- 54 percent-- still say that a new person should be given a chance in the White House, while 37 percent say they believe Trump deserves re-election.

And in Ohio, 51 percent want more Democrats in Congress in order to counter Trump’s efforts, while 35 percent say they’d like to see more Republicans on Capitol Hill to help the president advance his agenda. Forty-two percent of voters approve of Trump’s performance, while 49 percent disagree. And just 34 percent say Trump deserves to win another term.

It's worth noting that these surveys were in the field June 17-22, during a time when the national conversation was focused on the administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents.

Back to Sinema in Arizona. The Arizona poll shows she will beat any of the 3 Republican candidates.

• Sinema- 57%, Joe Arpaio- 32%
• Sinema- 49%, Martha McSally- 38%
• Sinema- 49%, Kelli Ward- 38%

In Florida, Bill Nelson is leading Rick Scott 49-45%. On top of that, the gubernatorial candidate Trump keeps endorsing, crazy teabagger Ron DeSantis is way behind establishment candidate Adam Putnam-- 38% to 21%.

And in Ohio, the poll is also sour for the GOP. Sherrod Brown (D) is kicking Jim Renacci's ass, 51% to 38% and among registered voters, 51% want more Dems in Congress as a check on Trump while just 35% want more Republicans who will help Trump pass his agenda.

Will this work the same way in House races? Of course it will. Yesterday Monmouth released a new poll of New Jersey's open 11th district, where Rod Frelinghuysen has had enough of Trump and is retiring. The PVI is R+3 and Trump won the district by 1 point. (McCain and Romney did better.) Again, the Democrats have a worthless candidate who stands for nothing and offers the voters nothing at all: Mikie Sherrill... but she's leading Republican Jay Webber, 40% to 38% among likely voters.

The partisan enthusiasm gap is making this traditionally Republican district competitive for the first time in decades. A majority of all voters (55%) have a lot of interest in this election, but self-identified Democrats (67%) are significantly more likely than Republicans (48%) to feel that way.

“Right now this race is more about underlying partisan enthusiasm than it is about either of the two major party candidates because, to be frank, most voters don’t know much about either one of them. There is still a lot of room for movement in this race with the high number of undecided voters and low level of knowledge about the candidates,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.

“The recently passed tax reform bill may be the Trump presidency’s biggest legislative accomplishment to date, but it doesn’t play well in a district where the SALT cap is likely to hit hard,” said Murray. He added, “You wonder whether Sherrill would be doing even better if Frelinghuysen had chosen to run again, since it would have been harder for a party leader to separate himself from the Republican plan despite his own vote against it.”

Voters in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District are divided on their assessment of Donald Trump-- with 47% approving of the president’s job performance and 49% disapproving. They are slightly more likely to oppose (49%) rather than support (43%) what Trump is doing on most issues. Opponents (73%) are much more likely than supporters (56%) to say that it is very important for them to cast a vote for Congress that registers their feelings about the president.

NJ-11 voters are divided on whether they would rather see Republicans (40%) or Democrats (38%) in control of Congress, with another 18% saying that party control does not matter to them. When voters evaluate both parties, the GOP gets ever so slightly better positive ratings-- 35% favorable to 46% unfavorable for the Republican Party compared with 30% favorable to 44% unfavorable for the Democratic Party.

“Many voters in this district maintain a lifelong affiliation with the Republican Party. It’s just a different type of Republican Party than the one they see in control in Washington today. This political disconnect with the party is one factor that increases the district’s potential to flip,” said Murray.

In other words, Trump is toxic in all three swing states (and in NJ-11) that he won in 2016, augaring down ballot wins for the Democrats-- if the Kremlin doesn't interfere again. Watch this video that Chip Proser did for Ted Lieu. Then think about how serious a condition we're in now.

The Women's March Is Crucially Important, And... And But...

I don't go in for identity politics at all. Voting for someone because they were born a woman, gay, of any particular religion, Asian or black, for example, is not my cup pf tea. Nor is voting for someone who is a veteran, a scientist, a doctor or part of any age group. Take women. Women make up 51% of the population but just 22% of the Senate and 19% of the House. That's outrageous. And that's why when when two candidates-- one man and one woman-- are equally good, I'll vote for the woman. But, not all women candidates are good candidates or good political leaders. Some are absolutely horrible in fact. Look at the House. Arguably, the very best member of the House is Pramila Jayapal, a woman elected from Seattle. Katherine Clark (D-MA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Yvette Clarke (D-NY) have fantastic voting records too. And you want to find incredible leadership and courageousness in Congress? Look no further than Elizabeth Warren in the Senate and Barbara Lee in the House. Bad news though. The absolute rotgut worst Democrat in the House is a woman: Kyrsten Sinema, the head of the Blue Dogs who represents a nice blue district in the Phoenix area. And she isn't the only Democratic woman who is so horrible that no one who believes in Democratic values should support her. Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), and Jacky Rosen (NV) have amassed voting records that no one but Paul Ryan and EMILY's List could possibly like. In the Senate, the worst Democrat is Heidi Heitkamp-- yes, my friends, even worse than Joe Manchin. And who voted to throw the DREAMers under the bus-- or in this case onto a bus headed for Mexico or El Salvador-- Friday night? Heitkamp and Claire McCaskill (as well as Manchin and Joe Donnelly).

Among candidates for Congress this cycle, people such as Nina Ahmad (D-PA), Katie Porter (D-CA), Jenny Marshall (D-NC), Lisa Brown (D-WA), Jess King (D-PA), Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-NM)... are simply the best people running for Congress. It's stupid to call them the best woman candidate when they are just the best candidate, period. I remember how Joni Mitchell used to curse critics at reviewers who called her the "best woman songwriter." You can't imagine how offended she was by that. She was the best songwriter-- end of story. How about that? Those candidates are not the best women candidates; they are the best candidates. Period. You could say Nina Ahmad is the best woman candidate born in Dacca and, technically, you'd be correct. It makes more sense to say she's the best candidate running for Congress. Someone might want to argue with you-- maybe, say, proponents of Randy Bryce or Marie Newman, who might say one of them is better-- so fine, make the argument... but it's not about anyone's plumbing.

Another awesome congressional candidate, a woman, running in the Houston area, is Dayna Steele. She's amazing and would make a fantastic member of Congress with a unique and much-needed perspective. Yesterday she emailed he supporters about the woman's march: "One year ago, I marched with my husband and youngest son in downtown Houston. Expecting to see maybe 500 people, I was stunned to find over 30,000 women, men, and children. That scene repeated itself all over the world, where people gathered to take a stand.  When the march was over my young son asked 'What good will this do? What will you do moving forward?' After much thought and counsel, I decided to run for Congress. Today, with the government shut down because folks like Brian Babin won't do their job, I’m marching again with my husband and youngest son, this time as a candidate for the 36th district of Texas. If you support women’s rights, equal rights, healthcare for all, quality public education, DACA, CHIP, and making people‘s lives better, I’m asking you to support our campaign today." Support her here.



"Activists," wrote Michelle Price and Anita Snow, "are returning to the streets a year after a million people rallied worldwide at marches for female empowerment, hoping to create an enduring political movement that will elect more women to government office... A rally Sunday in Las Vegas will launch an effort to register 1 million voters and target swing states in the midterm elections. The 2017 rally in Washington, D.C., and hundreds of similar marches created solidarity for those denouncing President Donald Trump’s views on abortion, immigration, LGBT rights and more. Afterward, a wave of women decided to run for elected office and the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct became a cultural phenomenon. 'We made a lot of noise,' said Elaine Wynn, an organizer. 'But now how do we translate that noise into something concrete or fulfilling?' Linda Sarsour, one of the four organizers of last year’s Washington march, said Las Vegas was slotted for a major rally because it’s a strategic swing state that gave Hillary Clinton a narrow win in the presidential election and will have one of the most competitive Senate races in 2018. Democrats believe they have a good chance of winning the seat held by embattled Republican Sen. Dean Heller and weakening the GOP’s hold on the chamber."

Too bad [male] puppetmasters Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer handpicked one of the worst Democrats in the House, Jacky Rosen, as the Democratic candidate for that Senate seat. I'd vote for a pool of puke on the street before voting for Jacky Rosen. And the DCCC just endorsed a garbage candidate for Rosen's seat in the House, an incredibly wealthy, Mafia-connected socialite-- and Pelosi crony-- Susie Lee. If you want horrible-- albeit horrible without a penis-- you've got two to support right there in Las Vegas. And then you can feel like you've been cheated next year when they start voting like Heitkamp and McCaskill.

Instead, we should be putting our energy into electing great candidates-- many of whom are women-- who are shunned by corrupted slime like Reid and Schumer and the DCCC. Another Blue Dog in the House who is beyond horrible is Chicagoland walking garbage pile Dan Lipinski. He joined Paul Ryan to speak at the counter-rally against Choice on Friday. And his opponent is not just better than he is; his opponent is fantastic and someone who will make Congress a better place. Oh, and she happens be a woman: Marie Newman. Robin Marty, writing for Right Wing Watch wrote about that anti-Choice movement's rally and the horror of what's behind it. This is a lot more salient than electing crap candidates in Las Vegas.

When tens of thousands of abortion-rights opponents gather in Washington, D.C., this week to protest the 45th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, many will be lobbying the Trump administration and Congress on measures that they hope will chip away at and ultimately lead to the repeal of Roe. But a smaller group of activists are taking a much more direct approach to their efforts to stop legal abortion. Quietly, the anti-choice “rescue” movement has been trying out new tactics to test the limits of the FACE Act, the 1994 law that stopped them from physically blocking the entrances of abortion clinics in order to deny women access.

“Rescues” or abortion clinic sit-ins, are nothing new to the anti-abortion movement. In 1991, as many as 500 protesters a day gathered in front of abortion clinics in Wichita, Kansas, blocking patients from entering the buildings. The anti-abortion “rescue” movement was at its height then, with thousands gathering at national events to shut down clinics, while dedicated local activists focused on regular daily or weekly “rescues” that involved barricading elevators, blocking the vehicles of abortion providers, even locking themselves to buildings, cement blocks or cars so they couldn’t be removed from the premises.

The FACE Act put an end to almost all of those tactics. Signed into law in 1994 by Democratic President Bill Clinton, FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) made it a federal crime to physically obstruct a clinic entrance or use force, threat of force or intimidation against anyone attempting to provide or procure an abortion, or to intentionally damage or destroy the property of a reproductive health services facility. (FACE’s rules also applied to anyone trying to block access to a place of worship.)

The FACE Act brought a quick end to the rescue movement as it existed in its heyday, ending the ability of anti-choice activists to physically prevent women from accessing abortion. But the strength of the law depends on how aggressively the federal government is willing to enforce it. In the five years that the FACE Act was in effect under President Clinton, the administration used it to file charges in 46 criminal or civil cases. During the two-term presidency of Republican George W. Bush, on the other hand, the Department of Justice had a 75 percent drop in criminal FACE Act violation charges, and filed just one civil case in eight years. Aggressive enforcement began again with the election of Democratic President Barack Obama, whose administration prosecuted 11 criminal and nine civil FACE Act violations in his first term alone.

With another Republican president in the White House-- one who anti-abortion groups worked zealously to get elected once they accepted the fact that he would be their inevitable nominee-- it is still unclear how aggressively the Department of Justice will enforce the FACE Act. Last year, the Trump Justice Department showed that it was willing to prosecute the most flagrant FACE violations after the radical anti-choice group Operation Save America attempted an old-school clinic blockade in Louisville, Kentucky. Police arrested 11 anti-abortion activists associated with Operation Save Americain May after they sat and directly blocked the front doors of the only abortion clinic in the state. Ten of the activists were ultimately charged with civil FACE Act violations, and a temporary restraining order was issued to keep them from the clinic property when they returned for a national event two months later. A full trial on the charges will occur this spring.

Whether the Trump administration will pursue less clear-cut cases remains to be seen. In response, anti-abortion activists appear to be nibbling around the edges of the law, trying out new strategies to test how far the Justice Department will allow them to go.

...More anti-abortion activist groups are staging marches and protest events like this outside abortion clinic doors to thwart patients from obtaining legal abortion care. If a patient approaching a clinic for medical care is confronted with a sea of thousands of protesters, that can hardly be seen as anything other than intimidation of a person attempting to access an abortion. Yet these marches, because they are currently being organized in a permissible way in public thoroughfares, often come with the assistance and tacit support of local government and law enforcement agencies.

While the Trump administration is in power, it remains very unlikely that we will see many activists charged with FACE Act violations-- that is, unless we see more blatant Operation Save America-style clinic-door blockades like we saw in the spring of 2016. But as for, more tentative steps into potential FACE violations pacifist clinic trespasses, city-issued and permitted mass marches and similar tactics-- it is safe to expect these to multiply, especially as federal authorities stick their heads in the sand and local law enforcement provide little more than wrist slaps in response.

And considering that this was how the original rescue movement grew from local nuisance to a national threat to access, that could be the most alarming development of all.

This is Dan Lipinksi's world. Last Thursday, when the Republicans brought up the enabling legislation for another of their ugly and vicious anti-Choice bills, the so-called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, only two "Democrats" voted with the Republicans to allow the bill to move forward, vile Blue Dogs Dan Lipinski and Collin Peterson. The DCCC will never quit Dan or Collin. But supporting Marie Newman and helping her replace Lipinski is a far more effective way to bring about real change than backing Reid's, Schumer's and the DCCC's godawful women candidates in Nevada. We're not asking you to support Marie Newman because she's a woman-- although I'm happy she is and that's a crucial part of who she is-- but because she is the best candidate and because will make Congress a better place because of what she's got between her ears. If you click the ActBlue congressional thermometer on the right, you'll find Marie Newman... and a whole slew of awesome women candidates-- and awesome male candidates. These are the people we should be supporting if we want a better country, not Jacky Rosen, not Kyrsten Sinema and not Susie Lee.

The choice couldn't be more clear

The GOP Civil War Is On-- What About A Much-Needed One Among Democrats?

Sinema-- This is how Upchuck Schumer defines "a Democrat"

There's no denying that Roy Moore is far less fit for office-- any office-- than even Trumpanzee. That said, I admire Republican Party insurgents for successfully derailing a swampy lobbyist who oozed his way into the Senate and represents, more than anything, the repulsive, soul-murdering corruption of the establishment. By defeating-- gloriously defeating-- Luther Strange (despite the blandishments of their beloved Trumpanzee), a right-wing populist base sent a chilling message to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and their coteries of swamp creatures. This week every establishment Republican in Washington was shaking in his or her boots. More of them are contemplating early retirement. Not shaking: Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They feel confident that populists on the left will do nothing of the kind.

Shouldn't Democrats be working furiously to end the vile political careers of Joe Manchin (WV), Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Clare McCaskill (MO) and Jon Tester (MT)? Maybe... but that isn't really analogous. You may-- you should-- dislike those conservative Democrats but those are really red states:

• West Virginia- R+19
• Indiana- R+9
• North Dakota- R+19
• Missouri- R+9
• Montana- R+11

That is tough territory. And although the anti-Trump/anti-GOP tsunami may be big enough to defeat Moore in December and replace him with Doug Jones... well, that would have to be the biggest tsunami in history. Alabama's PVI is R+14. So Bannon and Mercer and that crew weren't really taking that big of a gamble they would give away a red seat. In fact, every poll shows Moore winning. (Google Consumer Surveys: Moore- 58%, Jones- 42%; Opinion Savvy: Moore- 50%, Jones- 45%.) We'll get to situations that are analogous below, but first, let me share some typical Politico conventional Beltway "wisdom": Bernie backers give Dem incumbents a pass in 2018. Gabriel Debenedetti reassures Beltway Dems that they have nothing to fear. No Democratic civil war brewing anywhere.

“What Democrats right now care about more than anything is winning,” veteran Democratic pollster Jefrey Pollock said of divisive Democratic primaries. “I don’t think the ultra-progressives have abandoned their principles-- not at all-- but I think they looked at the challenge and said, ‘This is not the right place.’”

...[T]he relative peace on the left wasn’t preordained-- the divisiveness of last year’s presidential primary was widely expected to manifest again in 2018 statewide elections. Yet with next year’s Senate and gubernatorial races shaping up, it’s Democrats whose sighs of relief are echoing around the country.

Democrats have escaped the brunt of their own party’s populist fury largely because they’re heading into the midterms in a defensive crouch, with 10 of their incumbent senators on the ballot in states that voted for Donald Trump. So instead of going after their own senators, progressive activists are focused on gaining Republican-held seats in the House.

“There’s some reluctance to put a lot of time into [unseating Democrats], versus [building] a more progressive Congress overall,” said former Communications Workers of America union president Larry Cohen, a top Bernie Sanders advisor who now chairs the board of the Our Revolution political group that was spawned from the senator’s 2016 presidential campaign. “There’s going to be a lot more activity where it’s possible to change the makeup of the Congress.”

Not all statewide Democratic incumbents are home-free: Actress Cynthia Nixon has been encouraged to mount a long-shot challenge against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo from the left next year-- much like the one he fended off in 2014. Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee has suggested he may take on first-term Gov. Gina Raimondo, criticizing her for not being sufficiently progressive on an array of issues.

And in California, fourth-term Sen. Dianne Feinstein has faced fury from the left for not challenging Trump more aggressively. State Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León, who made the rounds in Washington this month, and liberal activist Joe Sanberg have gained notice as potential challengers... [L]liberal challenges to West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill have so far failed to gain traction... [N]one of the many Democratic senators running in liberal states in 2018-- such as Delaware’s Tom Carper, Maryland’s Ben Cardin, Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar, Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse, or Washington’s Maria Cantwell-- have seen any reason to sweat their own positions.

...Still, messy Democratic primaries are still expected in several House districts where vulnerable Republicans are running for re-election. One conservative Democratic House member-- Illinois’ Dan Lipinski-- already faces a primary fight.

That’s reason enough for establishment-oriented and moderate Democrats to avoid complacency, insisted a handful of party operatives.

What Debenedetti missed are the two Senate primaries in the two states Democrats expect to flip from red to blue. Schumer and Van Hollen recruited 2 of the absolutely worst, most abysmal excuses for Democrats to run, grotesquely corrupt Blue Dog Kirsten Sinema (who actually-- by voting record-- is the single worst Democrat in the House) and almost-as-bad-as-Sinema worthless Jacky Rosen. Arizona progressives haven't gotten their shit together yet, but Nevada progressives sure have-- and with a far more qualified candidate that the swampy establishment is offering: Jesse Sbaih. Schumer, Reid and Van Hollen ar doing everything they can to bury Sbaih's campaign but progressive voters in Nevada are taking note-- and seeing who he is and who Jacky Rosen is. (Shamefully, the imbeciles at HRC have endorsed Sinema on the day she announced. She may be right-wing on everything else, but went it comes to her own private parts...)

Jesse Sbaih is upbeat and hopeful, if wary. "Democrats across the nation have awoken," he told us. "The days of Super Delegates, interfering with primary elections, and embracing corporate money are no longer tolerated by the majority. The more the Democratic Party insists on pushing its anointed candidates, disrupting the democratic process, and advancing the interests of greedy corporations (not the people), the more registered Democrats refuse to come out to vote in general elections. The 2016 election cycle was a perfect example of such intolerance. As we approach 2018, it behooves the Democratic Party to change its old ways or it shall face the peril of continuing to lose elections."

And progressives need to pick off corrupt and Republican-lite reactionaries in blue district primaries. One of the most important this cycle is the Chicagoland seat occupied by Blue Dog throwback Dan Lipinski. He can be beaten because the Democrats have an extraordinary candidate-- a stalwart progressive with deep community roots and the right message for the middle and working class voters in IL-03, Marie Newman. Yesterday she told us that "We have to start upgrading the party to have members of Congress who have real ideas and are willing to both fight and collaborate to get things done. Mr. Lipinski is the epitome of Blue-dog, Do-nothing establishment Dems. This district deserves a real Democrat with real ideas who will actually work and get results."

Normally, it takes 2 cycles to dislodge an entrenched incumbent and progressive champion Tim Canova is on his second cycle to replace the odious Debbie Wassermann Schultz in South Florida. "It's crucial we hold incumbent Democrats accountable," he just told us, "when they've shown a repeated pattern of selling out voters to corporate interests and personal political gain. There are none more in need of scrutiny and challenge than Debbie Wasserman Schultz-- for her many failures when chair of the Democratic National Committee, for undercutting so many other Democrats in and outside of Florida, and for taking millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the largest Wall Street banks and big corporate interests. Wasserman Schultz talks like a liberal and progressive, but she shills for predatory payday lenders, private prisons, fossil fuels and other big business donors. She personifies all that's wrong in our politics and with the Democratic Party. Wasserman Schultz will remain a danger to democracy and drag down Democrats as long as she's in public office."

As Humanist Report host Mike Figueredo reported at HuffPo yesterday, Yes, Medicare For All Is Definitely A Litmus Test For Democrats, not for swamp creatures like Schumer or Reid or Van Hollen, of course, but for actual Democrats.

Medicare for All is absolutely a litmus test! Democrats that refuse to cosponsor Sanders’ or Conyers’ bill in the Senate or House, respectively, will not only lose support (read: votes) from progressives, but we will actively find primary opponents to challenge and defeat them. If incumbent Democrats won’t support Medicare for All, progressives will find somebody else that will. In fact, we’re already doing that. Our intentions have been quite clear from the beginning.

On my podcast, The Humanist Report, I discussed a town hall that took place in Nevada’s 4th congressional district with newly-elected Rep. Ruben Kihuen. An activist named Amy Vilela showed up to ask Kihuen-- a self-proclaimed “progressive” and member of the congressional progressive caucus-- why he refuses to cosponsor Conyers’ Medicare for All bill. More importantly, Vilela’s question was accompanied with her daughter’s poignant story. Vilela explained to Kihuen that her daughter, Shalynne, died at the young age of 22-years-old because she was denied basic medical screenings that would have undoubtedly saved her life. Shalynne couldn’t prove that she had medical insurance and was instead told to go get insurance and find a doctor. But Shalynne’s story didn’t resonate with Kihuen, apparently. Not only did he refuse to commit to cosponsoring Conyers’ Medicare for All bill at that town hall, but even got arguably defensive, as constituents kept pushing the issue further. After reporting on the events that took place at this town hall, and how a so-called progressive couldn’t provide his constituents with one good reason why he wouldn’t support Medicare for All, my viewers submitted hundreds-- if not thousands-- of voicemails to both of Kihuen’s offices, demanding that he cosponsor Conyers’ bill. He still wasn’t moved.

[Note: Kihuen pretended to be a progressive to help him beat actual progressive Lucy Flores last year. Once he got to Congress he joined the corrupt, Wall Street-owned New Dems and quickly reversed his progressive positions and started running up a dreadful voting record. His ProgressivePunch Crucial Vote grade is a "C," far from what he promised when he sat in my living room and portrayed himself as a progressive champion. For Blue America, he was 2016's biggest disappointment.]

As a direct result of Kihuen’s unwillingness to do what he was elected to do (i.e. represent his constituents), he is now facing a primary challenger. His opponent is the mother he didn’t take seriously during that town hall: Amy Vilela. She announced her candidacy on July 19 on The Humanist Report, and she intends to cosponsor H.R. 676 herself since her representative refused to do it. But Amy isn’t the only progressive challenging an incumbent Democrat that refuses to support single-payer.

After months of putting pressure on Rep. Denny Heck in Washington state’s 10th congressional district, he’s now being challenged by a progressive named Tamborine Borrelli, namely because Heck refuses to cosponsor John Conyers’ bill.

...[C]onventional wisdom tells us that Democrats residing in relatively conservative districts-- or red and purple states-- shouldn’t get on board with an idea that presumably won’t resonate with more conservative voters. This line of thinking, however, is outdated. First and foremost, Democrats have lacked the courage to embrace bold progressive policies in conservative states and districts and have played it safe for years; and yet, they still managed to get wiped out at all levels of government. Playing it safe obviously hasn’t been a successful strategy for them.

Second of all, we’re witnessing a rapid cultural shift akin to the wave of social acceptance we saw in the early 2010s towards marriage equality. The “big government” and “socialist” boogeyman arguments just don’t work any longer. A majority of Americans now support single-payer. A recent Harvard-Harris poll found that 52% of Americans back Medicare for All. Some polls even find that single-payer is supported by a plurality of Republicans; that is, more support it than oppose it. Even in polls indicating single-payer doesn’t yet have a majority of support, attitudes towards Medicare for All are still becoming increasingly positive. Additionally, there’s overwhelming support for the general idea that “government is responsible” for ensuring citizens have healthcare. So even in polls that are less kind to single-payer as a policy, there’s still a great deal of symbolic support for it-- which is a strong indicator that Bernie is changing hearts and minds. In fact, Vox’s Dylan Matthews reports that even the alt-right “loves” single-payer, surprisingly.

But even if momentum wasn’t shifting towards single-payer among the general public, it would still be a winning strategy for Democrats. That may sound counter-intuitive, but it’s actually strategically sound. As Democrats have continued to shift to the right—in an effort to court moderates turned off by the Republican Party’s increasingly extremist right-wing views-- they’ve disenfranchised their core base that still exists on the left. America’s Overton window is almost exclusively right-wing, and the Democratic Party has abandoned their populist ideas in an effort to cater to what they think are more moderate voters. This is a strategy that has lead to the Democratic Party being completely annihilated at all levels of government. Moderates don’t like Democrats. When given the choice between a Republican candidate and Republican-lite candidate-- they’ll almost always opt for the real deal. The Democratic Party’s constituents have always been working class voters, and those individuals aren’t going to take time off of work and spend hours in line at the voting booth supporting a candidate whose neoliberal policies will only harm them slightly less than the Republican. They’ll just stay home.

If Democrats actually move back to the left and embrace a bold, progressive message, the voters they’ve abandoned just might come back to them and vote for the first time in a while. So, Democrats should be thanking progressives for making Medicare for All a litmus test because, if anything, it will help their electoral chances. Running away from progressive ideas is a losing strategy in conservative regions of the country because you need your base more than ever in these particular areas. Republicans don’t court moderate voters on the left because they know their core base on the far right won’t go for that; and in a time where Americans are incredibly polarized, it’s time Democrats acknowledge the reality of our current political landscape and opt for a strategy that will actually help them defeat Republicans. They must reinvigorate their demoralized base.

But everything I’m saying would be considered blasphemous to the Democratic Party’s overpaid strategists. Why listen to ordinary Americans when elites in D.C. and the media reinforce all of their bad decisions? More importantly, why alienate potential donors from the health insurance industry when Democrats know they only have to wait for Americans to grow so tired with Republicans and Trump that they’ll inevitably come running back to them even if they change nothing? That’s what the Party is banking on, which is why progressives have made Medicare for All a litmus test. We know Democrats won’t back Sanders’ or Conyers’ bills unless we force them to-- and that’s exactly what we intend to do.

Progressives (and left-leaning Democrats) would be dimwitted to not capitalize on the momentum and grassroots enthusiasm we currently see for single-payer. But besides Medicare for All being a practical and advantageous strategy for Democrats, it’s a litmus test because it’s the right thing to do. If Democrats don’t support a policy that would literally save countless lives, then what good are they? Really, Medicare for All is the easiest litmus test for Democrats to pass. If you don’t care about helping people, and only care about appeasing your donors, why did you run for Congress in the first place? If Shalynne’s story doesn’t tug on your heartstrings, then you’ve become too detached with the struggle of ordinary citizens. This is a moral issue.

How The Politics Of Healthcare Have Made Dean Heller Unelectable In Nevada

Dean Heller is a squishy mainstreamish Republican senator from Nevada. He was appointed to the seat by Republican Governor Brian Sandoval in 2011 when corrupt Republican John Ensign was forced to resign. Before getting into politics, Heller was a stock broker. In 2012 he was challenged by a corrupt New Dem, Shelley Berkley and managed to beat her 457,656 (45.87%) to 446,080 (44.71%)-- an 11,576 vote margin (against an incredibly weak and unattractive candidate who many Democrats just couldn't persuade themselves to vote for).

This cycle, Heller is a dead dog. He has a Trumpist opponent, Danny Tarkanian and another crappy DSCC-backed conservaDem just like Berkley (totally unqualified Jacky Rosen) and a Berniecrat the DSCC is trying to derail, Jesse Sbaih. Sarah Palin has already endorsed Tarkanian and the most recent poll of Republican voters shows Heller losing the primary to Tarkanian 39-31%. There is no doubt that Bannon's whole Roy Moore neo-fascist support team will be showing up in Nevada to destroy Heller as soon as they've finished destroying Luther Strange in Alabama-- and teaching Trump a lesson about where he gets his marching orders.

Unlike Heller, Rand Paul stood up to Trump's bullying and bribes

You know the TrumpCare bill that John McCain just torpedoed, commonly known as Graham-Cassidy? That was actually short for Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson. And that's weird for someone who made such a big deal about sticking with the very popular Governor who originally appointed him to the Senate, Brian Sandoval. Sandoval has denounced the bill as detrimental to Nevadans. This week the Nevada Independent report on this sounded like an early Dean Heller political obituary.

Gov. Brian Sandoval said Thursday that the flexibility fellow Republican Sen. Dean Heller promised will be good for Nevada in a health-care bill he’s sponsoring is a “false choice” because the legislation will also slash funding.

Sandoval, in a statement to the Nevada Independent, said he would not “pit seniors, children, families, the mentally ill, the critically ill, hospitals, care providers or any other Nevadan against each other” because of the steep cuts to federal funding the state would face if the Heller-sponsored measure were to pass. A state analysis, also obtained by the Nevada Independent, agrees with independent calculations from various health-care organizations estimating Nevada will lose between $600 million and $2 billion in federal funding by 2026 if the legislation passes.

As tensions mounted this week with Senate Republicans renewing a health-care debate thought to be laid to rest, Heller publicly touted the “flexibility” the measure would create by dividing up the federal dollars currently spent on the Affordable Care Act among the states in the form of a block grant. Where Sandoval only gently rebuffed Heller on Tuesday, saying he appreciated the “intended flexibility” of the bill, the careful, deliberative Sandoval-- not one to rush to the presses with a strongly worded statement-- didn’t mince words on Thursday.

“Flexibility with reduced funding is a false choice,” Sandoval said in the statement. “I will not pit seniors, children, families, the mentally ill, the critically ill, hospitals, care providers, or any other Nevadan against each other because of cuts to Nevada’s health-care delivery system proposed by the Graham-Cassidy amendment.”

Sandoval’s statement stands in sharp relief against one issued just two days earlier, in which the even-keeled governor attempted to soften the blow to Heller after authoring a letter with a group of nine other bipartisan governors urging Senate leadership not to consider the proposal. In the earlier statement, Sandoval said that Heller is “working in the best interest of the state” while gently, but firmly reiterating that he favors a bipartisan fix to the nation’s health-care system.

The recent rift between the two Republicans is also a sharp turn of events from June, when Sandoval and Heller stood side by side to harshly condemn Senate Republicans’ last repeal-and-replace plan, saying that it would strip health care away from millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Nevadans. Sandoval remained mum for weeks on the measure, initially drafted by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy and signed onto by Heller amid a week of heated health-care negotiations in the Senate in July.

Heller publicly touted that “Nevada wins” under the measure, which would divvy up the block grant annually based on states’ numbers of poor or near-poor residents as well as create a per capita cap on the half-century old Medicaid program. The Republican senator, who is up for re-election in 2018, has had to walk a fine line amid discussions in the Senate over the past couple of months about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, facing a challenge from the more conservative Danny Tarkanian.

...[W]hile the bill sponsors compare the amount of money Nevada will receive in 2026 under Graham-Cassidy when the block grant ends to how much it will receive in 2020 when the block grant begins, the correct analysis would be to compare the projected funding Nevada will receive in 2026 under the Affordable Care Act under the status quo compared to what it would receive in 2026 under Graham-Cassidy. When that comparison is done, Nevada loses between $600 million to $2 billion by most organizations’ calculations, the state analysis says.

Over months of discussions about repealing the Affordable Care Act, Sandoval has repeatedly argued against touching the extra dollars the federal health-care law made available to states that chose to opt in to an expansion of Medicaid, a point he reiterated in the Thursday statement. Sandoval was the first Republican governor to opt in to Medicaid expansion, and the state has since entirely restructured the way it provides services, such as mental health care, to rely on those new federal Medicaid dollars.

“As Governor, I made a commitment to use all the tools available to ensure Nevadans had access to affordable and quality health care. I made the decision to expand Medicaid to never before covered populations, including childless adults and pregnant women,” Sandoval said. “I made the decision to leverage all the federal funding possible through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and to work to improve the health-care system for those with mental illness, addictions and disabilities.”

Before the state expanded Medicaid, the uninsurance rate was 20.7 percent, 27 percent for adults under 65 and 14.8 percent for children; after, the uninsured rate dropped by 9.3 percentage points, down to 11.4 percent in 2016. Between Medicaid expansion and the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange, nearly 400,000 Nevadans have gained access to health care, including more than 300,000 in Medicaid and nearly 90,000 on the exchange, Sandoval said.

According to the state’s analysis, more than 200,000 people currently receiving Medicaid will lose coverage when the block grant goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2020 and need to be moved to other coverage with unknown costs. An additional 90,000 Nevadans who purchase insurance on the exchange would also be left without access to subsidized coverage.

The per capita cap that Graham-Cassidy places on Medicaid funding, which organizations who have analyzed the bill do not believe will keep pace with the costs of providing health care, will “fundamentally” change the federal Medicaid program without analyzing the cost of long-term impacts to the state, the state analysis says.

The legislation will also reduce the ability for states to levy provider taxes from 6 percent to 4 percent over time, which will limit Nevada’s ability to help finance increased Medicaid payments to nursing homes. The reduction will result in a $10 million per year reduction in payments to nursing homes by 2025, according to the state’s analysis.

The state analysis says Graham-Cassidy will also reduce the $8 million in prevention and public health funding Nevada receives annually to pay for immunizations and conduct disease investigations to protect public health, as well as reduce Nevada’s hospitals from accessing Medicaid funds in retroactive months of eligibility in many cases, resulting in more uncompensated care and cost burdens being shifted to other parts of the health-care system.

“I have said many times before that I will not support legislation that may result in a cost shift to the State or result in Nevadans losing insurance coverage,” Sandoval said. “I cannot in good faith support the Graham-Cassidy amendment.”

Trumpanzee And His GOP Enablers Would Rather Deport Latinos Than Get Serious About MS-13

Nancy Ohanian looks at Trumpanzee

Eliminating MS-13 and other violent criminal gangs should be a priority for law enforcement that all Americans should support. But that isn't what Barbara Comstock's Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act (H.R. 3697) is actually about. Her bill passed last week 233-175. Only one Republican, libertarian Justin Amash (MI), voted against it. 11 fake-Democrats took the bait and crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans. Now Ryan is running around claiming the bill passed with "bipartisan support."

The 11 Democrats who voted for it are the worst of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, primarily Blue Dogs and New Dems who consistently support the Republican Party policy agenda. Only one-- Ruben Kihuen-- hasn't earned an "F" from ProgressivePunch (and he has a "C"). These are the Democrats who gave Ryan and McCarthy the right to call the bill "bipartisan."

• Salud Carbajal (CA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Ruben Kihuen (New Dem-NV)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Jacky Rosen (NV)
• Raul Ruiz (CA)
• Kirsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)

The bill is not a crime-fighting bill or even an anti-gang bill. It's just a bill meant to label immigrants the GOP doesn't like as criminals. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee said the bill could be easily used to target groups of people who aren't gangs-- religious organistions particularly. "This may seem reasonable until you look at the offenses listed," she said. "These offenses could sweep in many people that no reasonable person would think of as a gang member. That means that under this bill, a religious organization that aids undocumented immigrants could be a criminal gang." It was no surprise that Chicago patriot Luis Gutiérrez would be one of the leaders among Democrats in exposing the legislation for what it really is-- and isn't:

While the President is playing deal or no deal with the lives of DREAMers, Speaker Ryan is allowing House Republicans to vote on a bill that labels as many immigrant youth as possible as gang members and makes it easier to deport them. He could be moving the bipartisan DREAM Act forward, but instead, he wants to make it very clear that Republicans see Latinos and immigrants as a threat to the U.S., not an asset. Hundreds of thousands of doctors, teachers, nurses and soldiers are going to be yanked from the American economy if Speaker Ryan does not allow the DREAM Act to go forward in the next few weeks, but his priority is feeding red meat to the anti-immigration wing of his party and satisfying them with a big helping of ‘let’s label Latino youth as machete-wielding menaces.’” This is not a bill to curtail violence or make the country safer, it is a political bill to allow Republicans in the House to make speeches about urging Americans to fear young immigrants.

It is clear that Democrats and Republicans would prefer to be talking about the DREAM Act and showing the country that we can act in a bipartisan manner to resolve the status of DACA recipients and other immigrants who were raised in the U.S. I am committed to not exchanging the safety of DREAMers for more deportations or further restricting legal immigration so that there are no available legal avenues for immigrants who help feed us, build our communities and serve our country. But the priorities of House Republicans seem inconsistent with what the American people, the majority of House Members and their own voters want them to do.

Juan Vargas, a California New Dem, tried talking his New Dem colleagues out of voting for the bill-- and mostly succeeded. His point was that the "bill would result in the targeting of persons of faith, religious leaders, and faith-based organizations, who are compelled by their beliefs to open their doors to vulnerable migrants seeking safety and respite. For many in the faith community, this action is deeply rooted in religious expression and goes directly to the core of our American values as protected by First Amendment expression. The broad provisions of this bill, which purportedly targets gang members, would lead to attempts to criminalize religious groups across the country as gang members simply because they answered the call of their faith. As people of faith, we are called to love our neighbor and welcome the stranger. This bill would functionally criminalize individuals who aid undocumented immigrants as gang members under an expanded harboring statute.  The Catholic community has raised alarms over this statute in the past and is concerned that this bill could result in groups of nuns being classified as 'gangs.' There is no humanitarian exception provided in the bill and the federal government has a record of penalizing individuals who provide humanitarian relief to migrants."

He continued in a very personal way: "As a person of faith, my Catholic upbringing and time in the Jesuit order has impressed upon me the duty to speak for those less fortunate among us…for the oppressed, for the poor and for the voiceless. As leaders of this great nation, we must act in a way that reflects the best of our national values and that reflects the best of who we are as Americans. We should not contribute to a climate of fear by criminalizing humanitarian aid to undocumented immigrants. Matthew 25 gibes me, and others that believe as I do, clear direction on how we are to treat the least among us."

Trump, of course, loves the bill and it is going to the Senate now. Stephen Lendman of Global Research labeled it "a police state measure" which define "a criminal gang as a "group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of 1 or more of the following criminal offenses and the members of which engage, or have engaged within the past 5 years, in a continuing series of such offenses, or that has been designated as a criminal gang by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, as meeting these criteria. The offenses described, whether in violation of Federal or State law or foreign law and regardless of whether the offenses occurred before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, are the following:”

▪ felony drug offenses;
▪ aiding unwanted immigrants;
violent offenses;
▪ obstructing justice;
▪ and other alleged violations of US laws, shifting responsibility to prove innocence on targeted individuals, not authorities as mandated under international and constitutional law.

And the bill is even worse than it appears at first glance.

Any immigrant suspected or alleged to be a gang member can be deported. US prisons are filled with wrongfully convicted men, women, youths, and children, mostly people of color.

HR 3697 is a vehicle for the manufacture of human and civil rights abuses, disgraceful legislation, its provisions no just society would tolerate.

It creates a sweeping new definition of “gang member,” giving authorities broad latitude to target social and political groups, clubs, even churches or other religious organizations.

It expands the use of mandatory, no-bond arbitrary detentions, a flagrant violation of international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits arbitrarily detaining anyone.

Refugees and asylum seekers will be deterred from seeking refuge in America.

It’ll subject law-abiding immigrants to flagrant abuses of power, including Fifth Amendment equal protection rights.

It’ll permit sweeping roundups of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers of color, mainly Latinos. Living in the wrong neighborhood would risk deportation.

So could wearing the wrong colored clothing or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sweeping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) roundups are notoriously indiscriminate, many individuals guilty of nothing abusively detained under deplorable conditions and deported.

HR 3697 authorizes deportations if there’s “reason to believe” so-called gang affiliation or association, no credible proof required.

Expansive language permits sweeping up law-abiding people indiscriminately, children as vulnerable as adults.

DHS can target anyone based on secret evidence, classified evidence, no evidence or any pretext cited-- without due process, constitutional protections denied.

Humanitarian relief can be denied individuals fleeing persecution from designated countries.

No one was surprised when a Gutiérrez neighbor, Chicago's far right Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, stuck with Ryan and Trump and voted against the Democratic position-- and against the interests of his own IL-03 constituents. His progressive primary opponent, Marie Newman, told us that once again Lipinski showed "that he's perfectly aligned with President Trump and the Republicans on the issue of immigration. By voting for H.R. 3697, Lipinski voted to increase racial profiling and the arrest of people of color on the mere suspicion that they're involved in criminal activity. Democrats in Congress ought to be focused on protecting Dreamers and keeping families together, not satiating President Trump's absurd views on Latinos." If you agree with Marie on this, please help her repeal and replace Dan Lipinski here. Hers is one of the few races in the country where a credible progressive is challenging a fake Democrat in a race that's going to go down to the wire.

There are only two Republican-held Senate seats that Schumer's DSCC thinks it can probably win in 2018: Flake's seat in Arizona and Heller's seat in Nevada. Both of his very conservative, hand-picked recruits, Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Jacky Rosen (NV) were among the 11 rogue Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who supported this dreadful and deceptive legislation. Neither of these exceptionally bad candidates has any chance of winning without heavy Latino turnout. Neither is Latino in increasingly Latino-dominated states and in states where Latinos are becoming very cognizant of who their community's friends really are when push comes to shove. But these are the kinds of establishment GOP-lite candidates Schumer has always gravitated to for his entire career. Not just Arizona and Nevada, but all of America will suffer because of his inability to learn from his mistakes.