Trump's Phony National Emergency-- And His Vulnerability In 13 States He Won In 2016

A new national Gallup poll shows Trump underwater in every single state he lost in 2016 but also underwater in 13 states he won in 2016! His job approval is between 49 and 40% in Arizona (43%), Texas (41%), Louisiana (49%), Florida (43%), Georgia (44%), North Carolina (45%), Pennsylvania, Ohio (48%), Indiana (48%), Michigan (42%), Wisconsin (42%), Iowa (45%) and Nebraska (49%). Two other states have Trump at a 50% approval rating, which says to me that if Bernie runs an effective campaign based on Medicare-For-All and the other key points in his platform, Democrats could see flips in South Carolina and Kansas to boot, with Montana, Idaho and Oklahoma (each at 51%) worth going after as well.

Yesterday Anita Kumar and Maggie Severns reported for Politico about the realization among Republican donors that Trump is more than likely to lose in 2020, regardless of who the Democrats nominate. They worry that there's no strategy to win reelection and wonder how he intends to prevail again in the Rust Belt states that voted for him in 2016, but where Democrats performed strongly in last year's midterms. But there are also concerns about whether the president's fundraising apparatus is up to the task, and whether Trump will trample on any strategy or message the campaign does develop, as he frequently does...Trump’s strategy in the midterms was mostly confined to rallying his base at raucous rallies in states that backed him for president, while largely ignoring moderates and independents."

By now, you've probably heard that 58 former national security officials-- from both parties-- released a declaration that challenges Trump’s national emergency proclamation to spend billions of dollars Congress hasn't appropriated to build his vanity wall. There are even some former Trump Regime officials, including former ambassadors to Mexico and Panama, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and Assistant Secretary for International Engagement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. They wrote that they "support the President’s power to mobilize the Executive Branch to respond quickly in genuine national emergencies" but state that "under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the President to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border."

• Illegal border crossings are at near forty-year lows;
• There is no documented terrorist or national security emergency at the southern border;
• There is no emergency related to violent crime at the southern border;
• There is no human or drug trafficking emergency that can be addressed by a wall at the southern border;
• This proclamation will only exacerbate the humanitarian concerns that do exist at the southern border;
• Redirecting funds for the claimed “national emergency” will undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests;
• There is no basis for circumventing the appropriations process with a declaration of a national emergency at the southern border; and
• The situation at the border does not require the use of the armed forces, and a wall is unnecessary to support the use of the armed forces.

Meanwhile 23 Republican former senators and congressmembers signed an open letter to current Republican members of Congress, urging them to to honor their pledges to protect and defend the Constitution by voting against Trump's Nazi-tinged fake national emergency. "It has always been," they wrote, "a Republican fundamental principle that no matter how strong our policy preferences, no matter how deep our loyalties to presidents or party leaders, in order to remain a constitutional republic we must act within the borders of the Constitution. Our oath is to put the country and its Constitution above everything, including party politics or loyalty to a president."

We offer two arguments against allowing a president-- any president, regardless of party-- to circumvent congressional authority. One is the constitutional placing of all lawmaking power in the hands of the people’s representatives. Article 1 of the Constitution, which vests the legislative branch with specific powers, states in section 9: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The power of the purse rests with Congress because it is comprised of 535 representatives of the taxpayer and is the most direct connection between those being governed and those governing. If you allow a president to ignore Congress, it will be not your authority but that of your constituents that is deprived of the protections of true representative government.

The second argument goes directly to the question each of you must face: how much are you willing to undermine both the Constitution and the Congress in order to advance a policy outcome that by all other legitimate means is not achievable? The current issue-- a wall on our southern border-- has gone through the process put in place by the Constitution. It has been proposed by the President, it has been debated by Congress, and the representatives of the people allocated funding at a level deemed appropriate by Congress. We understand that there are many Members of Congress who disagree with the final funding compromise reached by a bipartisan group of legislators. To you, we ask this question: what will you do when a president of another party uses the precedent you are establishing to impose policies to which you are unalterably opposed? There is no way around this difficulty: what powers are ceded to a president whose policies you support may also be used by presidents whose policies you abhor.

Ro Khanna (D-CA) went quite a bit further than any of these Republicans would ever go. He cautioned the Pentagon to be careful about following Trump down an un-Constitutional rabbit hole. In a statement yesterday, Khanna said that he "strongly cautions Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford against violating the clear terms of the national emergency statute (10 U.S. Code § 2808 ) in the 1976 National Emergencies Act (PL 94-412). This administration would violate this statute if the proposed $3.6 billion were diverted for an expansion of the border wall. The national emergency statute only authorizes the Department of Defense (DoD) to divert funds for usage in the U.S. for the purpose of enhancing the use of military facilities on property owned by DoD. It does not authorize the diversion of funds to property owned by other branches of the U.S. government, which in this instance, would be the case. Additionally, the construction of the wall requires seizure of property owned by private citizens and Native American tribes. As made clear by the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus, this statute prohibits the president from using the military to enforce domestic law. The Congress, which is given the “power of the purse” by our Founding Fathers, appropriated these funds solely for military construction and family housing funding-- not a border wall. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Rep. Joaquin Castro’s House Joint Resolution 46, and I will strongly support and vote for it to terminate the President’s manufactured 'national emergency' and prevent our Defense Department’s money from illegally being spent on an unnecessary and ineffective border wall."

The House is slated to vote today and McTurtle will stall for a couple weeks before allowing a vote. In an editorial at The Bulwark, a right-wing, anti-Trump neoCon website, assert that "this should not be a difficult vote for Republicans, especially those who (1) were outraged by President Obama’s use of his executive powers, (2) care about the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, (3) wish to protect Congress’s Article I powers, and (4) recognize the dangerous precedent that the declaration of emergency creates for future presidents...Trump will veto the congressional action, but even if the votes to override aren’t there, it is right and proper to put our elected officials on record at this moment of truth. They will have to choose whether they are willing to cross this red line for a fictional emergency and an imaginary wall. We hope that this will be the moment when senators such as Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Marco Rubio, and Ron Johnson put their constitutional obligations ahead of their party loyalties. But all members of Congress take the same oath of office (see Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code):

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

"This is their moment," wrote the editors, "to live up to that oath." My personal favorite scenario would have Martha McSally (R-AZ) crossing the aisle to vote for the Constitution, while Kyrsten Sinema, the most useless Trump-Dem in the Senate crossing in the other direction to vote with McTurtle. She should also announce she's switching parties at that moment, which won't cause Schumer to give a second thought about recruiting far right-wing Democrats, but will at least give activists a weapon to clobber Schumer with for the rest of his miserable career.

UPDATE: Green New Deal

Finally there's an official list of co-sponsors for AOC's Green New Deal Resolution. There's an interesting ideological contrast. The progressives like Ro Khanna, Rashida Tlaib, Pramila Jayapal, Ted Lieu, Joe Neguse, Barbara Lee, Ayanna Pressley, Jamie Raskin, Mike Levin, Ilhan Omar, Debra Haaland are all on board-- but so are a surprising number of New Dems and Blue Dogs like Seth Moulton, Sean Patrick Maloney, Adam Schiff, Juan Vargas. Still now Republicans though. Here's the whole list, 90 members.

Colorado Just Had a Real Wave Election-- And National Democrats Need Them To Have Another In 2020

Colorado just elected a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Democrat as governor; nothing new there. But he’s also the the first openly-gay man elected governor in any state. Also the richest Democrat in the House— and a member of both the reformist Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Wall Street-owned and operated New Dems. Jared Polis can be almost all things to all people. Last Tuesday he beat Republican Walker Stapleton 1,210,621 (52.3%) to 1,018,072 (44.0%). There was never much doubt that Polis was going to win. And there was even less doubt that politically similar Democrat Joe Neguse would be replacing him in Congress. Neguse beat Republican Peter Yu in the Boulder-centered district 252,220 (60.0%) to 142,617 (33.9%).

The only partisan change in the Colorado congressional delegation was that conservative Democrat Jason Crow beat mainstream conservative Republican Mike Coffman in the suburban Denver 6th district— 184,399 (54.1%) to 146,339 (42.9%). So the House delegation went from 3 Democrats and 4 Republicans to 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans, not that big of a chance to merit this headline from the Denver Post: Colorado Republicans’ conundrum: Donald Trump and the unaffiliated voters who loathe him. Well there was also the legislature. Heading into the election, Republicans had an 18-16-1 majority in the state Senate. Of the chamber's 35 seats, 17 were up for election. Ten were held by Republicans, six were held by Democrats, and one was held by the independent. Democrats won 3 Republican seats and will now control that body. Democrats already controlled the state House and still do. And Democrats replaced Republicans as Attorney General, Secretary of State and Treasurer. Yep… wave.

Reporter Nic Garcia wrote that there is a great deal of concern in the GOP about Cory Gardner’s chance of holding the US Senate seat. Insiders, he wrote, consider “Gardner’s re-election prospects grim unless the GOP can develop a new message.” Why all this change? Independents— 900,000 unaffiliated voters.

“The barn has been completely cleaned out,” said David Flaherty, a Colorado Republican pollster. “We’re trying to learn what motivated them. But you’re kidding yourself if you say President Trump didn’t have something to do with it.”

Long before the results from the 2018 election were known, Republicans— especially those running for statewide office— faced daunting electoral challenges. Colorado is getting younger; the party has registered fewer than 50,000 new voters since 2014; and the national mood favored Democrats.

Now, according to Flaherty and other political insiders interviewed by the Denver Post this week, the situation is more dire for Colorado’s GOP. Of most immediate concern: U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner’s re-election prospects are grim unless the party can develop a new message that appeals to both the Trump loyalists and the independent voters who dislike the president.

…Unlike in more conservative states, Colorado’s Republican Party is split over Trump. The base, especially in more rural parts of Colorado, adores him. And while more of the party’s leaders have come to embrace the president’s brashness, power brokers who orbit the party are still repulsed by Trump’s worst tendencies.

…For Republicans to claw back any power, they need to be turning out more voters in swing counties such as Jefferson and Arapahoe, the latter of which makes up the majority of the competitive 6th Congressional District that Republican Rep. Mike Coffman just lost. Jefferson County, meanwhile, is home to three typically competitive state Senate races that Democrats just swept.

Whether Trump could have helped turn out more Republican voters is an open question.

Trump certainly believes he could have. In a post-election news conference, he called out Coffman as well as other congressional Republicans who distanced themselves from the president and lost their elections.

Whether Republican candidates should have asked Trump for help “is a discussion worth having,” said Justin Prendergast, a Republican strategist. “However, I think not having Trump here gives us a clear analysis on where the base is.”

As results came in Tuesday night and it became clear that Republicans were losing massive ground across the state, U.S. Rep. Ken Buck said it was time for the party to rethink its goals and message.

“Republicans have lost our brand,” Buck said. For example, the party claims to be fiscally conservative, but it has racked up a trillion-dollar deficit, he said.

“The Republican brand in Colorado is hurting right now,” he said. “We need to sit down and have a serious conversation about who should lead.”

…Democrats have not been shy about their next target: U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner. The Yuma Republican now will be one of only two statewide GOP officeholders.

The Senate map for Democrats in 2020 isn’t as bad as it was in 2018— but it isn’t a lot better. The party will be looking at a very narrow path to taking back the Senate while defeating Trump. Colorado is a must.

What Happened Last Night? Alexandria's Earthquake-- And The DCCC Stinks Up The Room Again

NY-14 voters knew exactly what they were voting for

On Wednesday mornings after elections, I like giving a recap of the important things that happened, at least important to progressives. I was all set to start with the way Jason Crow and he's sleazeball allies-- we're looking at you, Steny-- stole the CO-06 election from Levi Tillemann. We'll get to that soon. First we should just say a few words about the biggest political upset since Señor Trumpanzee was declared the winner of the 2016 election. Or, in congressional terms, since Eric Cantor went down to some crackpot teabagger. 28 year old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did exactly what she told me she would do several months ago... she defeated the #4 member of the House Democratic leadership, and most corrupt Democrat in Congress, Joe Crowley. She did it by working and working and working and working smart and working hard. Crowley, who's taken more bribes from Wall Street than any other House Democrat-- $7,148,700-- spent-- as of June 6th-- $3,354,370 to her $300,709. And outside independent spending... minimal. as you can see below, the Sierra Club spending $10 on Crowley and Blue America spending $11,000 on Alexandria. (Thanks all the small donors who chipped in here.)

Anyway, Alexandria beat him 15,897 (57.5%) to 11,761 (42.5%)-- a big win, especially considering EMILY's List absolutely refused to endorse her. Everyone is Congress who got involved, including big women's champion Kirsten Gillibrand, endorsed him and only Ro Khanna backed her (although it was a dual endorsement). No one from the establishment took her seriously. Now they have to learn how to pronounce her name. Randy Bryce was delighted and speaking for fellow grassroots progressives said, "Tonight was yet another example of the Beltway getting it wrong-- regular, working people are on a mission. We’re on a mission to stand for our values and win the monumental battles at hand. Alexandria proved people wrong and I’m excited to serve with her and unite in defying the odds." This is a great day for for NY-14, a great day for progressives, a great day for Alexandria's team (including the Justice Democrats), a great day for the Democratic Party, a great day for America, a miserable day for Mark Pocan.

Also in New York, the DCCC lost another one. Up in the Syracuse area (NY-24), all the local Democrats were firmly behind Dana Balter when suddenly, the DCCC-- ignoring the local Democratic Party, as they always do-- parachuted their own candidate into the race, Juanita Perez Williams. The locals were furious. The final score:

The DCCC should fight Republicans-- and first learn how to-- and stop fighting their own party's grassroots and progressives. Syracuse voters slapped them hard across the snout, just the way voters in Omaha, Nebraska and Lexington, Kentucky did recently.

Yesterday's big DCCC win was NRA ally and right-wing Blue Dog Anthony Brindisi in NY-22 (Utica, Rome, Oneida, Cortland, Binghamton), who ran unopposed and will now face Claudia Tenney in the DCCC's favorite kind of race-- forcing voters to pick between the lesser of two evils.



As long as we're on bad news, let's move on to Colorado, where one of the DCCC's worst candidates of the cycle, payday lender attorney Jason Crow, or one of his allies, sent out the robocall above. Sounds like Bernie, right? It isn't. Our Revolution endorsed Levi Tillemann, against the reactionary corporate shill Crow and Bernie didn't get involved. But every Democrat in the suburban Denver district got that illegal call yesterday. Notice there is no "paid for by" at the end of the ad. This is sickening and exactly what you can expect from Crow if he beats Mike Coffman, a moderate Republican incumbent who might be the lesser evil of these two. I know I'd never vote for Crow. He beat Tillemann 49,101 (66.1%) to 25,237 (33.9%) in a district that Bernie won in 2016.

Socially progressive Jared Polis, a Boulder-based congressman, had a big win in a 4-person race for governor. Will he be the first openly LGBT man ever elected to a governorship?

• Jared Polis- 264,464 (44.7%)
• Cary Kennedy- 145,908 (24.7%)
• Mike Johnston- 137,617 (23.3%)
• Donna Lynne- 43,010 (7.3%)

He'll face conservative Trumpist Walker Stapleton in November. The other gubernatorial race we were watching was in Maryland, where Berniecrat Ben Jealous came out on top in an 9-person Democratic race.

The only other race we were watching was the Oklahoma City congressional contest which goes to an August 28 primary runoff between garden variety Democrat Kendra Horn and progressive Tom Guild.

And there was one Republican race we were paying attention to-- NY-11 (Staten Island and part of southern Brooklyn). Mafia thug Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm lost his come-back attempt to mainstream Republican incumbent Dan Donovan 12,774 (63.9%) to 7,219 (36.1%). We'll probably never hear from Grimm again, unless he's arrested for... judging by his past, it could be anything. Donovan will face wretched Blue Dog Max Rose in November, another lesser of two evils contest.

Texas Getting Ready To Reclaim Its Role As A Power Player In Democratic Party Politics?

Texas hasn't been a big part of progressive plans for winning back Congress in recent years-- nor even Democratic Party plans. Most of the few Democrats the DCCC has backed there have been dreadfully corrupt conservatives like Pete Gallego, Vicente Gonzalez, Henry Cuellar and Filemon Vela. They were certainly openly hostile to Beto O'Rourke when he first ran for Congress in El Paso against another of their corrupt conservatives, Sylvester Reyes. And when progressive candidates like Tom Wakely have run the DCCC only had two buttons to push, one labeled "ignore" and one labeled "sabotage."

But Texas, with 36 congressional districts, is way too important to allow the DCCC to continue the lunkheaded backward policies put in place by 3 contemptible and grotesquely ignorant creatures of the Beltway, Rahm Emanuel, Steve Israel and Kelli Ward, all of whom are now out of the building physically but... well, the stench and terrible, losing strategies and tactics linger. This is how not seriously the DCCC is taking Texas this cycle. The DCCC Regional Vice chair for the area including the whole state of Texas, Jared Polis, is busy running the New Dems and busy running for governor of Colorado... and not putting any-- like in none, zero-- energy into winning the 7 flippable Texas House seats, let alone devising a two-cycle strategy to make sure what the Democrtats don't pick up in 2018, they win in 2020. Jared's a nice guy but... he's otherwise engaged and the DCCC has no interest in putting someone in place who can do the job. If Pelosi cared, she'd fire the dullard she has running the DCCC, Ben Ray Lujan, today and appoint someone with the capacity to get the job done.

That said, as Texas Republicans plot how to further gerrymander the state to save endangered incumbents like Pete Sessions, John Culberson, Will Hurd, Lamar Smith, Kenny Marchant and Pete Olson, judges are getting ready to rule on the racist implications of Texas' systematic disenfranchisement of minority groups. If Polis wasn't so consumed with running for governor of Colorado, he'd be all over this. But he's not, even though Texas is now a minority majority state-- mostly represented by right-wing bigoted old white men overtly hostile to minorities.

In a trial that could have major implications for other cases across the country-- as well as for millions of Texans of color-- three judges in San Antonio are spending this week listening to arguments alleging that Texas Republicans redrew the state’s district map in order to put minorities at a disadvantage. With elections in 2018 looming large, Texas progressives are especially keen to counter what they say is a clear effort to hinder minority voters at the polls.

“I am still flummoxed as to how we do not have a Latino congressman from North Texas,” State Representative Eric Johnson (D-Dallas) testified on Tuesday.

Johnson’s point-- that numerous parts of Texas are represented by white politicians, as opposed to the minorities they represent—is one many Texans echoed this week. Cody Ray Wheeler, who represents a majority-white city council district in majority-Latinx Pasadena, told the Texas Tribune he likely won his seat because of his last name, which fails to mark him as Hispanic.

“A Hispanic wasn’t supposed to win that seat,” Wheeler said. “I could not run as a Hispanic candidate. I would’ve lost.”

When he won, Wheeler became only the second Latinx member of the city council-- the first time in history more than two had served at the same time.

Pasadena’s case is nothing new in Texas. Redistricting, or gerrymandering, has a long history in the state, and across the country. It’s also not an issue specific to a single party--  Republicans and Democrats alike have redrawn maps to suit their political goals. But in Texas, the issue has been particularly contentious.

White Texans make up less than 43 percent of the state’s population, a number that is dwindling. By contrast, between 2000 and 2010, Texas’ Latinx population swelled from 6.7 million to 9.5 million.

“If proportionality is the key, then Texas should overwhelmingly have Latinos further along than we have,” said attorney Luis Vera, who represents the League of Latin American Citizens, on Monday.

Texas is also home to Houston, the most racially and ethnically diverse city in the nation. In 2010, new census data showed explosive growth in Texas, which gained four new seats in Congress as a result. It also showed the populations largely responsible for that growth were the state’s Latinx and African American communities, indicating likely political gain for Democrats. Seemingly in response, Texas’ Republican-controlled legislature swiftly redrew the map in 2011, sparking outrage from minority groups, who alleged black and brown voters were being targeted. In advance of elections in 2012, a court redrew temporary maps, which lawmakers adopted in 2013 and have used ever since.

But the issue resurfaced this spring, when judges ruled that three of the state’s congressional districts (Texas has 36 in total) were drawn illegally--  violating the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. A month later, they went a step further, ruling that the state’s political boundaries were purposefully drawn in an effort to discriminate against minorities.

“The impact of the plan was certainly to reduce minority voting opportunity statewide, resulting in even less proportional representation for minority voters,” U.S. District Judges Orlando Garcia and Xavier Rodriguez wrote, adding, that “[i]nstead of using race to provide equal electoral opportunity, they intentionally used it to undermine Latino voting opportunity.”

The decision was a victory for minority groups, who argue the current maps were always meant to be temporary, and should be redrawn before elections are held in 2018. But the state of Texas has asked judges to dump the legal challenge, arguing lawmakers never targeted voters racially (though the state does admit to partisan influence over the maps.)

Texas’ case is reflective of a larger issue playing out in states across the country. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which required nine states--  Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia--  along with many counties and municipalities to seek approval before making changes to voting procedure. The decision was heavily panned by voting rights activists at the time, who argued it would be used to undercut the electoral power of people of color.

Those fears seem to have played out--  resulting in at least one harsh rebuke. In June, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that North Carolina had engaged in illegal racial gerrymandering when redrawing its district maps. The ruling was a rebuke to other Southern states--  including Texas--  and an indicator that they face an uphill battle when it comes to redistricting.

The ruling was also a reminder that Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows for states to come under federal supervision again if they are found to have discriminated intentionally against minorities, still exists. Some analysts have argued that Texas lawmakers have overplayed their hand, and, depending on the outcome of this week’s trial, the state could find itself back under federal control.

This approach is one voting rights activists are hinging their hopes on in Texas. But the state’s case is unlikely to be the last redistricting dispute in the news, if the Supreme Court is any indicator. In June, the judicial branch announced it would take up a case from Wisconsin on redistricting --  a sign that the issue is likely to remain a point of contention across the country.

So, with all that in the background, there's been an explosion of pent-up interest among Texas Democrats to run for office. I haven't seen this much interest in congressional races in over a decade. And, as Laura Skelding reported Thursday morning for the Texas Tribune, at least seven candidates have come through the doors of the Harris County Democratic Party headquarters to introduce themselves to Lillie Schechter, the new party chair.

The bonanza is unfolding not just in districts like the 7th-- one of three in Texas that national Democrats are targeting-- but also in even redder districts, delighting a state party that is not used to so much so interest so early.

"When we have competitive primaries, we get to engage with more Democrats," Schechter said. "I do not see that as a negative thing."

Yet it's just one part of the picture for Democrats at the outset of the 2018 election cycle. While the congressional races are overflowing with candidates, the party remains without a number of statewide contenders-- a reality that is coming into focus ahead of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's anticipated announcement Friday that he's running for re-election. Barring any last-minute surprises, Abbott will make his second-term bid official without the presence of a serious Democratic rival.

The state's Democrats are urging patience, saying they are in talks with potential Abbott challengers and other possible statewide candidates.

"I think if you look in past years, traditionally candidates will start filing in the fall, and by the end of the filing deadline, I think we'll have a full slate of strong candidates to run statewide," said U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro of San Antonio, who himself took a pass on statewide race earlier this year, declining to challenge U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. "I know there's been a lot of energy across the country and in Texas on the Democratic side, and so many people want to get a move on already, but by the end of year, I'll think you'll see a full slate of strong Democratic candidates."

So far, Democrats have three statewide candidates they see as serious: U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke of El Paso for U.S. Senate, Houston-area accountant Mike Collier for lieutenant governor and Kim Olson, a retired Air Force colonel, for agriculture commissioner. They are without similarly credible contenders for governor, comptroller, land commissioner, railroad commissioner and attorney general-- a seat considered particularly worth targeting because the GOP incumbent, Ken Paxton, is under indictment.

By far the biggest profile belongs to O'Rourke, who announced his challenge to Cruz in March. As the top of the ticket-- assuming he wins his party's primary next year-- he stands a chance of being Texas Democrats' standard-bearer in 2018, regardless of whom they ultimately put up for the other statewide jobs.

In an interview Monday, O'Rourke said he was not worried about the lack of company so far on his party's statewide ticket.

"I can't worry about what I can't control, and so we're just going to focus on our campaign," he said.

But he also expressed optimism for the party's prospects up and down the ballot in 2018 "as more people become aware of how significantly the dynamics have changed in Texas."

It may be somewhat early, but the lack of a gubernatorial candidate-- or even a well-known potential contender-- is particularly glaring. Taking out Abbott would likely be an even steeper climb than usual for Texas Democrats seeking statewide office, as the governor has a massive $34.4 million war chest. It's a number expected to grow by the millions when he discloses his latest fundraising numbers next week.

Unfortunately, the first (and usually only) thing the party establishment knows how to do is look for multimillionaires, who often seem to lose. The TX-21 congressional race has been lousy with them and the DCCC pick is a conservative multimillionaire (and, of course, "ex"-Republican... a DCCC trifecta), Joseph Kopser. That's what they want-- no union members or ordinary working Americans but guys like... the DCCC's California lottery winner, Pelosi's official mascot for the 2018 cycle. Derrick Crowe, the Austin-based progressive running for the seat Lamar Smith still holds, told us that "The question for Texas Democrats is, 'Are we going to fight aggressively for the growing populations that define the future of national and state politics-- or are we going to default to the kinds of platforms and candidates that consultants in D.C. think will feel "safe" to voters?' Candidates who the folks D.C. think of as 'safe' are the exact kinds of politicians who caused the political convulsions rocking our country right now. The only people who feel safe with those candidates in office are the people who benefit from the status quo. People don't want packaged, 'safe' candidates. They want ferocious fighters for the working class. If Texas Democrats can lead the way with clear, unapologetic, progressive values, we can become a national powerhouse again."

There are at least half a dozen Democratic candidates in the 21st district, which is currently represented by Lamar Smith, a San Antonio Republican who drew only two challengers in 2016 and won re-election by more than 20 percentage points. In the 31st district, John Carter, a Round Rock Republican, is up to at least four Democratic foes after just one ran in the primary last time.

Candidate after candidate points to a common denominator in their decision to run.

“Knowing what happened on Nov. 8 and knowing that Donald Trump is our president ... it’s just really galvanized a lot of Democratic support all around the state and locally, and people are stepping up," said Ed Meier, a former Hillary Clinton staffer looking to unseat U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Dallas.

Early signs indicate some of the races are also drawing big money. In the 32nd district, Meier's campaign says he raised $345,000 in its first two months, while another Democratic hopeful, Colin Allred, took in more than $200,000 over a similar period, according to his team. In the 7th district, Democratic contender Alex Triantaphyllis says he raised over $450,000 in eight weeks, while primary rival Lizzie Pannill Fletcher has announced a haul of more than $365,000 in seven weeks.

I Feel Badly Writing A Post Like This... I Really Do. And I Really Want To See Devin Nunes' Career End

The thermometer on the right puts the strongest and most effective voices of congressional Resistance to Trumpism all on one page. The men and women on the page that opens if you tape the thermometer are the ones who have put a lot of effort into calling out Trump on his outrageous excesses. But look at the names on that page. None of them are just sitting around all day taking pot shots at Trump, the way, for example, Adam Schiff-- who wants to run for Feinstein's US Senate seat-- does. Sure, Ted Lieu's anti-thump twitter feed has a huge and rapidly growing national international audience, but somehow Ted has found time to write the best infrastructure plan Congress has ever seen.

And Seattle's Pramila Jayapal doesn't let Trump get away with any of his abhorrent behavior but still finds the time to lead Congress in protecting the families the GOP is scapegoating and victimizing. "It is vital that elected officials confront hate, wherever it appears, with action and love; condemn attacks on minorities; and reaffirm that our communities are welcoming to all," she said Friday. "Recent stabbings in Portland are only the latest manifestation of a well-documented surge in hate crimes that has coincided with the rise of Donald Trump and his anti-Muslim agenda. We pledge to double down on our moral obligation to fight injustice, to hold this administration accountable for its role in furthering hate and to be there for those who are afraid and suffering from hate crimes. Our strength is in our numbers and we are many. Together, we will build a hate free America." Her office added that "According to the latest FBI crime data, hate crimes against Muslims spiked by 67 percent in 2015 and hate crimes increased by seven percent across the board. Attacks against Hindu, Muslim, Arab, Jewish, South Asian communities and communities of color everywhere have been on the rise."

Bernie's on that list and so is Elizabeth Warren but both have work to do-- lots of it-- and anyone who is watching DC is well aware that Trump is just one aspect of how they're fighting to make America live up to its promise to all of us, not just the super-rich. Watch this new video Warren asked her constituents in Massachusetts to consider. This is what she's doing besides just razzing Señor Trumpanzee:



You may know I spend my days-- between writing posts-- talking with congressional candidates. Some (like these, for example) are great. Others are works in progress. And others are pretty much as bad as-- or almost as bad as-- Republicans. (I only ever came across one Democratic candidate who was actually worse than his GOP opponent-- in 2012 the DCCC ran a homophobic, anti-Choice reactionary, Steve Pestka, against Justin Amash in the Grand Rapids area. Although Pestka outspent Amash $2,076,680 to $1,193,611, Amash beat him 53-44%.)

Anyway, not long ago one of my neighbors, a progressive who reads DWT and is supportive of the work Blue America does, came over with a $100,000 check. He wanted our PAC to use it to defeat arch-Trumpist Devin Nunes up in the Central Valley. I had been writing enthusiastically about the opportunity Democrats have to take back that seat, if not in 2018 (a possibility in a big wave election), then with a sustained 2-cycle effort in 2020. The district, which stretches from Clovis and the suburbs north and east of Fresno down through Dinuba, Visalia and past Tulare, is around 46% Hispanic and just 41% white. Asians make up 7% of the citizens. McCain took 56% and Romney took 57% but last year the totals for Trump fell tp 52%. The DCCC has never taken the district seriously and have never fielded a candidate against Nunes. He's always gotten a free pass. So I was gung ho.

Then a candidate stepped up to the plate: Andrew Janz. When I called him I figured Blue America would soon be endorsing him and my neighbor's check would be the down payment on an effort to replace Nunes. Alas... First off, Janz is better than Nunes, NO QUESTION about it. But the kind of candidate Blue America would support. Nope... we don't do lesser of two you know what. When I started talked with Janz he was uncomfortable about the issues that are key to progressives-- like single payer, for example-- and he quickly changed the subject to the issues he told me are important to him and on which he said he wants to campaign: his love for the Second Amendment and his devotion to the Death Penalty. I was pretty shocked, not that this are his positions, but that that's what he chose to bring up to discuss about why Blue America should back his campaign. I asked him if he had a favorite congressmember he would emulate and like to work on legislation with. Not a second's hesitation-- Blue Dog Jim Costa, one of the two worst Democrats in the California congressional delegation. Costa's voting record is barely that of a Democrat. ProgressivePunch rates him a solid "F." Only 12 Democrats have worse vote score for the current session than his horrific 35.29-- and all but a couple of those Democrats, unlike Costa, are in tough red or red-leaning districts. There are even some Republicans with better voting records than Costa! we don't need more Jim Costa's. We need fewer Jim Costas. In fact, Blue America has actually spent money and effort trying to defeat Jim Costa.

Janz was a very raw candidate when we spoke. Some campaign pros have gotten their hands on him and are teaching him how to speak to Democrats now. But they can't change who he is. Yesterday he sent an e-mail asking for money with the flyer below. Is there anything on that which tells you what kind of a congressman he would be? A little back story that means nothing and could just as easily belong to a psychopathic Republican. In fact, almost the whole thing sounds like it could have as easily been sent by a Republican. "I'm not a politician." That's what they all say, dude. It's just one canned meaningless line after another. If there's a massive anti-Trump/anti-Ryan tsunami we may have another crap Blue Dog in Congress but my bet is that he won't win, not even against as reprehensible a villain as Devin Nunes. What a waste! But I've still got that uncashed $100,000 check... in case a worthwhile candidate shows up. It's still early.

An important note: this morning, like all of our readers in Colorado, I got an e-mail from Jared Polis, an old friend and one of the few Democrats who is both in the Progressive Caucus (he's pro-Choice, pro-LGBT, pro-environment, pro-pot and generally very liberal on social matters) and in the Wall Street-owned New Dems (yeah... he's that too). Jared gave us a heads up that tomorrow he's announcing his long-anticipated run for governor of Colorado. Fine, I wish him luck and Godspeed. I seem to recall he's the richest Democrat in the House and he'll probably do great against the more conservative New Dem Ed Perlmutter and Cary Kennedy, the identity politics EMILY's List recruit.

Jared wrote that he's running "because I want to turn bold ideas into real results for your family." OK... but what candidate of what party could not say the exact same thing? What kind of a message is that? One that wins in an anti-Trump tsunami but... I hope he has something better up his sleeve. Meanwhile, Jared was recently elected Regional Vice Chair of the DCCC for a wide swath of middle America, including the crucial state of Texas. In preparation for his gubernatorial bid he doesn't seem to have lifted a finger in that capacity. I haven't spoken to a single candidate who was even aware he's the Vice Chair for their region or that there even is a vice chair for the region. Texas has 9 contestable Republican-held seats-- the biggest batch in the whole country. The current DCCC hasn't ever contested most of them and they need to get going with an intense 2-cycle strategy for winning districts currently held by Republican misanthropes like John Culberson, Pete Sessions, Lamar Smith, Ted Poe, Joe Barton, Mike McCaul, Pete Olson, Will Hurd, Kenny Marchant, Roger Williams and Blake Farenthold. This is serious stuff and the Democratic Party desperately needs someone-- someone as smart as Jared-- who is focused like a laser beam on winning and holding seats in 2018 and 2020. I suggest Jared resign as Vice Chair today and nominate either Phoenix Congressman Ruben Gallego or Austin Congressman Lloyd Doggett to replace him.

I would have also suggested El Paso Congressman Beto O'Rourke but he's busy putting together a winning campaign to replace Ted Cruz in the Senate. In fact today he contrasted himself and Cruz by pointing out how starkly they differ on the bill the House Republicans just passed gutting the Dodd-Frank financial consumer protections, a bill which Cruz strongly supports. Beto: "I voted no. The purpose of Dodd-Frank was to protect Americans from the same predatory behavior that ignited the 2008 financial crisis. The bill the House just passed will leave consumers vulnerable to predatory financial behavior. This cynical bill shows how PACs and Wall Street banks buy influence in Congress. In 2015-2016, the financial sector reported spending $1.1 billion on campaign contributions and $898 million on lobbyists. They're spending billions to buy influence that helps corporations, but hurts families. Protecting American families from being preyed on by big banks should transcend politics... I'm going to continue fighting back against the influx of corporate interests taking over our government. It's why I've introduced legislation that would curb congressional candidates from accepting PAC money. And it's why our campaign won't take a dime of corporate cash. If I'm elected to represent Texas families in the U.S. Senate, you should never question who I'm thinking about when I pull the lever to cast a vote. The answer will always be the people of Texas. As one of the very few members of Congress who didn't accept contributions from PACs during the 2016 election, I've proved that it's possible to win without it."

Now that's some good messaging. I hope Jared Polis, who also voted against the Republican bill, is paying attention. And every other Democratic candidate running for office as well.

Developments In Texas-- Cruz Is Vulnerable... And So Is Pete Sessions

There have been a lot of rumors lately that Jared Polis may be contemplating ditching his safe Boulder, Colorado congressional seat for a very iffy gubernatorial run in a crowded field for an open seat. I wish him well. But he was just elected Regional Vice Chair of the DCCC for a region that includes Texas, likely to be one of the hottest 2018 battlegrounds. Ummm... likely... likely... if the DCCC is paying attention, which is something it certainly hasn't done in Texas in recent years.

Tuesday we looked at good Democratic congressional targets for 2018-- and 9 were in Texas, more than in any other state, more than the 8 in California or 7 in Florida. And only one is a district the DCCC has ever even worked in before, TX-23, a nice blue district the DCCC-- through sheer and dogged incompetence-- keeps giving to the GOP. Will Hurd is the congressman in this 71% Hispanic district because the DCCC insisted on running an especially corrupt conservative shithead named Pete Gallego, a one-term Blue Dog who the voters recognized as a Republican-in-disguise and quickly kicked out of office. That, of course, didn't stop the DCCC from recruiting him for another try. Hillary beat Trump last November in the district, 49.8% to 46.4% but on the same day, the same voters slapped the DCCC Blue Dog down again-- 48.5% to 46.8%. And that's the only district the DCCC has any experience with! So far if they have a candidate, they're keeping it quiet. (When they recruit someone especially horrible-- an "ex"-Republican or a wealthy clueless person or something along those lines--  they try to keep it quiet for as long a they can.)

The other Texas incumbents who would make good one or two-cycle targets are Joe Barton (R-TX), John Culberson (R-TX), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX), Kenny Marchant (R-TX), Roger Williams (R-TX) and John Carter (R-TX). But that would mean someone is paying intense attention-- intense-- the way Ted Lieu is on the West Coast. (Someone running for governor can't do it in his spare time. Nothing will get done and another opportunity will be blown.) Today there was news that civil rights attorney and former NFL player Colin Allred has decided to run in TX-32, Pete Sessions' carefully gerrymandered but recently vulnerable north Dallas metro district). About a month ago we suggested that Regina Montoya would be the likely candidate, although there are several others considering the race as well, excited by the 48.5% to 46.6% Hillary win over Trump. A Democrat wasn't even on the ballot against Sessions last time, who faced a Green and a Libertarian and walked away with 71.1% of the vote. He'll be tough to beat for anyone-- and the DCCC doesn't have the vaguest notion of how to fight in the district.

Wednesday morning the Texas Lyceum released a brand new poll that shows El Paso Congressman Beto O'Rourke tying Ted Cruz for Cruz's Senate seat. It also shows another potential contender, the more conservative and establishment-oriented Joaquin Castro, ahead of Cruz, 35-31%.

Texans, like most Americans disapprove of the way Trump is doing his job-- and by double digits. 54% disapprove and just 42% approve. The first half of the poll, released Tuesday, delved into immigration as an issue:

•  Texans believe that immigration is the number one issue facing the state and the nation, but a plurality of Texas adults (62 percent) also say that immigration helps the U.S. more than it hurts. The younger the respondent, the more positively they view immigration.


 •  Public safety and economics drive Texans’ concerns over illegal immigration.

•  Most Texas adults continue to oppose (61 percent) President Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the U.S.- Mexico border, and most don’t want him to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.


 •  Many support traditional immigration reform proposals, even a pathway to citizenship if significant restrictions are put in place.




The New Dems Are Electing Their Leaders Now Too

The New Dems-- even worse than the old Dems

Most leadership battles are playing out in Congress outside of the purview of regular Americans. A couple weeks ago, we mentioned that the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the New Dems-- was in the process of electing new officers. Jared Polis, the wealthiest Democrat in the House, is running for the chairmanship, although people tell me that Wall Street crook and ex-New Dem chieftain Joe Crowley still calls the shots there. Polis is sending his election literature to non-members who forward them on to me for a laugh. He followed that up with one called Thanksgiving Note (personal). Don't you just love getting spam marked personal?

As we rejoice in the blessings of family and friends this Thanksgiving, in appreciation of our small private worlds which are so important to giving us the strength to serve, I am particularly thankful for our New Dem Family.

...The New Dems are a future-oriented caucus. We don't want to go back; we want to make the future work. The America of the 1950’s, while it may have had opportunities for white working-class men, was not kind to the rest of us, including women, people of color, and the LGBT community, among others. That's not a past we desire to return to, but it should serve as inspiration for us to create a better future for everybody, including white working-class men. A future in which rather than retreating into isolationism and nationalism, we work with the rest of the world to create a better and more prosperous future. One in which we stamp out bigotry and discrimination and rise to the challenge of ensuring that our economy can work for all Americans.

New Dems want to make trends like automation and trade work for Americans, rather than against them. We want lifesaving drugs and medical technology to be available; we want smart cybersecurity policies to deal with today's and tomorrow's threats; and we want a compassionate and growth-oriented approach to legal immigration. We peddle in the truth that today's America, for all of its faults, is the very best and most inclusive America we've ever had and WE HAVE IDEAS TO MAKE IT EVEN BETTER.

We've all seen the ugly forces that Trump's election has unleashed, a part of America that may have been underground and forgotten but has always been there.   In a way perhaps the visibility is good, as it can serve as a reminder that the forces of hate, division, and bigotry are not yet banished from our land just as they reside in the darkest recesses of the human spirit.

I look forward to working with the New Dem Coalition, the Democratic Caucus, and the institution of Congress to reflect our values and create an even better future. This Thanksgiving I am thankful, grateful, and honored beyond my wildest dreams that you and I have a seat at the table to help get things right for our country and the world.

Yours truly,
Jared Polis

With the exception of Jim McDermott, the progressive icon retiring as the Seattle congressman and being replaced by Pramila Jayapal, every Democratic member of the Washington state congressional delegation is a New Dem. The infection spread and this blue state is dominated by Democrats from the Republican wing of the party. Derek Kilmer-- who represents the northwest part of the state west of Seattle all the way to the Pacific, including the Olympic Peninsula, Kitsap, Bremerton and about a third of Tacoma. It's safely Democratic (D+5) and voted for Obama 57-41% in 2008 and 56-41% in 2012. Hillary beat Trump there this year and Kilmer was reelected with 62% of the vote. He won all 6 counties, including the 3 small rural counties-- Clallam, Grays Harbor and Mason-- won, narrowly, by Trump. Kilmer, a white collar professional who voted against unions and working families in the state legislature, was first elected in 2012. He's a Chamber of Commerce darling and is generally considered pro-business and anti-labor and sells himself as a bi-partisan problem-solver, always happy to find an excuse to vote with the GOP. He has an "F" crucial vote lifetime score from ProgressivePunch, the most conservative Democrat in the delegation. He's running for New Dem vice-chairman. He sent his crap to a vehemently anti-New Dem congressmember who think Kilmer is a jackass and was happy to send me his letter.

Dear Colleague

When folks back home ask me how it’s going in Congress, I usually respond by telling them it’s a "fixer-upper." Between the partisanship, the focus on message over substance, and the sense that we are missing opportunities to keep up with the global competition, there’s a lot about the House of Representatives that can be frustrating. I love being a New Dem because we don’t get frustrated. Instead we channel our energy into doing things that are positive and solutions-oriented.

Being able to set aside a few hours every week to meet with my New Dem colleagues and engage in substantive conversations about the policies that will move our nation forward and the strategies needed to get them enacted gives me energy and motivation. More importantly, it gives me hope that we really can make this economy work for everyone, and get our Congress working again too.

I'm committed to the New Dems and am writing to ask your support to become one of the Vice-Chairs of our coalition.

As New Dem PAC Chair for the last two years, not only did I actively work to increase the amount of money raised by New Dems, I also helped increase the amount of money turned over directly to candidates. During the 2016 cycle, the NewDemPAC raised nearly $4 million, an increase of over $1 million from the previous cycle. NewDemPAC was able to triple the number of individual campaigns supported this cycle, and amass the resources necessary to provide the maximum contribution to every active New Dem Member and endorsed candidate who requested it.

I also worked to expand our national travel schedule to include new cities like Boston and Los Angeles. I strongly believe that the best ideas for how to grow our economy and create jobs come from outside Washington, and empowering more members to highlight innovation in their hometowns will strengthen our coalition going forward.

I didn’t just do what was asked of me. I stepped up and took on new responsibilities. For example, I organized events at the beginning of the 114th Congress to introduce newly elected members to some of the New Dems’ biggest supporters in key industries. It has generally been my approach to try to look for new opportunities to contribute, lift up other members, and build a stronger team.

Because I believe we need to do more to leverage the talents of our membership I championed the idea of changing our bylaws to give each of the Vice-Chairs a specific set of responsibilities. Not only will this give each Vice-Chair more opportunity to contribute, it will also create more transparency and accountability on the part of our leadership team. We need to do more to tap into the talents of our members. Among our ranks are moms and dads, grandparents, entrepreneurs, veterans, law enforcement officers, and local elected officials who served in every capacity from City Council to Governor. Given all the work we have ahead of us we will need every one of our members to bring their experiences and backgrounds to bear to help move us forward.

I am running with the hope that I can fill the role of Vice-Chair for Policy Coordination. I believe that more can be done to utilize our Task Force system, and to coordinate with outside stakeholders to develop innovative policy ideas for our coalition to champion. I also hope to be able to reach out to like-minded Republicans, and work with them from the outset in the hopes of developing bipartisan legislation with a real possibility to be approved by Congress and signed by the President.

Our party is clearly at a low point. Since the election, the loudest and most prominent voices are those arguing for populist policies and making highly partisan appeals to voters. If Democrats are going to regain the majority we need to recapture the center, and show the American people that we have ideas to build an economy that works for everyone and put an end to partisan bickering. New Dems have an important role to play in this process, and I would be honored to be chosen by my colleagues to help lead this effort.

Once Ryan and Trump start rolling out their ugly anti-family agenda we'll be keeping track of which Democrats collaborate the most with them. I can tell you in advance that we can all bet on Derek Kilmer to be on the wrong side far more than most Democrats.

How Can These Failed Corrupt Democratic Leaders Stay In Power After Letting The Party Down So Badly?

What we usually refer to as the New Dems, the New Democrat Coalition, is, even more than the Blue Dogs, the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party. They're getting ready to elect their next leader and the mailer below is from a slick 3-pager sent to newly-elected New Dems members from Jared Polis-- except he accidentally sent it to a Berniecrat who immediately forwarded it to me, along with Jared's message. Bear in mind when you read it that my friend who it was sent to would sooner decimate the New Democratic Coalition that join it:

I hope you are having a nice weekend after what has been a difficult week. Congrats on you victory, a small  ray of sunlight on a cloudy day. We are so thrilled to have you join our NewDem Coalition!

I am now announcing my intent to run for Chair of the New Democrat Coalition. Please take a moment to look at the attached prospectus outlining my qualifications and my vision for the future of the Coalition.

Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to follow up with any questions or thoughts. I hope that I can count on your support.

Oh, and by the way, Jared is the second richest Democrat in the House-- after fellow New Dem John Delaney. Last year his net worth was $92.6 million, up smartly from $88.6 from the year before. He's considered a dot.com wunderkind on Capitol Hill, having sold his online greeting card (BlueMountain.com) and floral delivery (ProFlowers.com) businesses. He's a big Uber investor.

A member of Congress warned me today that Democrats will vote on leadership races Thursday "so that no one has any time to put together any challenges based on the election failure." He was't happy that the sleaze-bag former head of the New Dems, Queens Democratic boss Joe Crowley-- a Wall Street plant inside the caucus-- is running for the caucus chairman's job. "He expects to be the Leader after Pelosi and Hoyer are gone. The only alternative seems to be Wasserman Schultz. What would your activist friends that about that choice?"

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal emphasized the Democratic Party identity crisis as exemplified by the explosive battle over the chair of the DNC. So far Progressive Caucus co-chair Keith Ellison, pharmaceutical lobbyist Howard Dean, New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman and DNC vice chair Raymond Buckley, lobbyist and South Carolina Chairman Jaime Harrison and centrist former Governor Martin O'Malley are running. There are even rumors that the much-reviled and serially failed Steve Israel is campaigning for the job. Ellison seems like the perfect candidate except for one glaring blemish-- support from the worst Democrat of all: Chuck Schumer-- and the fact that many people are saying there is a need for a full-time chairman, not something I recall anyone saying when Wasserman Schultz was given the job.

I gather the House leadership wants to get the votes out of the way quicker than usual-- before the members, just back in DC-- can start grumbling among themselves and plotting to change the spectacularly failed leadership itself. So Nancy, Hoyer, Clyburn stay and they move Crowley up to Caucus head and then let Barbara Lee and Linda Sanchez fight it out for Caucus vice chair.

Not All Countries Freak Out About Healthy Eating Alternatives-- Take Holland

I'm thinking about going to Paris this summer. What I'd like to do is rent a house or an apartment in the city and then take a side-trip to Bordeaux, Périgueux, Limoges and the Dordogne Valley to see the caves in the region. It's the only part of France I've never visited and friends tell me it's not-to-be-missed. But Roland wants to visit Amsterdam. He loves Amsterdam-- and especially our friends there-- but I lived there for 4 years and visiting someplace you know in such a workaday way isn't really a vacation. And, after all, no place is as good as it used to be, right?

I lived in Amsterdam when I returned from Europe after a couple of years traveling around Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Nepal. That was pretty exotic. Amsterdam wasn't. I rented an apartment, got a job, some friends and lived my life. Hum-drum in a way. The city of Amsterdam employed me in a youth center, het Kosmos, dedicated to non-sectarian meditation. I was a chef, waiter, dishwasher, cashier, manager in the center's macrobiotic restaurant. I had never so much as cooked an egg before I stumbled into the restaurant, looking for a place I could eat healthy food for a dollar or two per meal.

Amsterdam was very welcoming in those days, especially to Americans who didn't want to be living in the country bombing Vietnam, like myself. Someone even made a documentary about my life there-- a war resister in Holland. Believe it or not, Holland is such a conservative society-- but so entirely progressive at the same time. I could never understand the politics there, not for the 4 years I lived there and not since. And not now, as an actual fascist, Geert Wilder-- who has endorsed Trump-- inches closer and closer to the premiership. So on the one hand you have Wilders and on the other... a government advocating vegetarianism as a preferred option and healthy eating that is good for you and, at the same time, environmentally sustainable. Last week, National Geographic pointed out a report from the Dutch government about the relationship between a healthy diet, a healthy planet and the unsuitability of meat in that context-- meat and fish as a matter of fact.

The Netherlands Nutrition Centre says  it is recommending people eat just two servings of meat a week, setting an explicit limit on meat consumption for the first time. The recommendations come five years after a government panel weighed the ecological impact of the average Dutch person’s diet, concluding last year that eating less meat is better for human and environmental health.

The Nutrition Centre, a government-funded program responsible for making food-based dietary guidelines, took those conclusions and presented them on Tuesday in its “Wheel of Five”-- a graphic distributed to the public, along the lines of the U.S. government’s “MyPlate.”

“The new dietary guidelines are implemented in our new education model … in a way that the total environmental impact of the diet is lower than the current consumption,” explains Corné van Dooren, a sustainable food expert at the center. “We focus on eating a less animal-based and more plant-based diet by the unique advice to consume not more than 500 grams of meat a week.”

Of that 500 grams, or about one pound, only 300 grams should be red, or “high-carbon” meat, van Dooren noted, explaining that the guidelines suggest getting protein from other sources, like one 25-gram portion of unsalted nuts a day and one 135-gram portion of pulses a week. Seafood recommendations also get an update.

“The advice for fish is changed from two portions to one portion a week, due to sustainability issues,” van Dooren adds. “One portion is enough to reach the benefits for coronary heart diseases.”

Over the past decade, a handful of countries have started to more seriously consider environmental factors in their official nutrition advice, including the U.S. That’s out of the more than 60 countries that maintain and update nutrition advice, according to the FAO.

“There are just a very few countries that have taken this issue on,” says Kathleen Merrigan, former deputy secretary at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, now the executive director of sustainability at George Washington University. “It’s a moving target.”

In 2014, Merrigan helped convene a conference on food sustainability, inviting government nutrition advisers from the Netherlands and Brazil, two of the countries that have worked most intensively on the issue. (In 2012, Brazil set new recommendations that factored in “environmental integrity,” fair trade principles and the eating patterns of indigenous food cultures.)

Other countries that have included sustainability into their nutrition advice, or have seriously contemplated doing so, include Germany, Australia, Sweden, and the U.K.

Many in the U.S., too, embraced the conversation around sustainability when the 15-member Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee announced in its 2015 report that sustainable diets, lower in meat intake, are also more healthful (see New U.S. Dietary Recommendations First to Consider Environmental Impact.)

But not everyone went for it. The idea that environmental considerations should make their way into nutrition advice has been especially controversial with the livestock industry, which fought against their inclusion. The American livestock industry, for one, successfully argued that sustainability—or specific recommendations to limit meat consumption because of the environmental toll of meat production-- get knocked out of the final Dietary Guidelines. The final guidelines were issued in January (see What’s In America’s New Dietary Guidelines-- and What’s Not).

Just last week, the U.K. issued its latest nutrition advice, recommending a diet lower in red and processed meat.  The move was hailed by nutrition groups,  even as they sought more explicit reductions.

...The new advice, though, was immediately blasted by the livestock industry.

“Blanket messages to reduce red meat consumption could be very detrimental to the diets of consumers who already eat low to moderate amounts of red meat, for example women and young people,” says Emma Derbyshire, a member of the Meat Advisory Panel, in British media reports last week. “Lean red meat is rich in protein, iron, zinc, B vitamins and selenium and makes an important contribution to daily vitamin and mineral intakes.”

The industry pushback will likely get stronger as more governments turn their attentions to the issue of sustainability in the diet.

I remember a couple of years ago when Jared Polis (D-CO) wrote and introduced H.R. 4870, the Healthy School Meals Act. Polis hoped to offer the option of school kids eating some plant-based food at school meals. Polis told me he isn't a vegan or even a vegetarian. He just wants to make sure that children have a choice, noting that in the past 30 years "the prevalence of overweight in children ages 6 to 19 has tripled and 1 in 5 is struggling with obesity and related conditions like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease, which were previously considered adult diseases."

His legislation is based on the fact that children consume too much fat, saturated fat and sodium and don’t get enough fiber, whole grains, fruits or vegetables and that research shows that children who eat school-purchased lunches are more likely to be overweight and obese, and less likely to eat enough fruits and vegetables. So what does the bill do?

Improves children’s eating patterns by encouraging the inclusion of healthful plant-based options in the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs.

Introduces plant-based foods to schools, increases their availability and affordability, and provides incentives for schools to provide healthful entree options in the lunch line.

Removes restrictions on providing nondairy milk alternatives with school lunches, thus ensuring that all children receive vital nutrients.

I asked Jared if there were any bad guys in this story-- some crackpot Republicans or evil food processing corporations. He told me there weren't. He just hadn't been clobbered by him yet. That came after our chat. Some time ago I was the general manager of Sire Records and one of our artists, k.d. lang, recorded the TV ad below. The cattle and meat processing industries came down on us like a ton of bricks. I've read that they do the same thing to schools that start vegetarian-oriented programs, even if it's just to offer a vegetarian option once a week. Jared's bill didn't pass; he never even got out of committee.