Another Corollary Of The Steve Israel Effect: Discouraged Democratic Voters Stay Home

All cycle we’ve been talking about The Steve Israel Effect— even before we named it. The Steve Israel Effect is when his grotesquely corrupt DCCC targets the wrong districts with awful conservative recruits, gets them to alienate grassroots Democrats with mealy-mouthed mystery meat positions by promising huge independent expenditures in their races— and then leaves them high and dry at the end of the campaign by withdrawing all the financial support and transferring it to even worse and more conservative (and corrupt) candidates. One of over a dozen examples in the last few weeks: Steve Israel just withdrew $2.8 million in support for moderate John Foust and gave the money to wretched Nebraska Blue Dog Brad Ashford and the shady little bank lobbyist Pete Aguilar.

One of the corollaries of the Steve Israel Effect is that it depresses Democratic turn-out. Grassroots progressives, who differ markedly and across-the-board from the corrupt Beltway Establishment, are not usually enthused by the horrifyingly low calibre of candidates Israel and other DCCC hucksters recruit. Garbage candidates like Jennifer Garrison— anti-Choice, virulently anti-gay, pro-NRA, pro-fracking… she’d be perfect as a Republican— do not draw informed Democratic voters. Conservative incumbents (Blue Dogs and New Dems)— encouraged all cycle by Israel and Hoyer to vote with the GOP on crucial matters— are now all in trouble and struggling to survive. It’s no wonder why. Conservative voters already have their candidates, i.e., Republicans. When grassroots Dems don’t see a choice, they stay home. And, sure enough, yesterday’s Hill broke the news that Israel and the other lame brains in the DC Democratic Establishment are panicking as they “suddenly” realize that many of their base voters won’t be showing up in 3 weeks.

The Democratic Party's worst fears about the midterm election look to be coming true.

Polling in recent weeks suggests turnout on Election Day could be very low, even by the standards of recent midterms. That’s bad news for Democrats because core groups in the liberal base are more likely to stay home than are people in the demographic segments that lean Republican.

A Gallup poll last week found that voters are less engaged in this year's midterms than they were in 2010 and 2006. Only 33 percent of respondents said they were giving at least “some” thought to the upcoming midterms, compared to 46 percent in 2010 and 42 percent in 2006. Even more troubling for Democrats, Republicans held a 12-point advantage  when those paying “some” attention were broken down by party.

Historically, the core Democratic constituencies of young people, minorities and single women are more likely to skip voting in midterm elections. The current projections suggest that months of effort by the Democratic Party to engage those groups on issues such as the minimum wage and women's pay may have been in vain.

If the numbers hold, it could mean a rout for Democrats similar to the 2010 "shellacking”— President Obama’s description— that swept away their House majority.

"We cannot have 2010 turnout. If we have 2010 turnout among our key constituencies, we're going to have 2010 all over again. It's math," said Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher, who served as a pollster for President Obama's election campaigns.

…Some Democrats think the party hasn't done enough to pep up the groups that form its main pillars of support. Veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told The Hill last week that Hispanic voters would largely be unmotivated to vote in this year's elections due to President Obama's decision to delay an executive action on immigration.

“I think if we'd done something, it would have energized the Latino vote and drawn a clear distinction with the Republicans," Lake said.

Polling has further shown that young people are generally disengaged with this year's elections. A Pew Research poll this month found that only five percent of adults ages 18-29 were following the 2014 midterms very closely.

That could spell disaster for Democrats. National exit polls from the last midterm elections in 2010 indicated that voters aged 18-29 favored Democratic candidates over Republicans by 55 percent to 42 percent. Those figures were roughly reversed among voters aged 65 and older, who voted Republican 59 percent to 38 percent.

…Democrats are continuing to try hard to get their base to turn out. Leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus last month announced a multi-state campaign drive to motivate African American voters to go to the polls. The effort started with voter outreach drives at 3,000 African American churches across the country on September 21.

Way too late. It was all over when Pelosi reappointed Israel to head the DCCC and allowed him to start recruiting one wretched, unsupportable candidate after another. Although he’s trying to pad his “batting average” by including candidates from districts held by Democrats (Kathleen Rice, Aaron Woolf, Pat Murphy, Emily Cain, Seth Moulton), he’s likely to lose almost all his Red-to-Blue recruits, many of whom he’s already pulled the rug out from under. Of the 29 candidates left on his Red-to-Blue list, the only likely wins are 4 of the 5 running for Democratic-held seats (no Woolf) plus Pete Aguilar in an overwhelmingly Democratic district (D+5), plus Andrew Romanoff (CO-06), Staci Appel (IA-03), Gwen Graham (FL-02), and, maybe Domenic Recchia (NY-11), whose opponent has been indicted on 20 felonies. The rest look like they’re all going down, more victims of the Steve Israel Effect.


UPDATE: Latest Victims Of The Steve Israel Effect

Andrew Romanoff was once considered the most likely Democratic challenger to beat a Republican incumbent (extremist Mike Coffman). But Steve Israel has lost faith in him and just pulled a million dollars so he could better finance Blue Dog Brad Ashford in Nebraska and a gaggle of endangered conservative Democratic incumbents who have minimum support at a grassroots level after disappointing voters by sucking up to Wall Street for the last two years.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had reserved $1.4 million for TV spending to boost Romanoff in the final two weeks of his race against Republican Rep. Mike Coffman. But a DCCC aide said Friday that those funds would be distributed to other races.

Romanoff, a former state House speaker and unsuccessful 2010 Senate candidate, was once regarded as one of his party’s top 2014 hopefuls. But, with Republicans benefiting from a favorable national environment and Coffman running an energetic reelection campaign, Romanoff has seen his prospects dim.

Every candidate without exception who has followed Israel’s hollow losing advice has dim prospects now. A far less viable candidate than Romanoff, Israel fave Jennifer Garrison, has also had the legs cut out from under her feeble campaign in eastern/southern Ohio. Asked today by the Herald-Dispatch what steps the federal government should take to reduce the number of Americans living in poverty this was her response. (Keep in mind she makes her living tricking her neighbors into selling fracking rights under their property.) Sghe couldn’t think of any better way to help the unemployed and poverty-stricken than this GOP talking point— probably fed to her by Israel:

“The federal government should promote policies that encourage growth in our economy and create jobs. An example of these policies would be to invest in clean coal technologies and oppose the EPA standards on existing coal fired power plants that will result in a loss of jobs in this region. This can immediately encourage job growth in southeastern Ohio.”

Why Congressional Recruitment Really Matters

This morning one of the Beltway trade papers ran a piece about how weak GOP backbencher Rodney Davis, is kicking the ass of Steve Israel's pathetic mystery meat candidate, Ann Callis, in Illinois' most swing district, IL-13. Earlier in the cycle, PPP polled the district and found Davis' job approval rating underwater and that more voters were ready to defeat him than reelect him. When informed that Davis had voted to shut down the government, 42% of registered voters said they would vote for him and 47% said they would vote for his Democratic opponent.

And that's when the DCCC and EMILY's List jumped into the primary, undermined the progressive Democrat running, George Gollin, and backed Dick Durbin's hapless and inspiring hack. She's raised about half of what Davis has-- $1,351,880 to his $2,621,132-- and has inspired no one but other partisan hacks and people who vote based solely on a candidate being a woman. The ultimate swing district-- PVI is zero and Obama won in 2008 55-44% and lost in a deadhead in 2012, 49-49%-- Callis is about to drastically underperform, as anyone with a bit of sense could have predicted. She has nothing to offer progressives… and conservatives already have their candidate. Polling shows Davis with 55% and Callis with an abysmal 36%. (In the last election, Davis squeaked by progressive grassroots Democrat David Gill with a bare thousand vote margin, 47-46%.)

So far this cycle, the DCCC has spent an ineffective $27,818 in the district and they and their ironically-named House Majority PAC have reserved $1,180,000 on St. Louis broadcast from Oct. 21 to Nov. 4 and $813,000 on Champaign broadcast and cable starting Sept. 30 to attack Davis. Now there are rumblings that Callis has run such a dreadful campaign-- doing exactly what the DCCC tells her to do-- that they may pull the ads, although no one at the DCCC is confirming that yet.

Freshman Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., a top Democratic target this cycle, had a 19-point lead over his opponent with six weeks to go until Election Day, according to a poll conducted for his campaign and provided first to CQ Roll Call.

…Democrats recruited Callis, a former judge from Madison County, and touted her as one of their best candidates.

But Davis has had a visible presence in the district since he was first elected, and the poll showed he is known by 85 percent of voters in the district, with 41 percent of those voters viewing him favorably.

Callis, who Democrats privately say has not lived up to expectations as a candidate, was familiar to 63 percent of voters and just 19 percent viewed her favorably in the poll.

This morning, Greg Sargent covered the "midterm drop-off problem" for his readers at the Washington Post, although his concern was about the Senate rather than the House-- and he didn't mention lousy Democratic recruitment and prioritization at all. (If I had been writing that column, I would have mentioned the DSCC should be helping pull Rick Weiland in South Dakota and Shenna Bellows in Maine over the hump, instead of wasting millions of dollars on virtually unwinnable races for dull, uninspiring Establishment conservatives in Kentucky and Georgia. His point-- that "core Dem groups such as minorities, young voters and single women are expected to stay home in disproportionate numbers, leaving behind an older, whiter, more-GOP-friendly electorate"-- put he doesn't go beyond the horserace aspects of the campaign to ask why.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Annenberg poll drives home the point in a fresh way. It finds that registered voters prefer a Democratic controlled Congress by 46-42. But “high interest” voters-- those who rate a nine or 10 on the intensity scale-- prefer a GOP-controlled Congress by a lopsided 51-43. Those “high interest” voters represent 44 percent of all registered voters.

...This mirrors recent Washington Post polling finding that core GOP voter groups are certain to vote in larger numbers than Democratic groups are. Other polling from CBS News offered similar findings.

As I reported the other day, Democratic focus grouping has found that midterm drop-off voters just aren’t persuaded of the stakes in this election. Democrats are throwing everything they have at this problem. They are using carefully selected issues not just to persuade voters, but to turn them out. The goal of emphasizing a women’s economic agenda focused on the minimum wage and pay equity is to motivate single women. Meanwhile Democrats hope to refine tactics designed to ensure that drop off voters are contacted again, and again, and again.

There’s a lot at stake here that goes well beyond this election. As pollster Celinda Lake has explained, shifting demographics are leaving the Democratic Party increasingly reliant on a growing coalition of “irregular” voters-- even as the Republican coalition is increasingly reliant on voter groups that do turn out in midterm years. Broadly speaking these demographic changes may portend bad news for the GOP in national elections. But they may also prove key to continued GOP success in Congress, and for Democrats, this represents a problem that may not be going away anytime soon.

Not a word about the uninspiring, even horrible, lesser-of-two evils candidates Israel has recruited (in his own Blue Dog image). And it isn't only pathetic Ann Callis. His prize recruit was virulently anti-gay, anti-Choice, pro-NRA, pro-fracking conservative Jennifer Garrison in Ohio. She has exactly zero chance to win for several reasons but one is certainly that progressives are not eager to turn out to elect the Sarah Palin of Ohio… even if she is wearing a blue t-shirt. Israel is more interested in stocking the Democratic caucus with conservative corporate shills like himself than he is is winning back the House. He will fail on both counts though… and miserably.

Jennifer Garrison Finally Found An Issue To Campaign On That Won't Offend Democrats: Franking

Steny Hoyer-- one of the biggest financial backers of anti-Choice/anti-gay fanatic Jemmifer Garrison

Yesterday, Steve Israel Blue Dog Jennifer Garrison made the case for why voters in OH-06 should replace sad-sack Republican backbencher, Bill Johnson, with her in an OpEd for the Ironton Tribune. Gone were the usual Garrison barrages against women's Choice, against equality for LGBT families and against environmental restrictions on fracking (her business). And there wasn't even any bragging about dislike of President Obama and for the Affordable Care Act from the failing candidate. She did manage to work in, though, that she's as much of a patsy for the NRA that Johnson is.

It's hard for Garrison to get to the right of Bill Johnson-- and that's the only song and dance she knows. So, in desperation, she's reduced to complaining that he spends too much money sending constituents mail. Whining about franking been tried before, hundreds of times; it never works. But, apparently, its all she's got.

One of the reasons why most Ohioans are fed up with Washington is that too many Members won’t listen to the public. Instead, they spend our money to help their own political campaigns.

Congressman Bill Johnson spends a lot of time talking about wasteful government spending. He even used that issue to justify his vote to shut down the government.

Johnson’s vote to shut down the government had a real impact on people in our area, particularly the federal prison guards at nearby Elkton Federal Correctional Institution, who were required to go to work unsure of when they would be paid.

At the same time prison guards and others were left hanging by the shutdown, congressman Bill Johnson spent $2,300 of our taxpayer dollars on a scripted telephone town hall meeting.

These aren’t real town hall meetings in which voters get to ask questions of the Congressman-- these telephone town halls allow Johnson’s staff to pick who gets to ask questions, shielding him from answering the tough questions.

He failed to walk the talk “that the government should spend less money,” as he spent our hard-earned tax dollars on his self-justifying town hall meeting. $2,300 may not seem like a lot of money in the scheme of the federal budget, but it says a lot about his priority to do anything to stay in office.

Tax dollars should be used to pay prison guards’ salaries, not to support Congressman Johnson’s political campaign. It’s no wonder Congress’s approval rating is so low.

Another example of Congressman Johnson refusing to walk his talk is the overuse of taxpayer funded glossy pieces of mail that look like campaign literature targeted to groups of constituents in the congressional district. We the taxpayer pay for his one-sided outreach.

One rule surrounding this self-serving outreach to constituents is, these mail pieces cannot go out within 90 days of an election, which is Aug. 6. Two pieces of mail were received from Congressman Bill Johnson after this date- one on Aug. 12 and the other on Aug. 13.

One on senior issues and one saying Congressman Johnson has an “A” from the NRA.

I cannot for the life me figure out why someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative would spend taxpayer money on campaign materials just because Congress allows it.

Congressman Johnsons’ campaigns response is “the franking committee in Washington approved it.” I am not sure I know anyone in eastern or southeastern Ohio has faith in congressional oversight of congress itself. I will bring a different standard, one I can justify to the people of this district based on our principles, not on Washington’s judgment.

What makes this self-promotional mailing particularly offensive is that Congressman Johnson continues to disrespect his constituents even further by refusing to accept my challenge to debate in front of them?

If Congressman Johnson wants to talk about the second amendment, that’s fine. I’ve always had an A rating by the NRA and the support of Buckeye Firearms. Let’s have that discussion.

At all times, but especially during a time of such distrust of congress, candidates should be open, available and transparent. That is why I challenged Congressman Bill Johnson to seven debates in the 18 county sixth congressional district.

In the Columbiana, Steubenville, St. Clairsville, Zanesville, Marietta, Ironton and Carrollton areas, representing all seven media markets, so the voters could witness the demeanor and responses of the candidates for congress in a manner that is not scripted or staged, but is real. But Congressman Johnson has refused to agree.

Congressman Johnson has a lot of explaining to do. The voters of this district deserve better. I am again calling on Congressman Johnson to stop hiding behind the taxpayer-funded mail pieces, and scripted town hall meetings and let’s have a real debate and let the voters make an informed decision about the candidate that will best represent their interests in Washington, D.C.

The R+8 district, where Romney beat Obama 165,602 (55%) to 136,518 (43%) isn't anywhere near throwing out the reprehensible Johnson for the equally reprehensible Garrison. Even with Steve Israel pressuring Members of Congress to contribute to her, she's only raised $571,064 to Johnson's $1,766,423. He has $1,206,292 cash on hand; she has $230,780. She's so right-wing that not even EMILY's List will get behind her-- and right-wing women candidates has become their mission in the last few years. Her boyfriend Steve Israel wasted $39,310 smearing Johnson with DCCC money but that didn't move the needle and there isn't another Democratic constituency group that is stepping up to the plate for her-- unless you count the Blue Dogs, who have endorsed her and given her $10,000, as a Democratic constituency group.

And if she does get that debate with Johnson about who the NRA likes better, she can wave around her website issues page, which doesn't even say a word about gun safety, which even most of Israel's other conservative candidates pau lip service to. Nope, all she has in the section about guns is this:

Second Amendment – There are too many politicians in Washington who don’t understand or respect the role of hunting in communities like ours. I have always supported the 2nd amendment and I was proud to have been endorsed by Buckeye Firearms and the NRA as a state legislator. As a Member of Congress, I will continue to support the 2nd Amendment and our values.

I know you're not going to give this right wing shill for the fracking industry and money, but do keep in mind that if any of your friends give even one dollar to the DCCC, they are putting money into Garrison's sinking and pointless campaign-- a total waste.

Ohio Will Never Be A Congressional Battleground Until The House Dems Dump DCCC Chair Steve Israel

Incapable of learning from past mistakes; doomed to endlessly repeat them

Jessica Wehrman's analysis of Ohio's congressional election for the Columbus Dispatch this morning, could have been in almost any newspaper anywhere in America. Beltway conventional wisdom has it that none of the 16 seats are in jeopardy-- and the DCCC isn't competent enough to understand a two-cycle strategy for winning a district-- but the incumbents "have raised a combined $32 million for their re-election bids-- 15 times what their upstart challengers have this election season. You’ve heard the tale of David and Goliath? Try Goliath versus an ant."

The nature of Ohio's gerrymandering sees large numbers of Democrats packed into a few super-safe, unassailable districts while 2 GOP-held districts, OH-10 and OH-14, are the only real swing districts in the state. (The DCCC is essentially ignoring both seats.)

Despite safe seats and novice challengers, lawmakers are padding their campaign accounts with the financial equivalent of a security blanket, raising millions to scare off any future challengers or outside-money groups that might be tempted to weigh in.

“Sixteen seats open, and none of them with a real race,” said Sarah Bryner of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based campaign-finance research group.

Watchdogs say that despite an era when the public’s approval of Congress is polling at historic lows, tossing incumbents out of office is a nearly impossible task. In Ohio, for example, lawmakers represent districts that have been overwhelmingly drawn safer for them over the past few decades. Add to that mammoth fundraising advantages, and few challengers even bother to run.

“I’m sure this deters good candidates,” said Catherine Turcer of Common Cause Ohio, a liberal-leaning government watchdog group. “Let’s put it this way-- it certainly deters sensible people.”

Of the current congressional challengers, only four had more than $100,000 in the bank as of June 30-- Democrats Fred Kundrata, Jennifer Garrison, Michael Wager and Marek Tyszkiewicz. They are opposing, respectively, Republican Reps. Steve Chabot of Cincinnati, Bill Johnson of Marietta, Dave Joyce of northeastern Ohio and Brad Wenstrup of Cincinnati.

…That incumbents have so much more than their challengers appears to give them a healthy advantage going into November. With few exceptions (such as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who lost his primary to an underfunded political novice this year), money matters because it allows candidates to buy TV ads and spread their message to voters.

“Statistics certainly show that most races are won by the candidate who has more money than the person they’re running against,” said Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, a campaign-fundraising watchdog.

But Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Upper Arlington, said it is possible. He beat Democratic incumbent Mary Jo Kilroy in 2010, out-raising her slightly.

“It can be done,” he said. “There are challengers out-raising incumbents all over the country. It just doesn’t happen to be happening in Ohio. … It’s not like incumbency is insurmountable.”

Stivers plans to use his campaign money on TV ads and mail to “tell voters who I am.”

“I feel like part of the contract I make with voters is I’ll communicate with them,” he said.

Without an apparent contest, many Ohio members end up donating to their party. Tiberi gave the NRCC $582,000 this cycle. And Stivers donated $215,000 to the NRCC, but also gave $10,000 to the Boehner for Speaker Fund. Stivers said Boehner challenged Ohio Republicans this year to donate to more vulnerable House Republicans.

The most obvious district for a Democratic takeover is Dayton's 10th CD (R+3), currently represented by Mike Turner, a former Dayton mayor first elected to the House in 2002. Obama narrowly beat McCain there in 2008 and Romney narrowly beat Obama in 2012. Steve Israel has aggressively ignored the district, didn't recruit a candidate at all and isn't backing the local Democrats' primary winner, Bob Klepinger. Klepinger, a first-time candidate with a populist bent, hasn't raised the $5,000 FEC threshold that triggers a finance report. Turner has already spent $592,044 on the race and has another $375,315 cash-on-hand.

The other district the DCCC should be trying to win is OH-14 (R+4), just east of Cleveland, a district Sherrod Brown won last cycle and where Obama narrowly lost both times. Blue America has endorsed Michael Wager and this is certainly the best shot the Democrats have for picking up a seat in Ohio-- or would have, if not for Steve Israel's foot-dragging and sabotage. Wager's progressive politics-- similar to Sherrod Brown's-- is not approved of by Israel, who has decided to put all the DCCC's power behind Ohio's Sarah Palin, right-wing, anti-Choice, anti-gay, pro-NRA, pro-fracking corporate shill Jennifer Garrison instead. He recruited her, facilitated an endorsement from his Blue Dog allies, and has funneled money into her pointless campaign, while urging donors yo not contribute to Wager. Her district, OH-06 is an impossible R+8 conservative bastion where Obama was beaten badly booth times.

Even without any help from the DCCC, Wager has raised nearly a million dollars, while Garrison, who has had Israel, Pelosi and Hoyer all campaigning for her, has raised only $571,064. She's the archetypal Steve Israel candidate and the OH-06 race explains why Pelosi's and Hoyers's disastrous decision to keep Israel on as DCCC chair after he botched the 2012 elections so badly, explains why 2014 is likely to be another catastrophe for the House Democrats.

Two Ohio Democrats With Very Different Views Of Health Care Reform-- Michael Wager And Jennifer Garrison

Yesterday we looked at what happened when a real Democrat, Michael Wager, was confronted with idiotic Republican assertions about health care reform. Conservative Republicans in Ohio and across the country opposed Social Security, opposed Medicare, opposed Medicaid and now oppose the Affordable Care Act, all as a matter of course. It's the nature of who and what they are. Wager, the progressive Democrat running in the northeast corner of the state east of Cleveland, doesn't share that nature. He pushed back, talked about how he thinks the Affordable Care Act doesn't go far enough but is a decent first step and said he would have voted for it.

Steve Israel has basically ignored Wager's race against vulnerable Republican incumbent David Joyce (in an R+4 district Sherrod Brown just won 2 years ago). Instead, he's been terribly excited at the dim prospect of elected extreme right-wing fake Democrat Jennifer Garrison, an anti-Choice/pro-NRA tracking champion who based her political career on virulent homophobia, her trademark issue. Unlike Wager, she has publicly stated she would not welcome a campaign visit from President Obama and, unlike Wager she has claimed she would not have voted for the Affordable Care Act. Just the kind of candidate that makes Steve Israel tingle all over!

A letter to the editor from a Garrison staffer this week serves as a perfect contrast to Wager:

In a letter published over the weekend, the writer was badly misinformed on Congressional candidate Jennifer Garrison's views of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). If he would have done any research at all, he would have found that Garrison has repeatedly stated that she would not have voted for Obamacare. Taken straight from her campaign website, "I was frustrated and angered by the process by which Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act." She would not have supported the ACA because of the cuts to Medicare…

Those are Republican talking points that the NRCC and John Boehner's office hand out to GOP candidates. And, basically, so is this healthcare position Garrison put up on her campaign website:

Like a lot of Americans, I was frustrated and angered by the process by which Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act. There are admirable parts of the law-- covering pre-existing conditions, helping more Ohio families to get health coverage, and raising the age by which children can remain on their parents’ plans. But there are serious concerns, such as rising premiums on small businesses and the treatment of multi-employer plans that negatively impact many labor families. I’ll work to fix the Affordable Care Act so that it works better for people in our part of Ohio.

This is the voice of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and, in many ways, it's even worse than the voice of the Republican Party, since that voice will not be undermining progressive values and principles inside the party caucus-- and in committees-- the way Garrison's would. Garrison has been recruited by the Blue Dog Coalition-- which helps explain Israel's loyalty to a candidate in an R+8 district with no chance to win-- but even with intense DCCC help, she has only managed to raise $571,064 (which includes a $30,303 check she wrote herself) to Bill Johnson's $1,766,423. (Ironically, the no DCCC help, Wager has raised almost double and has $525,901 cash on hand, compared to Garrison's $230,780. A vaguely competent DCCC chairman would be ignoring Garrison and doubling down on Wager. Hopefully we'll have a competent DCCC chairman in time to clean up Israel's two consecutive disasters by the 2016 election.

What Makes People Vote? What Makes Them Stay Away From The Polls?

Friday we were looking at the grave danger the corrupt, conservative Democrats have put the party and the country in by recruiting grotesque candidates in their own image. The vast majority of congressional Democrats voted for Tom Massie's amendment to curb NSA domestic spying but corrupt, conservative Democratic leaders-- primarily Steny Hoyer (K Street-MD), Steve Israel (Blue Dog-NY) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)-- crossed the aisle to vote with the worst of the Republican authoritarians. The same day, most Democrats voted for Barbara Lee's amendment to prevent funding of another war in Iraq. But, again, Hoyer, Israel and Wasserman Schultz crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans against their own caucus and against what most grassroots Democrats passionately want. And these three have been determining the outcome of the 2014 election cycle, by replaying-- precisely-- the same disasters they helped engineer in 2010. It's all about discouraging grassroots Democrats to even bother turning out. That's how the DCCC lost the House majority and along with a net of 63 seats.

According to FairVote.org low voter turnout "is usually attributed to political disengagement and the belief that voting for one candidate/party or another will do little to alter public policy." Leaders like Hoyer, Israel and Wasserman Schultz consistently have done just that by blurring the distinctions between a working class party and the party of Big Business. Most developed democracies boast turnout rates both of 70% while the U.S. is lucky to average 60% during presidential elections and 40% for midterms.

Steve Israel warns his motley array of wretched conservative recruits to not talk about controversial issues. It's his losing "mystery meat" strategy. In 2012, while Israel was failing to win back the House, Elizabeth Warren ousted GOP incumbent Scott Brown, Wall Street's favorite-- and most heavily rewarded-- politician. She didn't do that with a mystery strategy or by laying low and not speaking her mind. And you know what happened? Well you know she won, of course-- and that she won big, 1,696,346 (54%) to 1,458,048 (46%). But what may have slipped by you is that it was the biggest election turnout in the history of Massachusetts, 73%. That's what happens when you give voters a real choice. Democrats and independents flocked to the polls in record numbers to defeat a likable "moderate" Republican with the most outspokenly progressive Democrat anywhere in the country. And while Big Business in general and Wall Street in particular led the way in showering Scott Brown with an unprecedented $28,159,602 for his reelection bid, ordinary Americans chipped in $42,506,349. Her average contribution was less than $50.

One poll showed that "only half of young people who voted for President Obama in 2012 say there is a chance they'll vote Democrat in 2014. If you want to know why the DCCC is unable to persuade voters to come to the polls to prevent another electoral debacle, go no further than the conservative candidates Israel and his Blue Dog/New Dem cronies have recruited. There is virtually no reason for a values-driven Democrat to bother getting off his or her couch and driving to the polling station for candidates who are anti-Choice, anti-gay, pro-NRA, in favor of cutting Social Security benefits or gung ho about more wars and more domestic spying. And, although Israel has instructed his candidates to keep their mouthes shut on these topics, the overwhelming majority of the weak collection of losers he has recruited for the 2014 cycle and are part of his Red-to-Blue program can be described as supporting one or more of these positions. Many have already admitted being New Dems and/or Blue Dogs and ordinary voters have begun figuring out that that means candidates are from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and will consistently vote against their interests.

The easiest of the Israel candidates to talk about-- one with a clear, well-defined record-- is Jennifer Garrison. She ran for the state legislature on a virulently anti-gay platform… literally. In 2004, her GOP opponent, Rep. Nancy Hollister, was the only Republican to vote with the Democrats against an anti-gay marriage bill. During the campaign, Garrison attacked her for putting Ohio's children in jeopardy with her pro-LGBT stand. She sent out a mailing that read, "If you believe marriage is between one man and one woman, there’s something you should know about Nancy Hollister… DOMA was enacted precisely to protect Ohioans from having to accept 'marriages' or 'unions' entered into in other states. Despite the value of DOMA, Nancy Hollister voted against it. Jennifer Garrison believes marriage is between one man and one woman and will fight to protect our values." Garrison won and two years later was able to kill the Democrats' attempt to include LGBT children in anti-bullying legislation. Who would even think of recruiting someone like Garrison? Obvioulsy, someone like Steve Israel, whose own homophobic voting record is, according to ProgressivePunch an abysmal 28.57 over the course of his whole congressional career. And Garrison isn't just bad on LGBT issues. She's violently anti-Choice, to the point that NARAL sent out a letter to women in Ohio stating flatly that "Representative Garrison does not share our values." NARAL may oppose her but the NRA loves her-- and so do the fracking interests. In fact, she makes a living by persuading her neighbors to allow fracking on their property.

Garrison typifies the kind of garbage candidates the DCCC under Steve Israel has come to stand for. When they beg you for money to help with equality or help with the environment, virtually ALL the money they raise goes to candidates like Garrison. Among the other candidates, all part of his Red-to-Blue program, with positions at odds with basic Democratic Party values are Patrick Henry Hays (AR), James Lee Witt (AR), Pete Aguilar (CA), Gwen Graham (FL), Ann Callis (IL), Joe Bock (IN), Jerry Cannon (MI), John Lewis (MT), Brad Ashford (NE), Kathleen Rice (NY), Domenic Recchia (NY), George Sinner (ND), Kevin Strouse (PA), Suzanne Patrick (VA), Glen Gainer (WV) and Nick Casey (WV). Many of the other just refuse to take a stand on anything and offer no opportunity for voters to figure out why they should vote for them. Offering a pig in a poke may be better than offering Jennifer Garrison, but it isn't going to get a 73% turn-out the way Elizabeth Warren did.

And alternative to what the DCCC is serving up? How about real progressives, like Elizabeth Warren, campaigning on issues that serve the interests of working families-- like these candidates, most of whom Steve Israel and the DCCC are overtly hostile to. There is only one reason-- in most cases-- to vote for any of Steve Israel's candidates: a Democrat is a lesser evil than a Republican. The progressive candidates the DCCC ignores are offering a positive vision people like Israel, Wasserman Schultz and Hoyer find abhorrent and a danger to their personal political power.

The DCCC never mentions Jennifer Garrison's record when they plead with you for contributions

Ohio Democrats! Don't Forget To Vote Today

Garrison and Israel-- 2 vile frauds destroying the meaning of the Democratic Party

Today is primary election day in Ohio's 6th district. Democrats in southern and eastern Ohio gerrymandered district will pick the candidate to go up against Boehner ally Bill Johnson. Favored to win by the Beltway Establishment is an anti-Choice, antigay, pro-NRA, pro-fracking right-winger we've talked about a lot here at DWT over the months, Jennifer Garrison (AKA- The Sarah Palin of Ohio). She would be exhibit A if House Democrats needed a trial to remove the scourge of Steve Israel and his corrupt and incompetent staff from the DCCC. Putting the finishing touches on her wretched campaign over the weekend, Garrison told the Ironton Tribune that “I’m a Democrat who disagrees with the President,” Garrison said. “I’m pro-life, I support the Second Amendment and I’m pro-coal. I believe coal is vital to southern Ohio." Except for the "I'm a Democrat" every word of what she said-- every word of what she's said all through the campaign and throughout her miserable political career, could have been uttered by Bill Johnson. She wears a blue t-shirt and he wears a red one. There essentially few other differences. Oh, except she's more obsessed with homosexuality and her antigay psychosis drives her life while Johnson doesn't really care that much beyond being a member in good standing of the antigay party.

I was disappointed that none of the national abortion rights groups or gay rights groups stood up to the DCCC and made them back away from their support of Garrison. It's pathetic-- and shameful. Is it acceptable for a Democrat to behave towards African-Americans or Jews the way she has behaved towards LGBT community? Why does Steve Israel have the right to recruit an outright bigot and spend contributions on her that have been collected from the Democratic grassroots that have been told that the DCCC supports equality when, in reality, they support a hateful garbage candidate like Garrison? I can't, for the life of me, understand how this is acceptable to Nancy Pelosi and to other Democratic leaders.

If you haven't been following Garrison's homophobia, here's something from an earlier post:

Garrison beat a Republican incumbent in 2004 to win a state house seat from Southeast Ohio, by ATTACKING HER GOP OPPONENT FOR BEING TOO PRO-GAY. Yes, you read that right. From the Gay People's Chronicle: Garrison already has a rocky relationship with the LGBT community. She won her House seat by gay-baiting her predecessor, Nancy Hollister, in 2004.

Earlier that year, Hollister was the only Republican to vote against the so-called “defense of marriage act.” It was considered a courageous vote.

Garrison sent out mailings that read, “If you believe marriage is between one man and one woman, there’s something you should know about Nancy Hollister.”

The other side of the card said, “DOMA was enacted precisely to protect Ohioans from having to accept ‘marriages’ or ‘unions’ entered into in other states. Despite the value of DOMA, Nancy Hollister voted against it. Jennifer Garrison believes marriage is between one man and one woman and will fight to protect our values.”

In 2006, as a member of the House Education Committee, Garrison helped to kill an amendment that would have required Ohio schools to protect students from bullying for their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The anti-bullying bill passed without the LGBT protections.

An attorney, Garrison opposed EHEA last year, saying it is wrong to single out classes of people for protection. This is a common talking point that anti-gays use against equality laws, and is legally flawed.

From the Akron Beacon Journal (November 11, 2004):

Garrison turned the Hollister vote [against the Ohio Defense of Marriage Act] into something seemingly sinister. She told the Parkersburg (W.Va.) newspapers that "the big difference between Nancy and I is the gay marriage issue. I am against it. She is for it."Garrison sent mailings into homes that read: "If you believe marriage is between one man and one woman, there is something you should know about Nancy Hollister." The mailing then all but declares that Hollister embraces gay marriage, concluding Garrison will "fight to protect our values." Karl Rove would be proud. Clearly, Garrison rode the wave of state Issue 1. She and her pals should be ashamed.

She's the opposite of a Democrat and now she's campaigning by telling voters that she's an anti-Obama Democrat. I'm sure Steve Israel is very proud of himself. If you're voting in the 'burbs south of Youngstown, in the 'burbs west of Wheeling or Parkersburg or in Marietta, Canfield, Steubenville, Cambridge or Ironton, remember that there is an alternative to Garrison's and Johnson's narrow-minded conservativism: Greg Howard. He is also on the Democratic ballot toward, thoroughly ignored by Steny Hoyer and Steve Israel and their claque from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Ohioan Appalachia-- Jennifer Garrison vs Greg Howard… The Republican Wing vs The Democratic Wing Of The Democratic Party

Who has a worse makeup job? 

Ohio's 6th congressional district is redder than the state of Ohio. It's whiter, poorer and less educated. The state is 82.9% white and OH-06 is 95.3% white, the whitest in the state. Ohio's medium household income is $45,749 and the district's is $41,355. Only 11.7% of Ohioans didn't graduate from high school. In OH-o6 that number is 14%. Obama won Ohio in 2008 (52-47%) and 2012 (51-48%) while Obama lost both time (53-45% in 2008 band 55-43% in 2012). The closest the district has to an actual city is Steubenville (population- 18,659) and Obama lost 17 of the district's 18 counties, Athens County (of which only a small strip is part of OH-06), being the exception. OH-06, with the loss of the liberal city of Athens and some Youngstown adjacent areas after the 2010 GOP gerrymander, has been turned into a culturally Republican, backward-looking stronghold, with more in common with West Virginia than with bustling Ohio cities like Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Akron or Dayton.

OH-06 is represented by a dull, ineffectual conservative Republican backbencher, Bill Johnson. He's among the least influential Members of Congress. Neither the DCCC nor the Ohio Democratic Party has worked to create any grassroots enthusiasm for a progressive vision of governance. and the people are left to rot with Hate Talk Radio, Fox "News" and religious bigots painting them a sordid, paranoid picture of reality.

There are two Democratic Party candidates running, one, Jennifer Garrison, recruited by Steve Israel and backed by the DCCC, and the other, Greg Howard, a grassroots activist with no support from the party above the county level. Garrison is from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. She's virulently homophobic and built her career on demonizing the LGBT community. She's also vehemently anti-Choice, pro-NRA, pro-fracking and has the backing of the reactionary Blue Dog caucus. Howard is from the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt school of progressive Democrats. The reporter covering their race most closely, The Vindicator's David Skolnick, pointed out yesterday that neither Garrison nor Howard are "big fans of their political party or President Barack Obama." Their reasons, however, are polar opposites and point out the difference in the two candidates. Howard is disappointed that Obama hash;'t been progressive enough and Garrison takes her talking points straight from the GOP, her spiritual home.

“I’ll be representing a district; I won’t be representing a party, though I am a Democrat,” said Jennifer Garrison, a three-term former Ohio House representative who works as an attorney representing landowners who sell mineral rights to oil and gas companies.

As for President Barack Obama, a fellow Democrat, Garrison said, “There are a lot of things he could have done better, like communicating with Congress.”

Garrison of Marietta said she is a Democrat because the party, like she, believes “in lifting up the middle class,” but added, “I’ve met very few people [who] agreed completely with the platform of their party. That is true of me.”

…Garrison also said she wouldn’t have voted for Obamacare if she was in the House in 2009 because “it’s hard for me to vote for anything that cuts Medicare.”

But Garrison said she supports a number of Obamacare’s provisions such as allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until the age of 26, no lifetime caps and requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.

 Garrison doesn’t support repealing Obamacare-- “this train has left the station”-- but wants a more open dialogue between Democrats and Republicans to make improvements to the law.

“The parts of it that aren’t working we should be spending time working together to resolve,” she said.

Garrison has more in common with the Republican incumbent-- lots in common in fact-- than she does with Howard, who supports Obamacare but would have preferred Medicare for all. He differs with Obama where he's gone off the rails in favor of corporate interests (like in the case of the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

When Howard talks about why he's running for Congress, you get the picture of a man who wants to serve his neighbors and his country, very much the opposite of the grasping and craven Garrison. He's fueled by love, wisdom and respect. She's fueled by ugly petty hatreds and personal avarice. He says he wants to "stop or reverse the privatization of the many government functions that government does best: Social Security, Medicare, Post Office, Military functions, National Security." She wants to trick Ohioans out of their land on behalf of facking interests, which is what her disgraceful law practice is all about.

"When elected," writes Howard, "I will fight to reverse the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission, by working to get the two thirds vote necessary to pass the 'We the People' amendment to the Constitution thus returning corporations to entities not persons… I will fight to reverse NAFTA, reducing the incentives for corporations to take jobs out of the United States and once again creating jobs for the working people… I will seek out the solutions for income inequality and job creation." He lives in a very different world from the one Garrison, Johnson and the stinkenly corrupt Beltway elites inhabit. He's on the Blue America ActBlue page

.

Jennifer Garrison-- A Portrait In DCCC/Blue Dog Failure… A Stepford Candidate

More dysfunction at the DCCC

Usually when Steve Israel recruit Jennifer Garrison makes the news it's about her anti-LGBT mania, her anti-Choice advocacy or her work on behalf of frackers in Ohio. But a few days ago she made a different kind of news-- her utter failure to raise the minimal amounts to stay on the DCCC Red to Blue Emerging Races list, not that the smitten Israel would ever really throw her off. Despite all the help she's getting from Blue Dogs, corrupt lobbyists, Steny Hoyer and Steve Israel, the wealthy oil and gas industry attorney had no choice but to write her campaign a big check.

Of the $199,683 raised by Jennifer Garrison, a Democrat in the 6th Congressional District race, during the first quarter of the year, $107,000 came from a loan she gave the campaign with $3,666 more in in-kind contributions.

Garrison’s financial contributions to her campaign represent 55.4 percent of the total amount of money she raised between Jan. 1 and March 31.

Garrison, of Marietta, an attorney and former three-term Ohio House member, loaned the campaign the $107,000 on March 24, according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission. The in-kind money went primarily toward running her campaign office in Marietta for expenses such as rent, utilities and email service.

Less than a month ago, Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call, a nonpartisan group that handicaps congressional elections, changed the status of the 6th District from “leans Republican” to “Republican favored.” The reason cited was “some of [Garrison’s] stances on social issues have put her at odds with liberal Democrats across the state, and that could make fundraising difficult for her.”

The progressive in the race, Democratic activist and organic farmer Greg Howard, entered too late to have an FEC report this quarter, but his grassroots campaign ins't about lining the pockets of predatory Beltway consultants the way Garrison's is. He's prioritizing voter contact rather than donor ass-kissing. [Blue America has endorsed him and you can contribute to his campaign here.] This was the most recent Rothenberg analysis of the OH-06 race. Short, less diplomatic version: Steve Israel is wasting his time and DCCC resources:

Ohio Republican Bill Johnson is an unassuming House Member who was elected in the GOP wave of 2010. His 53 percent re-election total has Democrats believing that a conservative Democrat would have a fighting chance against Johnson in the Republican-leaning 6th District.

While Jennifer Garrison’s profile as a moderate Democrat might be a good fit for the district, some of her stances on social issues have put her at odds with liberal Democrats across the state, and that could make fundraising more difficult for her.

Garrison is caught in a very tough political position. She must demonstrate a level of independence from President Barack Obama and the national Democratic Party in order to win a majority in the district while needing to raise money from traditional Democratic groups to communicate her message effectively.

Plenty of eyes will be on Garrison’s next fundraising report in mid-April. She has the opportunity to climb back into the conversation of competitive races but also risks falling further down the list of Democratic opportunities.

We are changing our Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call rating of the race to Republican Favored from Leans Republican.

Early this morning, Marianne Williamson, the progressive Independent running way across the country in CA-33, e-mailed me that she thought something she had written would be right up the alley of DWT readers. I agree… and it's what separates hacks like Garrison from stimulating and inspiring candidates like Williamson. Every district should be so lucky as to have a candidate like this running for Congress, asking voters not to be Stepford Citizens:

There’s a certain je ne sais quoi that Americans have in spades: a we-can-do-anything spirit that makes so many things possible for all of us. We’re rugged individualists, aspirational in nature, and we like to think for ourselves.

Who we are as individuals, however, is often quite different than who we are as a group.

Whether it’s because of television or the Internet or whatever other factor, we seem to have a Groupthink mentality these days. And that Groupthink is so easily manipulated by media images, those images seem to overwhelm the nonsense detector otherwise working for us in our private lives.

As individuals, for instance, we’re very clear that we don’t like to be controlled, or manipulated, lied to, or treated unfairly. As a group, however, we’re acting as though we don’t mind.

National Defense Authorization Act, giving the government the ability to indefinitely detain US citizens?

Nah, we don’t mind.

Drones on their way, with the technological capacity to track everything from our sex lives to our log-in information?

Nah, we don’t mind.

Multi-national industries having more influence over our government than we do?

Nah, we don’t mind.

The highest mass incarceration rate in the world, with huge numbers of inmates either non-violent drug offenders or mentally ill?

Nah, we don’t mind.

A permanent war machine, with the President handed year after year the authorization to do whatever he wants wherever he wants, as long as it even vaguely fits the “fighting terrorism” label?

Nah, we don’t mind.

And the list goes on. As individuals, we’re as spunky as ever. But as members of a larger society, we’ve become “Stepford citizens.” We're allowing things we wouldn’t in a million years allow to happen in our personal lives. Being lied to, manipulated and ripped off isn’t okay if you’re doing it to me personally, but if you’re doing it to me as a member of a group then I’ll just magically figure it won’t have consequences in my life.

And there’s the rub. When it comes to politics today, the devils’ not in the details; the devil’s in the big picture. More often than not, he's hiding in plain sight. His minions are wearing a business suit and a smiley face. He is selling us ruin and calling it progress. He is selling us destruction and calling it security. He is dismantling our democracy and saying it's just the way things are.

And the only real problem is that we’re buying it.

We seem to think it’s not so bad, we don’t have to worry, it’s paranoia to be concerned, it’s just negative to mention anything unpleasant after all. But that is not the spirit of who are as individuals, and it isn’t the spirit of who we should be as a group. A threat to our freedom is a threat to our freedom, whether from a terrorist or from a trade deal. I suggest we become as a nation who we are as individuals: not so easily fooled, alert to danger if danger appears, and ready to do the job necessary to respond to it and ward it off.

Also in California, Lee Rogers is not running in some safe Democratic seat. Since first coming into being, CA-25 has been in Republican hands. The PVI is R+3. In 2012, Rogers came close enough to beating 11-term incumbent Buck McKeon so that McKeon chose to avoid a rematch and "retire" to K Street. But Rogers, who has been endorsed by progressive icons like Florida Democrat Alan Grayson, fellow Californian Barbara Lee, Congressional Progressice Caucus Chairman Raul Grijalva, and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, isn't running some kind of Israel-mandated "mystery meat" campaign. Watch his closing statement at the debate he had with the two right-wing extremists the GOP is fielding, Tony Strickland and Steve Knight. You walk away from this knowing exactly where Rogers' stands and that he is there for working families, not for wealthy campaign donors. Yes, he's a collegial, bipartisan guy by nature but listen carefully to how he presents himself to independent Santa Clarita voters, the ones who will determine who wins in November:

"No party has a monopoly on good ideas. But when one party is shameless-- as we're seeing now with the current Ryan budget-- the other party cannot afford to be spineless. I'm proud to be a Democrat. I'm proud to be a part of the party that brought you Medicare and Social Security. I think that if Tony Strickland or Steve Knight were elected, they would do everything to work with Paul Ryan and the Koch brothers to dismantle those two programs. I'm proud to be part of the party that brought you the 40 hour work week and the Family Medical Leave Act and I want to see us go even further. I want to see paid maternity leave and I want to see paid vacation. I'll stand up for the middle class working families. I don't think Steve Knight and Tony Strickland will stand up for you. I think they will stand on you to further their own political agendas.

Why Is Pelosi Allowing Steve Israel To Gratuitously Screw Over Working Families In Southwest Michigan?

The ruin of Franklin Roosevelt's great political party

In a recent report from the Kalamzoo Gazette, Upton challenger Paul Clements sets new record for Democratic fundraising in 6th district, the photograph caption was "WMU Professor Paul Clements, who is looking to unseat U.S. Rep. Fred Upton in 2014, speaks to a packed crowd at the Kalamazoo County Democratic headquarters." Packed crowd? Maybe someone should tell DCCC chairman Steve Israel. Or perhaps mention the title to Israel, the part about setting new fundraising records, supposedly the only thing Israel really cares about anyway.

But no one will, because everyone knows it won't do any good. Israel doesn't challenge Republican committee chairs and policy-makers-- no matter how heinous their policies (and few are as heinous as Upton's). And he especially doesn't challenge his old fraternity brothers, like Upton, from his beloved Center Aisle Caucus. So here's the DCCC prioritizing and wasting money on dreadful deep red districts with even more dreadful conservative candidates, while a true blue progressive in a district ripe to be plucked (MI-6 with a PVI of R+1) is absolutely off the table. How can Nancy Pelosi abandon the working families of southwest Michigan to the tender mercies of Steve Israel this way… again?

Heading into the 2014 election season, Congressman Fred Upton's Democratic challenger announced that he has raised more money than any prior Democratic congressional candidate in Michigan's 6th district.

Paul Clements, 52, a political science professor at Western Michigan University, had raised $365,469 as of March 31, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Clements appears to be the first Democratic candidate in the 6th district to surpass the $300,000 threshold. In 2012, Democrat Mike O'Brien, who at the time had raised more money than any Democratic congressional candidate in the 6th district in 20 years, raised a total of $293,986, according to the FEC. (The current 6th district was formed in 1992, combining parts of the third and fourth districts.)

"Our report shows a broad movement that wants bipartisan solutions on job creation, education and investments in our future," Clements said in a statement. "The people of Southwest Michigan deserve an independent voice focused on their needs, and that's not what they have been getting with Congressman Upton."

During the first quarter of 2014, Clements raised $122,178. Of the more than 2,500 individual contributions, 86 percent were for less than $200, Clements' campaign reported, citing strong grassroots support. According to the FEC, Clements took in $3,950 from political action committees (PACs).

John Taylor, chairman of the Kalamazoo County Democratic Party and a county commissioner, confirmed that Clements had broken the Democratic congressional fundraising record set by O'Brien in 2012 for the 6th district.

"The really impressive thing about Paul's number is there's very little PAC checks in there," he said in a phone interview. "Individuals are stepping up for his race and that's a positive sign."

Israel, instead, is staying focused on Jennifer Garrison an anti-Choice, gay-hating, pro-NRA, pro-fracking conservative who is said to look an awful lot like his former mistress (his latest former mistress, the one his most recent wife divorced him over). Her district doesn't have a PVI of R+1, like Upton's. It has a PVI of R+8. And even with all the help Israel and Steny Hoyer are giving her, she isn't raising the kind of money grassroots progressives like Clements are. This quarter she brought in a meager $89,000, about a third of what the DCCC had assigned her. And she isn't the only Steve Israel recruit who fell flat on their face, rejected by the Democratic grassroots. Among other big Israel Q-1 recruiting failures were Red to Blue designees Jackie McPherson (AR-01)- $112K, Jerry Cannon (MI-01)- $143K, Bobby McKenzie (MI-11)- $133K, and Kevin Strouse (PA-08)- $115K, who is losing the money race to a more grassroots primary candidate Shaunghnessy Naughton, who, unlike him, is campaigning against fracking, which he foolishly supports in the very environmentally-conscious Bucks County (which he is unfamiliar with).

I asked a Member of Congress today if it is too late for the Democrats to win back the House in November. He wasn't optimistic but offered his opinion that damages could be minimized if Pelosi replaced Israel as DCCC chairman. "We'll never win it back with Steve calling the shots there, but I could name half a dozen Members who could walk in there tomorrow, shake the place up, get rid of some of the dead weight, and stop the bleeding… Steve will be lucky to break even. And I don't think Lady Luck has been kind to him in recent years… Nancy should kick him upstairs and give Keith [Ellison] the job. Even [he called me back and asked me to omit this name] would do a better job than Steve."

What A Grassroots Progressive Blueprint For America Sounds Like Far, Far From The Beltway-- OH-06

We've written a few posts here and there about Steve Israel's worst recruit of the 2014 cycle, Jennifer Garrison, an anti-Choice, anti-environment, homophobic fanatic who has been embraced by the DC Blue Dogs and by others from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. We haven't done as much about Garrison's progressive primary opponent, Greg Howard, mostly because he is relatively new to the field of battle. Progressives in eastern and southern Ohio didn't mobilize to find a real Democrat until early in 2014, long after Garrison assumed she had wrapped up the nomination (having chased state Senator Lou Gentile out of the race).

This morning, Gallia County's Gallipolis Daily Tribune published a report by Michael Johnson on Greg's campaign blueprint. ALthough Greg only draws distinctions between himself and Republican Incumbent Bill Johnson, almost all of those distinctions allies equally well to Jennifer Garrison. Her vision of governance has far more in common with Johnson and the GOP's than with Howard's and the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party's.

Greg Howard has several points for what he calls a “blueprint for a Democratic and economically sound society.”

...The first item on his blueprint calls for no cuts to Medicare or Social Security.

“People need to know the things I took for granted,” he said. “Medicare and Social Security are not entitlements. We pay for them and they shouldn’t be messing with them.”

Howard also believes in job creation and plans to call for the end to the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“I’ve looked at (NAFTA) pretty hard,” he said. “It promised 600,000 to 800,000 jobs and we’ve lost 1 million. Mexico hates it, too. They were in the streets not too long ago protesting it. It only benefits a few guys on Wall Street. As far as I’m concerned, (NAFTA) needs to go away.

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership should not even get started,” Howard added. “We need to review all these trade laws and start creating legislation for the American people.”

Howard said monetary reform is in need to build infrastructure in the U.S.

“High-speed broadband is a necessity, not a luxury,” he said. “Companies won’t come here if there is no access to it. The fast Internet-- the gigabit system, does not exist in District 6 or anywhere in Ohio.”

Howard also said many highways and bridges are needed.

“Many of our state, county and township bridges have been de-rated,” he said. “This limits growth at the grass roots level. We need a program to bring them up to highway standard.”

Howard also believes money should stay away from politics.

“Government is not broken, it is ‘fixed,’” he said. “It is working just as Big Money intends. The Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. FEC, of 2010, has allowed corporations to flood the political scene with money. This drowns out the voices of individuals and effectively silences them. No longer is it ‘one person, one vote.’”

Other points on Howard’s blueprint include employment, energy, agriculture and education.

“Congress has worked diligently at keeping unemployment high,” he said. “High unemployment equates to high corporate profits.”

Crystal clear… and if you'd like to help make sure Greg Howard is the Democratic nominee in Ohio's 6th district-- and voters there have an actual choice rather than being forced to pick between two conservatives-- you can contribute to one of the most grassroots-oriented campaigns anywhere in the country… right here.