Republicans Aren't The Only Bad Guys-- This Week's Swampiest Crooks: Andy Cuomo, Cheri Bustos, Joe Crowley

Last week, we looked at a video message from Abigail Disney from the Patriotic Millionaires, talking about-- though not by name-- some extremely bad Democrats in New York: Governor Cuomo and Senate Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, of course + The Long Island 6: legislators Todd Kaminsky, Monica Martinez, Kevin Thomas, James Gaughran, John Brooks and Anna Kaplan. Like the clip above, it's part of their campaign to pass a small tax on the super rich-- just people whose annual income is over $5 million. The purpose was to help bail out cash-strapped public schools that are facing further budget cuts, and the long-neglected subway system which just continues to decline. The 45 second clip above is Morris Pearl, the founder of Patriotic Millionaires, talking about a pervasive culture of corruption that defines Andrew Cuomo's political life. "Who says the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree? Andrew," my friend Skip Kaltenheuser quipped, "apparently fell during a tornado." Cuomo should be listening to his constituents and not just his rich donors. If he did, he wouldn't be blocking this common-sense legislation to make the lives of everyone in his state better.

Last month, no one even knew who Cheri Bustos is. Then this week, for no particular reason other than she could, she took an old DCCC nod-and-wink policy and formalized it into a rule, a rule that is meant to made it harder for Democratic challengers to primary Democratic incumbents. So now her name is well-known-- as an enemy of the netroots, just like her guru, Rahm Emanuel. Now there will be people digging around in her dirt and finding reasons to drive her out of Democratic politics-- or at least make her a pariah the way her buddy Wasserman Schultz is. This week author and former health insurance industry executive Wendell Potter exposed more of her corruption: Democrats On The Take: New DCCC Chair Is A Bets Friend Of Health Insurers-- How Health Insurance Cash Forms Opinions On Medicare-For-All. This is a very important piece for several reasons, not least of which is that as DCCC chair, she has a great deal of say over continuing to disadvantage progressives who favor Medicare-For-All, while pushing Blue Dogs and New Dems like herself, who are in politics to enrich themselves and to build a career-- not to serve; to self-serve. "Here’s a headline," wrote Potter, "you can bet my former colleagues in the health insurance business were thrilled to see last week: DCCC chief: Medicare for All price tag 'a little scary.' But it's part of a big picture with Bustos at the center since she is, explained Potter "a real pro when it comes to shaking down special interests, health insurers in particular, for the Dems."

That headline topped the lead story in the March 6 edition of The Hill, a newspaper widely read by Congressional staff and lobbyists and others in the influence-peddling business in Washington. You’ll see ads in The Hill by big corporations and special interests you won’t see anywhere else-- like the full-page “we’re-not-a-bad-guy” ad on page 2 by opioid maker Purdue Pharma and the two full-page “we’re-part-of the-solution” ads a bit deeper inside by Eli Lilly.

...I mentioned Bustos in a story I wrote on June 25, the day before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stunned party honchos with her upset victory over longtime incumbent Joe Crowley in the New York Democratic primary. Crowley, as I pointed out, was one of a handful of House Democrats who received campaign contributions from the political action committees of all five of the biggest for-profit health insurers—Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth Group. But Crowley wasn’t those PACs’ favorite Democrat in Congress. That distinction at the time went to none other than Cheri Bustos.

So it came as no surprise to see Bustos pouring a big bucket of ice-cold water on the very idea that Congress would give serious consideration to improving and expanding the Medicare program to cover every American, which polls show a big majority of Democratic voters-- and even a sizable percentage of Republican voters-- favor. When Medicare covers all of us, there will be no need for health insurers as we know them-- and we know them increasingly as barriers to getting the care we need. To delay for as long as possible the day Medicare covers everybody, the insurance industry and its allies are showering Democrats with campaign cash and providing their friends in high places-- including Cheri Bustos-- with talking points designed to scare the daylights out of people.

Bustos and I have a lot in common. We both were journalists in our first career: She was a reporter for the Quad City Times in Davenport, Iowa; I was a reporter for Scripps-Howard newspapers in Tennessee and Washington. She left journalism to go work for a big hospital system in Iowa; I went to work for a big hospital system in Tennessee (and from there to Humana and Cigna). She and I even had the same title at the end of our corporate careers-- Vice President of Corporate Communications-- and we both were paid handsomely. The Quad City Times reported that Bustos was making north of $300,000 when she quit to run for Congress. She took a sizable pay cut when she was sworn into office to represent Illinois’ 17th congressional district in 2013. I took an even deeper pay cut when I left my corporate job and blew the whistle on my former employers. I have written about politicians on the take; she is one of those politicians.

Bustos was a proven fundraiser from the start. Since 2011, when she launched her first campaign, she has raised nearly $13 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Even though she was widely favored to win reelection last year (she beat her Republican opponent by more than 24 points), she still raised $4.5 million, much of which she didn’t need or spend. That big pile of Benjamins was considerably more than the average raised by other House members.

And there’s this: Nearly 85 percent of what her campaign took in came from corporate and special interest PACs and large individual contributions. Less than 13 percent came from small individual contributions.

Most of Bustos’ campaign cash last year came from people who couldn’t even vote for her. Nearly 80 percent came from outside of her district and more than half from out of state. None of the big five for-profit insurers that wrote big checks to her campaign are based in Illinois.

Bustos’ comments in the Hill story came a week after Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) introduced The Medicare for All Act of 2019 with 107 cosponsors, and they tracked with talking points now flooding Washington by the health care industry’s new front group, the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, which comprises health insurers, drug companies and big hospital systems like the one Bustos used to work for. It was created for the explicit purpose of scaring Democrats away from any Medicare for All legislation.

“What do we have-- 130 million-something Americans who get their health insurance through their work?” Bustos was quoted as saying in the Hill article. “The transition from what we have now to Medicare for all, it’s just hard to conceive how that would work. You have so many jobs attached to the health care industry. I think the $33 trillion price tag for Medicare for all is a little scary.”

Now compare that to the messaging in the Partnership’s first digital ad last month attacking Medicare for All proposals. And note, too, that that “scary” $33 trillion figure-- which, by the way, covers a ten-year-period-- came from a study produced by a think tank funded by the Koch Brothers, two rich guys no one would mistake for Democrats. What Bustos didn’t mention is that even that study, biased as it was, concluded that sticking with our current private insurance driven-system would cost $2 trillion more than Medicare for All. Bottom line: Medicare for All would be a bargain compared to the status quo Bustos, who thrives in the swamp that is Washington, is defending.

Did someone mention Joe Crowley? Since 1990 he's taken $1,730,665. After being ousted by AOC, he promptly got a job as a lobbyist at DC's shadiest firm, Squire Patton Boggs (which is not just unethical but also illegal, albeit never prosecuted). Since he was selling access, he refused to return his VIP government parking pass until last week, almost 3 months after he was forced to vacate his offices. Turn on the lookback machine for a few minutes:

Incumbents Who Suck Should Be Primaried-- Not Incumbents Who Are Doing An Excellent Job

I don't have any firsthand knowledge of Ayanna Pressley. Everything I've heard about her has been excellent. But I do know Mike Capuano-- and he's nothing like Joe Crowley. I'm certain there was no one in the country working harder and more consistently than I was to displace Crowly over the last decade-- although it took a grassroots wonderwoman and her team to eventually do it. Before Alexandria was old enough to vote, I was calling local elected leaders in the Bronx and Queens asking them to challenge Crowley. Most were not sympathetic. And even the ones who were said it was impossible and politically suicidal. Alexandria-- in touch with the street-- knew something they-- in touch with Albany and the politicos-- didn't: virtually no one in the district even knew who Crowley was. Crowley is a corrupt, right-of-center hack who was concerned with his own career trajectory, not his constituents' well-being or aspirations. That's not my experience of Mike Capuano.

Crowley was, for years, the head of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. As the chairman of the New Dems, his bread and butter politics were barely Democratic. Until he decided to enter the House leadership, he was virtually wrong on every crucial issue. Capuano has a ProgressivePunch score of  "A" and has never had anything less. Massachusetts is a very blue state, but of its 9 members of the House only 3 have excellent voting records: Katherine Clark, Jim McGovern and Mike Capuano. Joe Kennedy has a "B." Richard Neal, Niki Tsongas and Bill Keating have "C"s. (This cycle, Keating has swung noticeably right.) The other 2 suck. Stephen Lynch has an "F" as does Seth Moulton. Moulton's the worst-- and with the biggest national ambitions. He needs to be stopped. Pressley would have been doing everyone a favor if she had decided to take on Moulton, Lynch or Keating. They're way too far right for their solidly Democratic districts.

I first looked at this primary battle on May 3 and didn't think it was a great idea then... and I still don't. Apparently neither do the voters in the 7th district. According to a just-released poll from WBUR, Capuano is ahead 48-35% among likely primary voters.

"What typically happens in primaries is they're pretty low-turnout affairs," he said, "and we see that although this district is majority-minority, in the past the majority of voters who have turned out for primaries have been white and they tend to skew much older."

Pressley leads among voters under 45.

"I think she's more representative [of] a change compared to what I've heard about the other candidate," said Aliza Stern, 41, of Boston.

Forty percent of voters polled say they would prefer a candidate who has been around awhile, with experience in how Congress works. Forty percent say they prefer someone new to Congress with fresh ideas and perspectives.

"I hope that the same way I'm planning on going out to vote that more people, really, instead of just complaining about the way politics are, that they actually make a difference and get out there and vote because I think unfortunately we're in a rough situation now, and if we don't vote to make a change for who is in office it's going to be a real problem for our country," Stern said.

When she says she wants to see change, Stern says she means not just in the White House eventually, but also in Congress now.

The district encompasses parts of Boston, Cambridge and Milton, and all of Chelsea, Everett, Randolph and Somerville.

Pressley also leads among nonwhite voters. Among African-Americans, she leads by 23 points.

"I think that we need to be proactive and throw caution to the wind and vote in some new blood," said Judith Scott-Hammerquist, of Boston.

Pressley has argued that in her life experience as an African-American woman, she represents the voters of the district better. Most voters, 55 percent, say a candidate's gender should not be a consideration when deciding whom to support.

Capuano leads among both men and women.

But race is a consideration for most registered voters. Fifty-three percent of voters say race is a major or minor consideration when deciding whom to support.

"We need to be more inclusive and have a greater diversity in our congressional representation," said Scott-Hammerquist, a retired paralegal. "I like Mr. Capuano and I think he's done a somewhat decent job, but I think with the Trump administration, we're in for the fight of lives, and we need to get some new energy into the Democratic Party."

Both candidates are extremely well-liked. Sixty-five percent of voters hold a favorable view of Capuano.

"It's not just that he has a long track record, and it's not just that he's right on the issues, and it is not just that he has a good position for his constituents in the House," said Sarah Buermann, of Jamaica Plain. "It is all of that plus. His energy is what we need right now."

Fifty percent of respondents hold a favorable view of Pressley, and she has room to win over more: 26 percent still have never heard of her.

"I think the difference is one of emphasis and not of content," Buermann said.

Forty-four percent say the candidates' positions are somewhat or very similar, with another 37 percent saying they don't know or refuse to answer.

There have been and still are terrible incumbents running, though few have had or have strong primary opponents. An exception is Alan Grayson, going up against New Dem Darren Soto in Orlando. Soto opposes Choice, sported an "A" from the NRA and an "F" from ProgressivePunch. He hasn't accomplished a thing for his constituents and doesn't deserve to be reelected. Grayson was one of the best members of Congress in our lifetimes. Sarah Smith's uphill WA-09 primary against Adam Smith is another good idea. She's a good candidate who would make a good congresswoman-- something Adam Smith has never been. In a D+17 district, voters are entitled to something better than a mediocre moderate  with a career-long "F" voting record, like Adam Smith. That said, Pressley seems like an excellent political leader. Capuano has earned reelection though.

Pick A Side: Joe Lieberman Or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Conservatives want members of Congress to look like the mug on the right, never like the young woman on the left

Connecticut Democratic primary voters basically kicked Joe Lieberman out of the party by denying him the 2006 Democratic nomination for the Senate seat he had held since 1994. He ran on the Connecticut for Lieberman Party that year. He would like to see Joe Crowley, who lost the Democratic renomination bid on June 26, do the same thing. Crowley outspent his progressive opponent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez $1,410,228 to $30,94, but she worked harder and smarter and beat him 15,897 (57.48%) to 11,761 (42.52%). Ever since her inspiring victory over an avatar of the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment, the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment and their media lapdogs have gone on the attack against her and other progressive reformers working to displace other incumbents associated with the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment. So, no one should be surprised that Joe Lieberman, now a lobbyist working for the ultimate grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment law firm, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, who's best known client is... Don the Con, the illegitimate "president." Lieberman is also the co-chair of the American Internationalism Project, part of the far right American Enterprise Institute.

Lieberman represents a very special kind of bipartisanship-- the opposite of the kind of bipartisanship practiced by legislators like Alan Grayson, Pramila Jayapal, Ted Lieu and Karen Bass (entailing working across the aisle to find issues that both parties can support for the good of their constituents)-- and instead can be defined as selling out your own party's values and principles and embracing those of the other party. That, in fact, sums up Joe Lieberman's entire political career. Example: while actual Democrats were trying to stop the confirmation of anti-education extremist Betsy DeVos of Secretary of Education, it was Lieberman who introduced her to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension committee. A high ranking staffer for one of the committee members-- hint: not Doug Jones (D-AL)-- told me that members were revolted when Lieberman came into their offices and even more revolted when Trump announced he was likely to replace James Comey as FBI Director with Lieberman.

No one was surprised when Lieberman, writing for the conservative Wall Street Journal-- of which Grason quipped, "the Wall Street Journal: you can always tell whom they fear by whom they smear"-- a couple of days ago went on a vicious, McCarthyite attack against Ocasio-Cortez. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hurts the party, Congress and even America," he wrote. What he meant by "the party" isn't open to the reader's interpretation, although it should be since the Democratic Party now has the most inspiring weapon in politics since Bernie Sanders-- something that petrifies both of the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment parties. Lieberman, 76 and... tired, defines the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment as "the mainstream," so he isn't reaching when he writes that "Ocasio-Cortez advocates [policies] so far from the mainstream, her election in November would make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems." He didn't acknowledge the dysfunctional state of Congress today, not the role Joe Crowley-- not to mention his own decades-long role-- has played in that dysfunction.

He then went on to try to make a case for Crowley doing what he did-- running as an independent in the general. "On Election Day, his name will be on the ballot as the endorsed candidate of the Working Families Party. But for Mr. Crowley to have a chance at getting re-elected, he will have to decide if he wants to remain an active candidate. I hope he does." The Working Families Party" has pleaded with him not to further disgrace them by running against Ocasio-Cortez. The heart of Lieberman's OpEd, was his attack on policies that benefit anyone other than the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment. Keep in mind, Lieberman was one of the most anti-Bernie "Democrats" in the country during the 2016 election cycle. Here he was on Fox News:

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose platform, like hers, is more Socialist than Democratic. Her dreams of new federal spending would bankrupt the country [wrong] or require very large tax increases [wrong], including on the working class [wrong]. Her approach foresees government ownership of many private companies, which would decimate the economy and put millions out of work.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez didn’t speak much about foreign policy during the primary, but when she did, it was from the DSA policy book-- meaning support for socialist governments, even if they are dictatorial and corrupt (Venezuela), opposition to American leadership in the world, even to alleviate humanitarian disasters (Syria), and reflexive criticism of one of America’s great democratic allies (Israel).

She has received the most attention for calling to “Abolish ICE,” Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This makes no sense unless you no longer want any rules on immigration or customs to be enforced. I have not heard anyone say that. Nonetheless, at least three credible candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination rushed to endorse Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s position.

Republicans are calling Ms. Ocasio-Cortez the “new face” of the Democratic Party. That’s why Nancy Pelosi has tried to put distance between Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and House Democrats. “They made a choice in one district,” Mrs. Pelosi said. “It is not to be viewed as something that stands for anything else.” She knows that if Democrats are to regain a majority, it will be by winning swing districts with sensible, mainstream candidates. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is making that task harder across America.

Joe Crowley’s re-election would be evidence that Democrats are capable of governing again. His voting record shows that Mr. Crowley is a progressive [laughably wrong]. I know him as a bridge builder and problem solver, which is exactly what Congress needs more of in both parties.

Crowley has refused to remove his name from the Working Families Party ballot slot, despite the Working Families Party asking him to. We asked some of the Blue America-endorsed candidates for their perspectives on this. First to respond was Tom Guild who is running on very similar all-American, working family issues that Ocasio ran on-- in Oklahoma City. They work as well among voters there than they work in the Bronx and Queens. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a breath of fresh air," he told me. "She prevailed against big money and is not responsible for the problems that others have created-- paralysis, placing our democracy at risk by coveting and hoarding big donor money, and selling out working people and the middle class by doing the bidding of the modern moneychangers in the American political temple. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Crowley is the same old, same old and a charter member of the DC Swamp. Progressive change will make things better for people who are struggling to survive and throw the corrupt moneychangers out of the temple. Alexandria beat the tired and failed political establishment playing by their rules, and may be able (with a little help from her friends) to shake up Washington and get the country moving in a positive direction. Experience makes it crystal clear that for many years Lieberman and Crowley made a functioning national government dysfunctional. Why would we want to go back to that future?

Kansas Democrat James Thompson made an addition after the post was completed: "My first thought is who cares what Lieberman thinks? He is a corporate crony owned by the establishment in both parties. If Ocasio is the breath of fresh air then Lieberman is the dying breath of a decaying establishment that can’t see past its next Corporate PAC endorsement." And then there's this nice video, nice message from the Sanders Institute. I bet you can guess why we're running it here, right?

Down Goes The King Of Queens, But What Does It Really Mean?

by Bob Lynch
Democratic campaign operative

The large part of the analysis focused on the “shocking” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez victory in New York’s 14th Congressional District has focused on the fact that the ten term incumbent and number 4 member of the Democratic House Leadership team was taken out by a 28 year old Latina who identifies as a Democratic Socialist, calls for the disbanding of ICE, and has never held any elected office. But was the result really that shocking? And more importantly, how many Independent and casual Democrats even knew Joe Crowley’s name before Tuesday night? Painting this as a referendum on the Democratic “Establishment” seems like a stretch despite the practical implications. They reality of the matter is that this race absolutely Did Not result in the pick up of an additional blue seat.

The media often attributes the “shocking” label to events simply because they were caught off guard but that doesn’t necessarily tell the whole story nor does it “shock” those of us who pay far too close attention to these things. Many people were “shocked” that the Eagles won the Super Bowl, but it wasn’t at all surprising to people who watched a lot of Eagles games.

The media is constantly looking for a pre-arranged narrative and the idea of a Civil War within the Democratic Party seems to be the one they want to run with at this moment, sprinkled with the false choice that all Dems are either Nancy Pelosi minions or outright socialists. A little odd given that we didn’t hear any of this when Doug Jones and Conor Lamb picked up valuable seats in special elections, that far more Democrats actually participated in, by a multiple that is not even close. Approximately 28k thousand votes were cast on a ballot in the 14th district that featured two names for a seat that hasn’t seen a primary in 14 years and is widely deemed to be one of the safest Democratic seats in the entire country. The GOP candidate doesn’t even have a website.

Is Joe Crowley losing his seat to a political newcomer a big deal? Of course it is. But let’s not put the cart before the donkey...

Much has been said of the fact that Crowley’s campaign outspent Ocasio-Cortez by a factor of around 10 to 1. The emphasis on this overlooks the fact that Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi has been an incredibly effective fundraiser despite leading a caucus that hasn’t held a majority since the disastrous 2010 elections.

Money can’t buy happiness and eventually we can all hope it won’t buy elections but assuming that this is a definitive referendum on getting money out of politics ignores a lot of logistical realities starting with the fact that Joe Crowley sent a stand-in to a debate with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she cut a genuinely unique campaign ad that resonated with many young voters, and ran a well focused grass roots ground campaign. His immediate and elated concession also seemed like the type relief sentiment to be out of the mix and no doubt resonated with John Boehner.



The reality of the situation is that the leadership of the Democratic Party has already seen the writing on the wall and probably realized that saving Joe Crowley’s seat in a district the Republicans had absolutely no threat of capturing simply wasn’t worth the money and was deemed to be bad optics that would stifle the new energy of the Bernie Sanders “wing” of the party and reinforce the narrative that the DCCC is playing favorites, which in many cases is true.

There is clearly an imminent, and much needed reshuffle of senior level Democratic Leadership that insiders have been openly talking about for months, if not much longer. Don’t let a lazy media convince you that obvious things are now shocking. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of basic polling info realizes that Nancy Pelosi’s leadership is a massively polarizing issue, with no universal conclusion, and played a large part in how Conor Lamb ran his race.

New names like Ted Lieu are openly being floated and no one should act surprised. New blood is needed.

Ocasio-Cortez is just that kind of new blood the party needs and the fact that she is a Socialist shouldn’t overshadow the fact that she is foremost a She, She is a Latina, and She is absolutely going to be the youngest member in the history of the House Of Representatives which provides a great counter argument to Neo-Fascist, Racist, and all around bad guy, Tom Cotton, who is the youngest member of the Senate.

A lot of people are making extrapolations but I can guarantee that Andrew Cuomo has nothing to worry about with Cynthia Nixon, even after this result, and is probably only losing sleep tonight by watching his brother Chris giving the psychotic Rep. Steve King a platform and having debates between Van Jones and the shameless Jason Miller about civility on CNN in Prime Time. Normalizing the circus only ensures that it will eventually come to town... Joe Crowley’s concession was admirable and should be a lesson for all Dem candidates who lose primaries going forward. Endorse the victor, come together and move on. But let’s not forget that old white guys singing 30 year old Bruce Springsteen songs, to a district more familiar with the lyrics to Despacito, is largely how we found ourselves in this situation in the first place. As to the media’s insistence that this is an earth shattering wake up call to “the establishment.” Crowley was the first Democratic incumbent to lose a primary this year and the even older, whiter, and uninspiring Senator Ben Cardin won his Maryland primary against a transgender veteran, who is held up as somewhat of a cult figure in circles that actively favor dismantling the Military Industrial Complex, by over 70 points…

There were obvious winners as a result of Ocasio-Cortez’s victory and the most obvious one has to be all women. Women have largely fueled the Blue Wave and they just picked up a guaranteed new seat in Congress. The next is Latinos who also added to their presence, followed by the Millennials. Anyone discounting the importance of our government having more faces that look like the real America is missing the source of so much of our momentum. Another big winner are people who believe in grass roots campaigns, volunteers, and the importance of actually knowing your district.

The clear cut loser was any of the Special Interest Money that contributed to Crowley’s $3+million in the attempt to buy access to someone believed to be a shoe in for the next Speaker of the House. If you are currently running a congressional campaign and most of your budget is tied up in the same kind of tired media buys and mailers that Crowley relied on, you might want to hit the panic button and rethink things. The Democratic establishment, people like Robby Mook, and all of their various consultants, strategists, data wizards, communications experts and other hangers on, who haven’t realized that the ground has long since shifted under their feet, were just soundly beaten by a rag tag group of first timers on a shoe string budget.

It doesn’t take a multi million-dollar budget to realize the importance of a viral campaign ad, knocking on doors, and handing out flyers with the common sense to print them in English, Spanish, and Bengali. Meanwhile, Senator Bill Nelson can talk policy with you for hours but doesn’t even have a Spanish language website while trying to hang on to his seat in Florida in a year Dems want to make immigration an issue. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s platform may have looked like the type of detail free poster you would see in the cafeteria during a middle school student body election but she got her message across and the only thing she didn’t actually promise her voters was longer recess and free candy…

Don’t get too lost in the identity politics issue either and keep in mind that the bulk of the difference makers in the NY-14 race’s turn out were college educated, millennial white voters who had long since been priced out of Brooklyn, let alone Manhattan. It is also infinitely easier to knock on doors in New York City than just about anywhere else in the country.

We’re already one day in, and Ocasio-Cortez is already on CNN and Fox News making routine rookie mistakes and feeding right into the divisive narrative that could doom the party moving ahead. There is no reason for her to ever be on Fox News, she won’t need a single GOP vote in the general, and there needs to be someone savvy enough to tell her this.

Congratulations to Ocasio-Cortez and to all of the volunteers and grassroots supporters who made this amazing upset happen. Do not dismiss many of the ideas she ran on. They are powerful and are not going away. Let’s just make sure we are in a position to address them in a realistic way and not concede the whole package to the GOP like we did in 2016. Do not get ahead of ourselves and make the disastrous assumption that what works in NY-14 will work in every other district in the country.

We have to remember that the crucial and immediate goal is to win control of Congress and provide a necessary check on Donald Trump and the GOP. Nobody wants the Democratic Party to be involved in internecine warfare more than Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon except maybe the New York Times and CNN, who have been relentlessly pushing the story. We need to stick together folks, and we have to win.

The disastrous announcement of Justice Kennedy’s retirement means that there will most likely be another conservative Supreme Court Justice already confirmed before the midterm elections. The threat level has been turned up to life or death and the only realistic solution to Donald Trump, the GOP, and a fascist dictatorship that will roll back all civil rights advances of the past 100- years is regaining the House and investigating any and everyone involved in the election of Donald Trump as well as everything him and his GOP cabal has done while in office. The fate of the free world relies on this mission.

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.

How Cynical Is the Democratic Party's Support for Identity Politics? (Plus a Note on the Ocasio-Crowley Contest)

Albright: "Younger women, Hillary Clinton will always be there for you" ... plus that other thing she said.

by Gaius Publius

How cynical is the Democratic Party's support for identity politics? To this observer, it seems impossible not to notice that those in control of the Democratic Party care about "identity politics" — about supporting more women, more people of color, more LGBTQ candidates, etc. — only when it suits them. Which means, if you take this view, that their vocal support for the underlying principles of "identity politics" is both cynical and insincere.

As I said, this has been apparent for some time. I've never seen it documented so well in one place, however, until this recent piece by Glenn Greenwald.

For example, Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016 not only encouraged a vote for Clinton because men and women had a duty to support her as a woman, yet they attacked support for Sanders as specifically misogynist:

The 2016 presidential election was the peak, at least thus far, for the tactics of identity politics in U.S. elections. In the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton’s potential status as the first female candidate was frequently used not only to inspire her supporters but also to shame and malign those who supported other candidates, particularly Bernie Sanders.

In February 2016 — at the height of the Clinton-Sanders battle — former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire rally by predicting a grim afterlife for female supporters of Sanders, while Clinton and Cory Booker cheered: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” she announced.

Though Albright apologized in the New York Times for her insensitive phrasing after a backlash ensued, she did reaffirm her central point: “When women are empowered to make decisions, society benefits. They will raise issues, pass bills and put money into projects that men might overlook or oppose.”

At roughly the same time, Clinton supporter Gloria Steinem said female supporters of Sanders were motivated by a primitive impulse to follow “the boys,” who, she claimed, were behind Sanders. Just this week, the Clinton loyalist and Salon writer Amanda Marcotte said Trump won “because some dudes had mommy issues,” then clarified that she was referring to left-wing misogynists who did not support Clinton: “I also have those moments where I’m like, ‘Maybe we need to run Bland White Guy 2020 to appease the fake socialists and jackass mansplainers.'”

Greenwald notes in passing that no one was making the case for supporting Sanders because he would be the first Jewish president, and he doesn't expect that case to be made in 2020 should Sanders run again.

He concludes from this that "despite the inconsistencies, one of the dominant themes that emerged in Democratic Party discourse from the 2016 election is that it is critically important to support female candidates and candidates of color, and that a failure or refusal to support such candidates when they present a credible campaign is suggestive evidence of underlying bigotry."

The Past as Prologue: Cynthia Nixon

Apparently, however, Democratic Party interest in electing strong progressive women (Hillary Clinton includes herself on that list) has dissipated in the smoke of the last election. As Greenwald notes, "Over and over, establishment Democrats and key party structures have united behind straight, white male candidates (including ones tainted by corruption), working to defeat their credible and progressive Democratic opponents who are women, LGBT people, and/or people of color. Clinton herself has led the way."

The article is replete with examples, from the Brad Ashford–Kara Eastman battle in Nebraska, to the Bob Menendez–Michael Starr Hopkins–Lisa McCormick three-way contest in New Jersey,  to the Ben Cardin–Chelsea Manning primary in Maryland. In all cases, the Party backed the white male candidate (or in Menendez's case, the whiter male candidate) against the woman, the person of color, and the LGBTQ candidate. Not even the smoke of 2016's identity fire remains.

Which brings us to the 2018 candidacies of Cynthia Nixon and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

Let's start with Cynthia Nixon, running against corrupt, anti-progressive NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo sides with Republicans to defeat progressive measures, rules with an iron hand, is white and male. Yet he's also supported and endorsed by almost every national Democrat who matters:

In New York state, Cynthia Nixon is attempting to become the first female governor, as well as the first openly LGBT governor, in the state’s history. She’s running against a dynastic politician-incumbent, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whom the New York Times denounced this year for being “tainted” by multiple corruption scandals.

But virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the white male dynastic prince, Cuomo, over his female, LGBT challenger. That includes Clinton herself, who enthusiastically endorsed Cuomo last month, as well as Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who — despite starting a political action committee with the explicit purpose of supporting women running for office — also endorsed Cuomo over Nixon in March. [emphasis mine]

To make the main point again: How cynical and insincere is the Democratic Party's support for identity politics? Very.

A Local Race with National Consequences: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vs. Joe Crowley

This cynical drama is also playing out in the race between corrupt Joe Crowley, the likely next Democratic leader of the House (if he survives this election) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The same dynamic is now driving the Democratic Party primary campaign in New York’s 14th Congressional District, a district that is composed of 70 percent nonwhite voters. The nine-term Democratic incumbent, Joe Crowley, is a classic dynastic machine politician. His challenger, a 28-year-old Latina woman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has generated nationwide excitement for her campaign after her inspiring introduction video went viral. At a fundraising event, Crowley accused his opponent of playing identity politics, saying she was trying to make the campaign “about race.”

Despite all that, virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the white male incumbent, and virtually none is supporting the woman of color who is challenging him. Yesterday, the very same Gillibrand who has a PAC to support female candidates and who endorsed Cuomo over Nixon announced that she was supporting Crowley over Ocasio-Cortez. [emphasis added]

Note that these are not low-profile, low-consequence races. Both are positions of enormous power — in Nixon's case, due to the office; in Crowley's case, due to his position as the Dauphin to Nancy Pelosi's soon-to-step-down monarch.

These are races with exponentially greater consequences than usuals. And where is the Democratic Party in this? With the (corrupt) white male and against the woman, as always these days.

"Identity Politics" Is Not a Cookie-Cutter Solution to Electoral Choices

I'd like to make two additional points. First, by any intelligent standard, candidates "identities" should only be one factor only in considering support for them. Only the right wing and 2016 Clinton advocates like Madeleine Albright, quoted above, make the most simplistic argument about "identity" support — and even then, the simplistic argument seemed to apply only to support for Clinton herself and never to other women.

For example, would even Clinton supporters have supported Carly Fiorina against a male Democrat for president? Obviously not. And Clinton herself, a former New York senator, did not support Zephyr Teachout in 2014 when Teachout ran against Andrew Cuomo for governor. Nor did then-Democratic primary candidate Hillary Clinton campaign for Zephyr Teachout in her 2016 race for the the  NY-19 House seat.

Ideological concerns also drive decisions like these, as in fact they should. Fiorina would likely be too far right for Clinton to support, and Teachout too far left. This is a fair basis on which to decide. It was also a fair basis on which to decide support for Clinton as well.

The Ocasio-Crowley Battle Is a Very High-Leverage Fight

A second point: I recently wrote about the importance of progressives involving themselves heavily in high-leverage races — like the Bernie Sanders 2016 race, for example — where the payoff would have been huge relative to the effort. (You can read that piece and its argument here: "Supporting Aggressive Progressives for Very High-Leverage Offices".)

The Ocasio-Crowley contest is similarly high-leverage — first, because he's perceived as vulnerable and acting like he agrees, and second because it would, to use a chess metaphor, eliminate one of the most powerful (and corrupt) anti-progressive players from House leadership in a single move.

Again, Crowley is widely seen as the next Democratic Speaker of the House. He would be worse by far than Nancy Pelosi, and he's dangerous. He has blackmailed, as I see it, almost all of his colleagues into supporting him by the implicit threat of, as Speaker, denying them committee assignments and delaying or thwarting their legislation. He also controls funding as Speaker via the leadership PAC and the DCCC. Even Mark Pocan, co-chair of the CPC and normally a reliable progressive voice and vote, is reportedly whipping support for Crowley among his colleagues.

Crowley plays for keeps. Taking him off the board entirely, removing him from the House for the next two years, would produce a benefit to progressives far in excess of the effort involved.

Progressives, were they truly smart, would have nationalized this race from the beginning and worked tirelessly to win it. The payoff from a win like this is huge.

GP
 

Tomorrow's Primary Day-- And Crowley Is A Villain Not Just In Queens And The Bronx, But In Staten Island And Brooklyn Too!

Today, the furthermost corner of NY-11 is at Avenue P and East 15th Street. When I was a pre-teen, my family had a house on 17th right off Avenue P. One of my friends, Anne, lived with her family on East 14th Street between Avenue P and Kings Highway. We both went to PS 197. Back then we were also in the same congressional district-- Manny Celler's. First elected in 1923, Celler's district was redrawn at least 4 times and back in the early '60s it was NY-11, as it is now-- albeit without Staten Island-- when Anne and I lived in it. Actually she still does. I didn't know that until this week. I hadn't heard from her since we went away to college. We hadn't been in touch. She e-mailed me, inspired to finally reach out by Fred Moguls' WNYC piece, and told me she reads DWT everyday. She told me something I didn't know anything about-- that Grimm called Rose "a pussy" in public, and that mister "courage to lead" said nothing in retort and went on to whine to multiple people about it. That's not a guy who's ready to take on Grimm in a general, and when there was a candidate forum in the very red South shore of Staten Island and it was confirmed Grimm would be there, Rose was a no-show coward. I called her and we caught up. We exchanged pictures. She said she would recognize me instantly. Something like sixty years have passed. I would never have recognized myself. Anyway, Anne said she agrees with everything I write... everything. I love her; no one else agrees with everything. No one. She's petrified the DCCC is going to wind up giving NY-11 back to Michael "Mikie Suits" Grimm by supporting a crummy Blue Dog, Max Rose. She had written a post about her fears but was nervous about sending it to me. Why, I asked, you were always a much better writer than I was. She used to help me with my homework. Here's her guest post. Please encourage her to write more.

The 2 bad guys in the NY-11 race-- Grimm and Rose

Please, Stop Michael Grimm... And The DCCC
-by Anne From Brooklyn

The Darwin awards for political ineptness have yet to be invented, but the DCCC is doing everything it can to win the coveted Most Embarrassing Congressional Election That Doesn't Have To Be Lost category in a landslide.

In 2015, it took the grand prize without breaking a sweat. Never content to settle, the D-trip now aims to break its already impressive record-- in the same district, against the same flawed Republican. It may very well work. But it may also fail spectacularly; particularly if The People have their way.

In 2015, they put up the most clownish Democrat they could think of to screw their hopes so shamefully that Candidate Recchia earned star status on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Recchia went on to raise more funds than any Congressional candidate in history, right before setting another record when he suffered an epically humiliating loss to Republican Michael Grimm. Grimm was not only under indictment at the time, but had just threatened (on live tv!) to break a reporter "in half-- like a little boy" and throw him "over this balcony." The balcony was DC's Congressional Rayburn Building and Grimm ultimately resigned his seat, pleaded guilty to felony tax fraud, and served an eight-month sentence.

Now that he's out and wants his seat back, he is Trumpily primarying the Trumpiest schlump representative, Dan Donovan (the DA who could indict a ham sandwich, but not the NYPD officer who caused the death of Eric Garner with an illegal chokehold).

The DCCC can glide to November victory with the most populist Democrat the district has known in decades by working to help elect Michael DeVito, a guy well-known for his deep integrity, empathy and non-partisan service throughout the district. He's mentored Donovan's own stepson, and, as a Marine, serves as the perfect foil to Grimm. The DCCC is far too masochistic to ever do anything so sensible, though. Instead, they dropped a Blue Dog elitist unknown into the mix to alienate every voter with Nancy Pelosi-isms and empty platitudes. Max Rose isn't just the perfect picture of a limousine Blue Dog, he's a plastic puppet devoid of substance who has in his remarkably short time living amongst the plebs of NY-11 already dropped enough Trumpian whoppers on voters to qualify as the hollowest of candidates, straight from the Build-A-Politician Factory located on K Street.

Max Rose is a compact package of arrogance, spitting out lines fed to him by his D.C. handlers, and while he does, obfuscating that fact at every turn, presenting himself as some sort of anti-establishment everyman. In the early days of his campaign (at least as it was announced; he's been secretly running for office for years) he launched a 100-day "listening tour," which is exactly what you do when you don't know anyone in and anything about the district you're trying to represent. At the beginning of this stunt, he issued his first public lie,"All too often politicians-- both Democrats and Republicans-- develop their policy platforms behind closed doors with lobbyists and truckloads of polling data guiding their decision making. That's not who I am and that's not what this campaign will be about..." Yet just seven days prior, he announced his campaign team, a roster full of D.C. troupers from the revolving door of the DCCC and its consultant class, with one exception: his campaign manager, Kevin Elkins. And if we are the company we keep, then Rose is already a dirty rat.

Elkins' involvement as a Rose staffer didn't happen through old fashioned recruiting, but through a backroom deal akin to extortion that filters through the local county committee. Elkins, formerly the Executive Director of the County Committee, approached the Chairman, John Gulino, to inform him that he would primary the City Councilwoman, Debi Rose. Debi Rose was-- and remains-- the only woman of color elected to office in Staten Island history. With Elkins' notoriety as a dirty player, Gulino had to know the race would get ugly fast, and that the very popular and progressive Debi Rose would get dragged through the difficulty of a filthy campaign-- ostensibly risking the loss of the seat to a Republican in an already strongly-held Republican borough. Gulino offered Elkins the campaign manager slot on Max Rose's team as a way to keep him at bay. And it was this that led the tail to wag the dog, from before the Congressional campaign was announced to the present day.

Elkins is so reviled in Staten Island politics that after he was revealed to be the target of a $10,000 hit by Richard Luthmann (a Staten Island attorney who is himself notorious for suing for the right to a trial by combat), the dark joke throughout the borough was that the $10,000 plan to shoot Elkins failed because there were too many people willing to do it for free. Elkins would use the "hit" revelation for public sympathy, as is his modus operandi, morphing the story that there was a plot into,"I survived an assassination attempt." Elkins remains closely tied to Mike McMahon, having worked on his successful Congressional campaign (followed by his failed one, which he lost to Michael Grimm in 2010), and when Luthmann was remanded without bail, a propensity for violence was presented as grounds for remand, based on the story about Elkins. With McMahon's connections, and a personal aversion to Luthmann (McMahon's wife, Judge Judy McMahon, was a target of online bullying by Luthmann,) it is suspected that the bail revocation and "hit" story may not be entirely as it appears.

Kevin Elkins has a petty history as well in his nefariousness, having a years-long reputation for campaign lawn sign shenanigans, which was unable to be proven until he was caught-- himself-- on camera removing an opponent's lawn signs under cover of night in 2015. The race was for District Attorney, the opponent was Joan Illuzzi, and the candidate Elkins was working for-- Mike McMahon. Not content to end his lawn sign pettiness three years ago, he seems to be continuing his scheme on Max Rose's campaign, directing staff to engage in lawn sign destruction and removal, and planting his candidate's signs where they are not wanted or requested, in an effort to give the appearance his candidate is more popular than he is (lawn signs are a big deal on Staten Island.) With the dearth of local press coverage in the race, this all plays out on Facebook and Twitter, where voters air their grievances.

It is likely Kevin Elkins' language that Max Rose deploys when he issues his pretentiously folksy utterances of "you bet!" And "I'm running because I'm fed up!" and deploys a manufactured Brooklyn accent which doesn't exist in the elitist circles in which he grew up. It's all part of dumbing things down for the lowly voters. And it is Elkins' condescension and detachment from voters, combined with the typical DCCC arrogance and tone deafness that created the narrative of Rose's campaign that he has gleefully followed from Day One. By presenting himself as a soldier hero with the "Courage to Lead," co-opting the Army's motif and logo for his campaign, and talking about his purple heart and Afghanistan at every step, Rose and his ilk are counting on appealing to the militant right wing of the base for the General election, and to scrape through the primary by attempting to scare the bejesus out of anyone left of Reagan: if you don't vote for me, you'll get a convicted felon! I have more money than anyone!

Rose's entire persona is manufactured. Any fans he has parrot "his résumé" which includes a one-year stint at a couple of patronage jobs, respectively, that he touts as the experience needed to advocate for some 700,000+ constituents. He and his handlers have tried to avoid referencing his organic history, so the "elitist" label can be dodged, but his non-political biography reveals the holes of the conceit.

A product of the tony Park Slope section of Brooklyn with a sprinkling of the Hamptons, Rose did not have an association with CD-11 outside of his prep school education (Poly Prep, where his family's ties to the Board and connections with other affluent Brooklynites would provide a deep-pocketed fundraising base.) According to past acquaintances, he was looking for a district to move into run for Congress, and parts of New Jersey were contenders. One such prospect may have been Hoboken, where Leigh Marsanico-Byrne, who he introduced as his fiancee (and now his wife), resided or resides. According to neighbors in the luxury waterfront apartment building he moved into upon his transplantation into Staten Island, she has not lived there throughout their courtship or his campaign, and indeed she is rarely seen on the campaign trail. Further investigation revealed that she owns a property in Hoboken, New Jersey. She registered to vote at Rose's address on November 3, 2017, having never voted in an election (nor been registered to) before in New York or New Jersey. A "child stylist" by profession who runs in socialite circles, it is possible that her absence is a strategy as much as it is a byproduct of her residency.

Rose is sure to highlight his Wesleyan education with his Masters from the London School of Economics. But he quickly zooms to emphasize his work with those he presents as the poor and downtrodden-- lest we forget he actually has a little consideration for people of color and those in poverty (his public statements and answers to questions posed reveal him to believe they are one and the same.) There are three pieces of background he emphasizes repeatedly: his one-year-ish stint as Chief of Staff at Brightpoint Health, his job as "Special Assistant" to Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson, and his membership in Occupy the Block. Ken Thompson was a beloved district attorney who died in the course of his tenure. Rose does not reveal the length of his employment there, but touts his indispensable involvement in the "Begin Again" program which was designed to help clear low-level offenses. The program was launched in July 2015; Rose was working for Brightpoint by the following June. Despite an exhaustive online search to find Max Rose's name on anything associated with the program, he appears on a single piece of correspondence, in minutes of a meeting. As Brooklyn lost its cherished DA, checking the facts with him about Rose's "invaluable" role is impossible.

Rose was at a women's breakfast in Staten Island on Saturday... demonstrating his "stamina to lead?"

Rose repeats his talking points about his position at Brightpoint Health, that he "helped deliver" healthcare to low-income patients and those suffering with addiction and that he "helped bring a medical clinic and drug recovery center to the island." But there was ALREADY a clinic functioning before Brightpoint acquired it, and the grants reveal that funding was in place years before Rose was ever involved. In March 2016, ostensibly around or before the time Rose became involved with the organization, the collaboration between the existing entity, Community Health Action Staten Island ("CHASI") and Brightpoint was already in the works. In Brightpoint, Rose attempts to claim credit for accomplishments he didn't earn. Whether the healthcare "delivered" by Brightpoint is even altruistic at all is another question. Max makes hay of his dedicated volunteerism with Occupy the Block, a neighborhood watch-type initiative that sets up dedicated volunteerism with Occupy the Block, a neighborhood watch-type initiative that sets up twice weekly in the most challenged areas of Staten Island where violence can build. He uses his "Occupy" status in ample photo ops, campaign materials, and speeches. Many of the men of Occupy the Block will tell you they've never heard of him, or that they saw him a few times before he declared his run for office. Others will change the subject immediately to Michael DeVito, and how he's "the real" volunteer for Occupy the Block (a fact specifically cited in DeVito's induction into the NYS Senate Veterans' Hall of Fame.) They may tell you even more about DeVito, and they may tell you nothing else about Max Rose but shoot you a glance that tells you they are not happy with opportunists.

And as with every Blue Dog, that gets right to the root of it all: opportunism. Max Rose is neither a Democrat nor a Blue Dog for his principles. He certainly isn't the progressive he purports himself to be, nor does he have the "courage" he said he has to lead. He is credibly a pro-choice candidate, and that appears to be the sum of his authentic convictions, so the label "Democrat" seems convenient enough. The blind ambition within him makes him a natural choice for the Blue Dog team, and the zeal he has to perpetuate the Military-Industrial Complex at great taxpayer expense and huge profit to the Defense PACs which provide his benefaction makes him a perfect New Dem as well. A perfunctory amateur analysis of the Blue Dog/New Dem combo yielded a predicted "Trump Score" in legislation for of New Dem/Blue Dog cross-endorsed candidate of 43.44, meaning that Rose could be more of a Republican in a House voting record than the existing Congressman, Donovan, and even out-flank from the right Grimm's legislative voting history.

When challenged on his positions, the source of his funding, or to explain his actual experience, he quickly rushes to his combat veteran credentials. "Afghanistan" seems to be the safe word he and his consultants are counting on; that, and to sow enough fear for Democrats and discord between voters of Donovan and Grimm to split the vote and squeak into place. And while he sprinkles his GI Joe tales around, he often forgets his audience. The 11th District has a large population of Muslims of varying ethnicities and origins. It's not surprising to learn that the presentation of the candidate in combat fatigues talking about shooting people in the desert has not resonated pleasantly in congregations of Pakistani-Americans, at Muslim festival celebrations, and among memberships of organizations where peace is fervently pursued.

And then there is the money. Max Rose has only one notable opponent, the aforementioned DeVito. He has made it his business to hit Rose publicly about the sources of some of his funds. Rose had already publicly announced his "corporate PAC money pledge" and subsequently received the endorsement of End Citizens United, the AstroTurf organization that runs a circular conveyor belt with the DNC, Emily's List, and now VoteVets. Let it be stated for the record that this decoy was not deployed until after Rose's overlords were able to ensure they could funnel enough corporate money effectively through other Democratic "leadership" PACs such as the JOEPAC of his chief benefactor, Joe Crowley, and through the joint fundraising agreement Rose shares with Crowley.

On February 15th, the day after the Parkland massacre, a Twitter user later determined to be New York physician Matthew Brown tagged both Rose and Anthony Brindisi for the Blue Dog PAC's $20,000 in NRA cash since 2016 with, "you really want to be supported by blood money? Will you repudiate the NRA's dirty cash?" DeVito issued a scathing rebuke immediately, and apparently earned a reputation for being a shit-stirrer in the district-- something that Centrist Democrats didn't welcome. Rose's handling of the question, however, fared worse. Rose continued to get pressed on the matter on social media, yet never answered. A March for Our Lives group had formed locally with the leadership of a Parkland survivor's cousin, and when a town hall was requested to Donovan and rejected as is the norm, the "MFOL" group began to assemble one of their own, inviting all Congressional candidates to participate, including Grimm and the present Congressman. Max Rose attempted to reclaim his image as a guy against the NRA (some arguments from his surrogates included that it's only a little bit of NRA money in his PAC) and offered to pay for a town hall out of his campaign funds. Both the town hall organizers in Staten Island, and a smaller town hall organization that followed in Brooklyn (which he did not attend) refused his offer and privately expressed their disgust at the hypocrisy.

On April 7th, the "Town Hall for our Lives" proceeded at a Staten Island college, with recitations and tears and statements and elected officials, all surrounding the Parkland massacre and what legislative steps are necessary. Max Rose was able to get through the entire town hall without the question of the Blue Dog NRA funds until the end, when a woman was able to plead for a last question. She posed it, and he answered, "I'm so glad you asked this question," (as if anyone was stopping him from answering at any moment before.) "The Blue Dogs gave it back, and he went on to offer more platitudes and rehearsed sentences about the "F-U" rating he is going to get in Congress, but not before declaring that "an opponent on this stage with me" spread "this lie." With crocodile tears welling up that he had rented from Kevin Elkins, he proceeded to explain how hurtful it was to be damaged by "lies." "We have to be done with these lies" he whined, and declared himself "a proud Blue Dog" while the audience shuffled out.

The Blue Dog's NRA money no longer a focus, a debate was hosted by Swing Left on April 26th, and the subject of PAC money was raised-- once again by DeVito, but this time, with fire, as part of his closing remarks."The Blue Dog Democrats take money from corporations, from Big Pharma, from Monsanto... Max Rose has signed a fundraising agreement with Joe Crowley. THAT'S where the money comes from. You need to believe in your candidate." The moderator allows the microphone to return to Rose for an answer, and his retort was a pompous, "I have raised more money in this race than all of the candidates" [heckles and boos; an audience member shouts, "FROM WHERE?!" And a chant of "from where, from where" begins.] DeVito grabs another mic, "from the oligarchy, from corporate donors, that's from where," and Max Rose shuts down his comments for the rest of the evening, unable to face the criticisms of the voters.

If the notion of Rose's mendacity hadn't yet spread far from the debates and town halls, the trade unions have been tenacious in getting word out throughout the working class voters of the district that he has been particularly disloyal and dishonest regarding Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and their strike, which began in March 2017. Near the beginning of Rose's announced candidacy, he was already made aware of the strike that was in effect and published a cursory statement of cheer for the union. He did not join the strike line. Over the course of the following months as the strike continued, he would occasionally send out a tweet or post on social media in statement of support to the Local #3 workers. But on October 27th, he sat down for an interview with the network owned by Charter/Spectrum and said on air that he was proud not to take money from unions. Amongst workers, this caused an outrage. But it was a photo he posted on December 17th that sealed his dishonor among Local #3, and the wider population of trade unionists, "all the political pros told me not to worry about speaking with voters until 3 months before the election" he captioned it, with a fundraising list he purported to represent a voter list. Local #3 workers and family members, who have been using Twitter to publicize their plight during the media blackout about it, began slamming him about the Spectrum remote they spied on his table. He offered an empty "you bet" response to whether he would cancel his service, and claimed he had already called upon the Mayor to cancel Spectrum's franchise agreement in July. A scan of his tweets revealed that he had merely tagged the Mayor in a tweet and considered the matter handled. As a protege of Crowley, who directly accepts campaign funds from Charter/Spectrum as well as Related-- the company union busting at Hudson Yards-- he will soon see that "Union Strong" is a term that brings voting voices with it.

In an atmosphere that is ripe with disgust over corporate greed and politicians who lie; at a time when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is challenging Joe Crowley in a primary that she just may win, the DCCC needs a mandate this year to send them packing and hand the business of being a Democrat back to the voters. The Ivory Tower has proven itself haughty and clueless for long enough, and this season, when a comedian asks, "How the fuck does that happen?!" about CD-11, let's hope it's about how a working-class Marine veteran outraised by nearly a million dollars got a Blue Dog to lie down.

UPDATE: Curtains For Grimm?

There's been a lot of bullshit journalism out in NY-11 about how folks in Staten Island see Mkey Suits as Jesus-reincarnated. Maybe that's because the "journalists" involved were only interviewing his rabid, mentally ill supporters. Yesterday, a Remington Research poll came out and it told a very different story. Interviewing likely 2018 Republican primary voters, they found 83% with favorable attitudes towards Trumpanzee, 55% with favorable attitudes towards incumbent Dan Donovan and just 45% (remember, of Republicans not of normal people) with favorable attitudes towards Grimm. 47% of these Republicans said they will vote for Donovan in tomorrow's primary, 40% said they'll vote for Grimm and 13% are still undecided. Republicans in the Staten Island part of the district say they'll vote for Donovan 47-39% and in the Brooklyn part of the district they'll vote for Donovan 59-26%.