How Many Republicans Will Biden Put In His Cabinet And Give Other Top Jobs To?

 

John Kasich, who failed to flip-- or even almost flip-- Ohio for Biden said a couple of things over the weekend that angered Democrats for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party: "Now is the time for Democrats... to begin to listen to what the other half of the country has to say" and "The Democrats have to make it clear to the far-left that they almost cost him this election." Far left? Who dat?

Who would you rather see in Biden's cabinet, Kasich or Rahm Emanuel? I asked Twitter:

Presumably the "far left" are Democrats pushing Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal. They were all reelected. You know who wasn't? Conservative Democrats (Blue Dogs and New Dems) ideologically in synch with Kasich (and Biden) from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. The Democraps who failed to generate enough enthusiasm among Democrats and independents to be re-elected:

• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)
• Donna Shalala (relic-FL)
• Abby Finkenauer (secret New Dem-IA)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)

Writing for Salon yesterday, Norman Solomon noted that progressives made Trump's defeat possible and now it's time to challenge Biden. "The realpolitik rationales for the left to make nice with the incoming Democratic president are bogus," he wrote. "All too many progressives gave the benefit of doubts to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, making it easier for them to service corporate America while leaving working-class Americans in the lurch. Two years later, in 1994 and 2010, Republicans came roaring back and took control of Congress. From the outset, progressive organizations and individuals (whether they consider themselves to be 'activists' or not) should confront Biden and other elected Democrats about profound matters. Officeholders are supposed to work for the public interest. And if they're serving Wall Street instead of Main Street, we should show that we're ready, willing and able to 'primary' them. Progressives would be wise to quickly follow up on Biden's victory with a combative approach toward corporate Democrats. Powerful party leaders have already signaled their intentions to aggressively marginalize progressives." He sees class war within the Democratic Party at play:

Pelosi & Co. try to stamp out the genuinely progressive upsurge in congressional ranks that is fueled from the grassroots, they're "dancing with those who brung them"-- corporate elites. It's an extremely lucrative approach for those who feed out of the troughs of the Democratic National Committee, the Senate and House party campaign committees, the House Majority PAC and many other fat-cat political campaign entities. Consultant contracts and lobbying deals keep flowing, even after Democrats lose quite winnable elections.

Biden almost lost this election. And while the Biden campaign poured in vast financial resources and vague flowery messaging that pandered to white suburban voters, relatively little was focused on those who most made it possible to overcome Trump's election-night lead-- people of color and the young. Constrained by his decades-long political mentality and record, Biden did not energize working-class voters as he lip-synched populist tunes in unconvincing performances.

That's the kind of neoliberal approach that Bernie Sanders and so many of his supporters warned about in 2016 and again this year. Both times there was a huge failure of the Democratic nominee to make a convincing case as an advocate for working people against the forces of wealthy avarice and corporate greed.

...It's clear from polling that Biden gained a large proportion of his votes due to animosity toward his opponent rather than enthusiasm for Biden himself. He hasn't inspired the Democratic base, and his appeal had much more to do with opposing the evils of Trumpism than embracing his own political approach.

More than ever, merely being anti-Trump or anti-Republican isn't going to move Democrats and the country in the vital directions we need. Without a strong progressive program as a rudder, the Biden presidency will be awash in much the same old rhetorical froth and status-quo positions that have so often caused Democratic incumbents to founder, bringing on GOP electoral triumphs.

...Looking ahead, we need vigorous successors to the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society programs of the mid-1960s, which that were asphyxiated, both in political and budgetary terms, by the Vietnam War. Set aside the phrase if you want to, but we need some type of "democratic socialism" (as Martin Luther King Jr. asserted in the last years of his life).

The ravages of market-based "solutions" are all around us; the public sector has been decimated, and it needs to be revitalized with massive federal spending that goes way beyond occasional "stimulus" packages. The potential exists to create millions of good jobs while seriously addressing the climate catastrophe. If we're going to get real about ending systemic and massive income inequality, we're going to have to fight for-- and achieve-- massive long-term public investment, financed by genuinely progressive taxation and major cuts in the military budget.

With enormous grassroots outreach that only they could credibly accomplish, progressive activists were a crucial part of the united front to defeat Trump. Now it's time to get on with grassroots organizing to challenge corporate Democrats.

Most of the comments I've seen from the religious left are all about everybody getting along now. And the evangelicals in the Midwest who abandoned Trump (down around 5 points from 2016) helped Biden win and should be heard out too. But one of my favorite evangelical pastors, John Pavlovitz, wants to make it clear that we don't owe hateful people unity. He wrote yesterday how he is being asked to show unity with Trumpists-- "to extend some instant olive branch of understanding that magically bridges that cavernous gap between us-- ones he revealed and is still actively cultivating." He wrote that he isn’t willing to offer that unconditionally and without caveat. 

It isn’t as though I haven’t been working tireless to understand and to reach these people; to appeal to their sense of decency, to illuminate the damage they are doing to oppressed and marginalized people and invite them into something more redemptive. They have chosen him again and so, I know quite a bit about them-- which is why I am so aware that we do not have any meaningful points of affinity.

I am deeply invested in the work of building disparate community, in navigating differences, in seeing the inherent commonalities of our shared humanity. I have made that my life’s work for three decades as a pastor and activist-- but there are limits to what this means.

Yes, I am burdened to bring diverse people together.

Yes, I am called by my faith to care for all human beings in my path.

And yes, I am compelled to really see people individually and to value their specific stories.

But I am not obligated to have unity with hateful people.

am not morally bound to make peace with a heart that dehumanizes other human beings because of the color of their skin, their nation of origin, their gender, their orientation. And to have embraced Donald Trump now, is to unapologetically brandish such a polluted heart; to be actively perpetuating inequity and stoking division and manufacturing discrimination in this very moment.

I steadfastly refuse such an alliance. I am a loud, conscientious objector in their war against the world.

It would be a slap in the face to migrant children, to people of color, to LGBTQ human beings, to Muslims, to disabled people, to non-Christians, and to women-- for me to suddenly allow the willing and joyous perpetrators of their wounds, proximity to me in the name of some ceremonial unity.

Racists and bigots see other human beings as less than human for an unchangeable part of who they are, and I will not descend into that. I can fully see their humanity and still call them out for thinking and speaking and acting inhumanely-- and I can show them decency and simultaneously declare myself distinct from the malevolence they affirm and want to live with distance from them.

People of faith, morality, and conscience are not required to make peace with hatred.

They are not indebted to racism and bigotry and phobic violence.

The call to love our enemies does not necessitate abiding their enmity.

  The only thing you owe violent people is to see and respect their humanity in ways they refuse for others.

But you are not required to see their hatred as acceptable.

You don’t owe hateful people unity-- ever.

John Kasich's Girlfriend Is In A Coma-- And It's Serious... Do You Really Think She'll Pull Though?

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an interview with former Ohio Governor-- and #NeverTrumper-- John Kasich, about how his party has virtually disintegrated, accepting Trumpets fascism in return for careerism and ome semblance of power. David Montgomery asked him i the GOP can still be a home for mainstream conservatives like himself if there's no path for challenging Trump from people like him and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. "What does that say about the Republican Party?"

Kasich responded that he thinks "this is sort of a temporary deal. I think that the party is historically concerned about debt. They’re concerned about having free and open trade. They’re concerned about welcoming immigrants into the country. And I think that the Republican Party is stumbling around because there have been no new really exciting ideas coming out of the Republican Party for a number of years. They keep going back to Reagan. Well, I knew Reagan-- it was 100 hundred years ago. They don’t focus on the issue of workforce training, of dramatic reforms in education, the need to address climate change-- it’s like we’re sunk. And then you add where the party is right now. I don’t even recognize it. It’s Luddite in a way. I mean, it’s unbelievable. I think members of the Republican Party are in a coma right now, is what I think. And at some point they’ll wake up and say, What’s happened? And then we’re going to tell them, and they’re going to go, Really?

Montgomery: Is it a coma because of their allegiance to President Trump?

Kasich: There’s a tribal instinct, and a willingness to only absorb that that supports what you currently think. Anything that is dissonant information should be rejected. And I think it’s true for both political parties, to be honest with you. I think that we live in a siloed, tribal world right now.

Montgomery: When you were in the Congress, you voted to impeach Bill Clinton. And I was wondering how the current case that some Democrats would make against Trump compares to that situation?

Kasich: I think it’s two different things. Look, that was a very difficult time for us, but it involved, you know, a grand jury and those kinds of things. I was not a main participant in that, I just wasn’t. It was a difficult decision for me. In terms of what they should do now, the country doesn’t want this man to be impeached. One thing the Democrats have to be careful of is that they’re not blinded by hatred. I’m not telling you that they don’t have a legitimate case to investigate, but some of them are bordering on really, you know, deep-seated anger, which is never a good thing.

Sound like a very serious guy to you? Not to me... at least not as serious as Morrissey. And Trump always laughed at him-- other that time he offered him the vice presidency. Trump isn't faring all that well lately. Opinion polls show that most Americans think he's doing a bad job. Even in swing states and red states he needs to win if he's to have any chance of being reelected, he's underwater with voters. This morning a series of state polls from Morning Consult had him with higher disapprovals that approvals in 9 out of 10 states he won in 2016:

• New Hampshire: 37% approval, 60% disapproval (-23 net approval)
• Michigan: 40% approval, 55% disapproval (-15)
• Wisconsin: 42% approval, 56% disapproval (-14)
• Iowa: 42% approval, 55% disapproval (-13)
• Pennsylvania 44% approval, 53% disapproval (-9)
• Arizona: 45% approval, 52% disapproval (-7)
• Ohio: 45% approval, 51% disapproval (-6)
• North Carolina: 47% approval, 50% disapproval (-3)
• Florida: 47% approval, 50% disapproval (-3)
• Indiana: 49% approval, 48% disapproval (+1)

Other traditionally red states where his approval is way too close for comfort include Georgia (even), Missouri (1), Nebraska (1), Kansas (2), Utah (2), Alaska (3) and Texas (4).

It's Not Like If Trump Disappeared Everything Would Be Hunky-Dory With The GOP

Early Monday morning, the Wall Street Journal warned that Trump's government shutdown "is curtailing infrastructure projects, food-processing inspections and economic data used by Wall Street. But on a more micro level, it is showing signs of disrupting commerce as hundreds of thousands of federal workers missed out on their first payday of the closure late last week... While the economic gashes aren’t enough to derail the recovery, now in its 10th year, they appear to be at least temporarily diminishing the vigor of an expansion that was already projected to slow in 2019. Output is now expected to grow at a 2.2% pace in the first quarter, less than an estimated 3.1% growth recorded in 2018." A couple of hours later the Washington Post reported that Republicans are worried that the shutdown is doing the party some harm and is just one manifestation of "the difficult balancing act Senate Republicans will probably face over the next two years, trapped between a mercurial GOP president and an emboldened new House Democratic majority."

The Bulwark, a new neocon website, looked at it from a different perspective, running a throw-away piece calling for their readers to get ready for the Trump primary!. The list 5 who might take up the call: Jeff Flake (DEFCON 5), Nikki Haley (DEFCON 2), Jim Mattis (DEFCON 1), Mitt Romney (DEFCON 3) and Jon Kasich (DEFCON 4). "If Mattis were to run," wrote Jonathan Last, "it would be an existential threat to Trump because he would run not as an anti-Trumpite, but as a whistleblower. The message would be: I served this president. I was on the inside. I know what it looks like. And he’s not fit for office. It’s one thing to have some undersecretary of agriculture making that argument. Having it come from a beloved general who is regarded as one of the great military minds of his generation? Yikes." He's considerably less concerned by a Kasich challenge:

Funnily enough, Kasich probably helped Trump in 2016 by hanging around in the primaries and siphoning off anti-Trump votes that otherwise could have consolidated around Ted Cruz.

Also funnily enough, Kasich’s brand of centrist reform-ish conservatism is not all that far from Trump’s. (Never forget that Trump campaigned on leaving Social Security and Medicare untouched and said that repealing Obamacare the way Cruz wanted to would leave people “dying in the streets.”)

The difference, of course, is attitudinal. Kasich is laid-back and genial, so people take his centrism for cuckitude. Trump is crude and aggressive, so people take his centrism as True ConservatismTM.

As such, Kasich is probably the least-threatening mainstream challenger for Trump. By running to Trump’s left as an anti-Trumper, Kasich wouldn’t put any of Trump’s base in play. And many of the potential Kasich supporters may have already fled the GOP. So why have him this high on our list? Because he’s the most likely to actually run.

Most likely for sure. And Last may or may not have already read Kasich's Monday morning dire OpEd in USA Today, Republican Party is mired in the 1950s and ignores today's America at its peril, when he wrote that. Kasich doesn't seem to have much regard for the movers and shakers of his own party, earning them that they need to stop bitching and start doing stuff for people.

It’s a new year and almost two decades into a new century, yet so much about American life and our political leadership-- notably in my own Republican Party-- seems stuck in the 1950s. While nearly every aspect of the world around us has been changing, sometimes with breakneck speed, and while the complexion and complexities of our demographics have shifted so dramatically, those who fancy themselves as leaders are plodding far behind the march of time. Sadly, too many Americans are content to plod along with them.

Perhaps they think denial is protection from the change that swirls around them. No doubt they’re threatened by the new diversity of voices that have joined the public chorus, by the long-ignored problems that a new generation wants to solve, by an unsettled world that no longer follows America’s lead. But they’ve learned absolutely nothing from their skunking in the midterm elections. They didn’t watch, or chose to ignore, the new Congress being sworn in the other day. It was a more energetic, diverse and self-assured group than those chambers have seen before.

But ignoring change like that won’t stop it. And failing to find solutions to our problems will only lead to greater challenges down the road. A case in point: Opponents of Obamacare ask how such a thing came to be, oblivious to the fact that their own inaction is to blame. By ignoring giant holes in America’s health care system and failing to find a ways to fix them with hard work and compromise, they watched that vacuum filled with a behemoth they deplore.

Yet people like these at all levels of government find themselves caught on the same, well-worn treadmill time and again. By failing to come up with fresh ideas and real solutions for our most vexing problems, congressional Republicans, the White House and other power structures in Washington let those problems fester or reluctantly patch them up with half-baked solutions that only make things worse. That same change-ignoring inertia holds back progress in our states.

Think of the problems that cry out for solutions: health care, immigration, deficits and debt, income inequality, urban violence, drugs, climate and environment, free trade, prescription costs, infrastructure decay, cybersecurity, education and workforce readiness, student debt… how many pages do I have to go on?

These aren’t new problems, but many have grown worse. And none can be ignored any longer in a younger, more diverse and more demanding America that’s increasingly impatient with the old way of thinking. This emerging leadership won’t be put off, ignored or disenfranchised, but I’m confident that they will be open to new ideas and the kind of commonsense approaches that truly solve problems-- and solve them for all Americans, not just a privileged few.

In this changing world, successful leaders must look each problem squarely in the eye, listen to their customers, and realize how dramatically those customers have changed. No one will survive by practicing politics the way Sears or RadioShack practiced retail, stuck in the 1950s while the world moved on with Amazon, Uber and others who have broken the mold. For Republicans, this means breaking their own self-made mold of being naysayers instead of doers. It means designing market-driven, center-right solutions that actually solve problems while revealing their compassion.

Kasich, now an ex-governor, just signed with CNN as a senior political commentator (expect a Trumpanzee rant within 24 hours) and just hired United Talent Agency to represent him. The UTA press release, distributed Monday quotes Kasich saying he's excited to keep his voice active "across the world" and to share his experiences and observations "to help improve the lives of others." So will he run as a Republican or as an independent? UTA says it will "help Kasich navigate the next phase of his career in civic engagement, by continuing to inspire audiences to lead purpose-driven lives of service."

Guess who!

Will Republicans Hold a Presidential Primary in 2020?

Donald Trump and John Kasich face off at a 2016 presidential primary debate (Joe Raedle/Getty Images; source)

by Gaius Publius

I normally don't follow the predictable machinations of Republicans, partly because there's a national industry these days to do that for me, and partly because that's not where the actual action is. (The actual action will be here in 2020.)

But the bits of information that follow are too good not to pass on. First, it seems that South Carolina Republicans are considering not holding a primary contest for president in 2020. This has all the look of a trial balloon, but it may take off. So far, only John Kasich is complaining.

Second, it looks like the committee to re-elect Trump and the Republican National Committee may merge, if not completely, then in some very significant ways, including blending their funds. As the writer I'm about to quote would say, the line between Trump and the whole rest of the Party is fast disappearing.

Both of these pieces of information come via this article by Jack Holmes in Esquire, which quotes, first, the Washington Examiner on the South Carolina primary, and second, Politico on the blending of funds.

Read through the snark to the ideas themselves. Holmes clearly has a larger point to make, which, while true, isn't my point. He starts:

Republicans May Cancel a 2020 Primary Out of Fealty to Dear Leader

Just as Donald Trump is a natural outgrowth of decades of escalating Republican ideology, the Republican Party is now inseparable from Donald Trump. For all the talk of Brave, Independent Voices of Dissent in the Senate, Jeff Flake votes with the president 81 percent of the time. Susan Collins is with him 77 percent. Bob Corker, who's lamented that Republicans are in a "cult-like situation" with Trump, votes with him 84 percent of the time. Among the rank-and-file, his approval rating is currently 86 percent—compared to 38 percent of the general public. Perhaps more importantly, whatever the president says seems to become the truth for a third of the American public....

On the flip side, though, there seems to be genuine anxiety among some in the party apparatus about the 2020 campaign. First of all, the guy is in some legal trouble. Trump University and the Trump Foundation have already been shut down for illegal activity. The Trump campaign, transition, inaugural committee, and the Trump Organization are all under investigation for...more illegal activity. The New York Times accused him outright of a decades-long scheme to commit tax fraud. Second of all, there are constant, swirling rumors that he will face a primary challenge from someone like John Kasich, who agrees with him on the vast majority of Republican policy but finds him kind of boorish.

That second fear seems to have taken hold in the South Carolina Republican Party, who imparted to the Washington Examiner Wednesday that they may cancel their 2020 presidential primary for Trump's benefit[.]

From the Examiner piece:

South Carolina GOP could scrap 2020 primary to protect Trump

The South Carolina Republican Party could cancel its marquee presidential nominating contest in 2020 in a move to protect President Trump from any primary challengers.

Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said he doesn’t anticipate Trump would face a primary challenge and emphasized that the state party executive committee hasn’t held any formal discussions about the contest, dubbed “first in the South” and usually third on the presidential nominating calendar. But McKissick would pointedly not rule out canceling the primary, indicating that that would be his preference.

“We have complete autonomy and flexibility in either direction,” McKissick told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday. “Considering the fact that the entire party supports the president, we’ll end up doing what’s in the president’s best interest.”

The Esquire article goes on to explore the matter, including citing precedent in the cases of George H.W. Bush, he of the recent, glowing, undeserved praise, and also his son George W.: "In 1992, the Iowa GOP didn’t issue a presidential ballot during its caucus, to save President George H.W. Bush from being embarrassed by Pat Buchanan... In 2004, when President George W. Bush was running for re-election, the South Carolina GOP skipped its presidential primary."

What are the odds this will happen? “Pigs will fly before the South Carolina GOP allows Trump to have opposition,” according to Matt Moore, a former SC Republican Party chair.

The Esquire article also quotes Politico on the matter of the merging, to a greater or less degree, of the re-election committee and the RNC:

Under the plan, which has been in the works for several weeks, the Trump reelection campaign and the RNC will merge their field and fundraising programs into a joint outfit dubbed Trump Victory...The goal is to create a single, seamless organization that moves quickly, saves resources, and — perhaps most crucially — minimizes staff overlap and the kind of infighting that marked the 2016 relationship between the Trump campaign and the party.

Both of these moves will make it quite difficult for a primary challenger to emerge. After all, if other states follow South Carolina's lead, an increasing number of convention delegates will simply be impossible for a challenger to win. And if the RNC becomes an arm of the Trump campaign (in the same sense that the DNC became an arm of the Clinton campaign in 2016), the deck will be well and truly stacked.

An interesting development in a country that supposedly stands for democracy. Note that the deck-stacking has and is occurring in both parties. Trump, however, has a special gift: To quote Jack Holmes, Trump "says the quiet parts out loud" and gets away with it.

That, saying the quiet parts out loud, is indeed a change.

GP
 

Are Voters Looking For Candidates From The Mushy Middle?

Didn't we learn anything from the Hillary debacle? Voters are looking for someone authentic-- not a concoction of consultant and pollster memos-- who stands for something that helps ordinary working families. I doubtHouse Democrats will even try to live up to that once they take over in January, but that's what turned out their voters three weeks ago. Today ABC had two of the mushiest politicians they could find as guests on This Week with George Stephanopoulos-- plus one, Sherrod Brown who plays the role of being authentic on TV. Brown's the guy who will never waver from his backing for the working class-- unless there's an election. After a career of flip-flops, he most recently abandoned his support for revitalizing Glass-Steagall and breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks. (Note: the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, he's taken $7,366,743 from the banksters, something which should disqualify him from any kind of presidential consideration.)

Any Klobuchar is an inoffensive centrist. Of 49 Senate Democrats, her record is the 33rd most progressive, earning her a gentlewoman's "C" from ProgressivePunch. She's exactly what you want if you want Hillary without the Hillary baggage. You think that's what voters are looking for? She doesn't stand for anything at all outside of milquetoast, garden variety Democratic policy. In an illustrated thesaurus, her photo could be on the page for antonyms for "inspirational."

Stephanopoulos introduced her as a "key Democrat on the Judiciary Committee." Who would be a non-key member? Dianne Feinstein? She's the ranking member. Patrick Leahy? Dick Durbin? Sheldon Whitehouse? They all have more seniority than Klobuchar. Chris Coons? Richard Blumenthal, Mazie Hirono, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris/ I guess everyone is a key member-- so no one is. So maybe Stephanopoulos should just stop the rote bullshit and stop sleepwalking through his show.

We were treated to some classic Klobuchar on the show today-- presumably what she will use to bore voters to death if she runs for president: "My mom taught second grade until she was 70 years old, and she always told me if you do something wrong, you don’t tell the truth, you take responsibility for it. You don’t blame it on the other kid." I swear she said that. Here's her exchange with the dull witted host about her presidential aspirations:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You are coming off a big re-election victory in the state of Minnesota, congratulations for that. You did well …

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: … in a lot of areas where President Trump had done well back in 2016. It sparked a lot of speculation that you might be looking at the 2020 race for president. You’ve been to Iowa a couple times as well. So can you just fill us in on how you’re thinking about that and what’s shaping your potential decision?

KLOBUCHAR: Well, people are talking to me about this, I think, in part because I’ve worked really hard to go not just where it’s comfortable but where it’s uncomfortable, and had-- did well in a number of those places that Donald Trump won. And I also am someone that, for those that are exhausted with politics, likes to get things done. But right now, I am just still thinking about this, talking to people. I’m sorry to say, I have no announcement for you on your show.

And I actually learned this from my Senate race once, when I first was considering running for the Senate and told someone that on the radio. And that was how my husband found out about it. And since he is watching today, I’m not going to repeat that again.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re not going to share your Thanksgiving conversations either, but that is not a no either. So I’m going to end with an invitation. When you’re ready to announce, you can do it right here on This Week.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you, George.

Done puking? After the relief of a flight of ads, George brought on the Republican equivalent in nothingness and meaningless, John Kasich, another presidential wannabe, who already tried once, only to be swatted like a fly gnat by Trump.



When George asked him how serious he is about running in 2020, he said "Very seriously. I’m considering it George, these are earnest conversations that go on virtually every day with some of my friends, with my family. Look, I-- we need different leadership, there isn’t any question about it. And I’m not only just worried about the tone and the name calling and the division in our country and the partisanship, but I also worry about the policies. You know, rising debt, the problem and inability to deal with immigration, the problems that we have as America alone in the world. You know, this is what I consider a rotten deal with the Saudis to look the other way. I mean these are things that, George, I’m worried about our country and not just in the short term, but I’m worried about our country in the long term. So the question for me is what-- what do I do about this? Is it-- you know, what exactly-- do I run because I’ve determined that I can win or is it important for me to make such a good showing that I can send a message that can disrupt the political system in this country? So yeah, I have to think about it, I think about it seriously. As you know, I still travel, I make, you know, I’m-- I’m out there trying to do what I can do. I don’t know when I will have to make a decision, but let’s not-- let’s be clear, I’m not being coy, I’m not trying to do this for some kind of a game. This is really, really serious to me... [A]ll options are on the table for me. But let me ask you a statement, let me ask you to think about this. At what point does somebody work and stand on principle, to say that the direction we’re going is wrong? I mean obviously, want to have some sort of a practical opportunity, you-- but you want to be-- you want to be able to make a statement. Now maybe I do that by running again or, you know, and frankly in the last election I was the last man standing with very little money and very little name recognition. It grew over time. But what I ask myself is what do I owe to my country? What can I do to help my country? Is this-- does it mean I run for office again or are there other ways in which I can impact the flow of events? And I listened to your last interview with the senator, I thought she did a very good job, but I mean it’s the same old stuff. It’s just all this politics and mumbo jumbo and lead this and that bill and we’ve got to get out of this mire and out of this mix and it’s going-- it’s going to depend on raising the public to say we deserve and want better. I don’t know where this is all going to lead, George, but this is a serious thought and consideration every day... [L]et’s just say that Donald Trump is nominated and Elizabeth Warren is nominated, and you have this ocean of people who sit in the middle. Is there a legitimate opportunity for a third party, bipartisan kind of ticket to be able to-- to score a victory or to have a profound impact on the future of American politics? That’d be something that I would talk to you about offline and get your view, because we don’t know at this point. In other words... Well you know what? You know what? No one thought a guy like Donald Trump would be elected president. No one thought we’d have electric cars. No one thought we could-- we could talk on phones and see the person we’re talking to. I mean, this is a time of change-- dynamic change. And you can’t judge tomorrow on the basis of what happened yesterday. So I don’t know about that. Hickenlooper, love him, the name’s too long. Hickenlooper-Kasich, you couldn’t fit it on a bumper sticker. You’d need to like go around with billboards or something.

Yesterday, Nicole Goodkind wrote about the Democratic candidate who actually does stand for something and who's not in the crowded mushy middle: "The 2020 presidential election," she asserted in Newsweek "is Senator Bernie Sanders’ race to lose, according to a new survey of more than a dozen top Democratic strategists."

“His people have never gone away,” Democratic strategist Brad Bannon told The Hill. “And he has a loyal core following out there that will be with him come hell or high water.” Sanders is the most popular politician in America, with an approval rating of 75 percent, according to a recent Harvard-Harris poll.

Since losing the 2016 primary to Hillary Clinton, Sanders has toured the U.S. to promote his political group, Our Revolution, and his Medicare-for-all bill. His frequent travel has led many to speculate that he’s drumming up support for another presidential run. Advisers to the Vermont senator also have indicated that he’s eyeing the top job. When one of Sanders' associates was asked if his team was thinking about another run, the associate simply said, "Yes, is the answer."

Sanders considers himself a Democratic Socialist, and is registered as an Independent in the Senate but ran as a Democrat in the 2016 election. Bannon says that since 2016, Sanders far-left politics have been embraced by Democrats at large. “The Sanders wing is becoming the dominant wing of the party,” he said.

Sanders’ Medicare For All Act of 2017, which promotes a single-payer healthcare plan, is now supported by a third of Senate Democrats. When Sanders presented a version of the bill in 2013, he was unable to garner any support at all.

Wow, a third of Senate Democrats! What about among the real people, who these multimillionaires are supposed to be more or less representing? Do you wonder how they feel about Medicare-for-All?

Other candidates from the mushy-middle, besides Klobuchar, gearing up-- or possibly gearing up-- to run: Joe Biden, Kirsten Gillibrand, the Starbucks guy, Mike Bloomberg, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Garcetti, Michael Avenatti, Tim Kaine, one of the Castro brothers, John Warner, Pete Buttigieg, Tim Ryan, Seth Moulton, Eric Swalwell, John Hickenlooper, Mitch Landrieu, Deval Patrick, Steve Bullock, Oprah, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Mark Cuban, Eric Holder, Joe Kennedy III, Beto O'Rourke... [Note: I'm not 100% sure whether Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has decided to portray himself as a centrist or in some other way, but I threw his name in anyway, since these are all loser candidates that should save their donors the cash and go back to sleep.]

A Primary Against Trump In 2020? I Have A Better Idea

Even some of the elite Republicans who actually liked Trump have started to rethink themselves... some, not lots. But Republican voters? Brain-dead or brainwashed or both. And they love him. So Bill Kristof is wasting his time and his donors' money to build an anti-Trump war-machine-- Defending Democracy Together-- to take him on in the 2020 primaries. Kristof says he's in discussions with 2 conservative senators, Ben Sasse (NE) and Jeff Flake (AZ) and with Ohio Governor John Kasich and if none of them bite he'll go to governors Charlie Baker (MA) or Larry Hogan (MD).

"We are thinking of and doing preliminary work to prepare for a primary run against Trump," Kristol said in an interview on Thursday. "People aren't going to say they will run against Trump unless they have the infrastructure but I've been trying to persuade people that it may not be that difficult."

If DDT is serious about ousting Trump, they should run someone in the general where they could possibly peel off some votes in enough states to throw the election to Bernie. Who would vote for Sasse, Flake or Kasich. Republicans who don't like Trump and a small number of bitter Hillary dead-enders who hate Bernie. The DDT candidate wouldn't win any states but could do Trump some harm around the edges in a few states if Trump continues getting worse as he's done since his first day in the White House.

Sasse, Flake and Kasich have shown interest, according to Kristol, but they've also echoed what they've said publicly which is that they are focused on serving their constituency and helping Republicans maintain their majorities in Congress throughout the congressional midterm elections.

Kristol is also readying a super PAC for 2020 GOP candidates which would allow his team to raise unlimited amounts of cash and push out campaign advertisements backing a particular nominee.

A spokesman for Sasse did not deny the two have spoken about a prospective 2020 run.

"I'm not going to comment on what other people decide to bring up in their personal conversations with the senator, but-- like we've said for a long time-- Ben doesn't pay any attention to the 2020 Washington rumor mill," James Wegman, a spokesman for Sasse, said.

...Kristol and his allies, including former New Hampshire GOP chairwoman Jennifer Horn, have been gauging voters on their receptiveness to a primary challenge against Trump.

"I think it's likely that Donald Trump will have a primary and that it is entirely his own doing," Horn said in an interview. "His behavior as president is damaging and demeaning to the presidency. I believe it has damaged our nation."

While their internal polls continue to reflect Trump's growing popularity within the Republican Party, there are many, particularly in New Hampshire, who say it's time for someone to step up to battle Trump. Kristol pointed to the latest public poll as an example of what they're seeing in the Granite State.

The poll by the New Hampshire Journal found that 4 in 10 Republicans surveyed believe a GOP challenger to Trump "would be a good thing," while 56 percent of overall respondents supported the idea. Trump lost the state by under a point to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.

New Hampshire. I remember that state in 2016. Hillary barely scraped by-- 348,521 (47.6%) to 345,789 (47.2%). But go back to the primaries. Bernie didn't just beat Hillary overwhelmingly 151,584 (60.4%) to 95,252 (38.0%). He also drew far more votes than Trump that day. Trump, though he won the primary, took just 100,406 votes-- 51,000 fewer than Bernie. Kasich (44,909 votes) was the only other Republican who did semi-decently in the state-- and Bernie alone beat Trump and Kasich combined. Just sayin'.

How Will History Judge Trump? How About As An Entertainer-- Which Is Exactly What He Is (Plus All The Horrible Stuff)

They may regret it, but I don't see any Republican candidates trying to distance themselves from Trump. Quite the contrary. In primary races across the country-- and at every level-- Republicans are arguing that they are the most Trump-like and that their opponent is a faux-Trumpist. There are even red-state Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- say Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp-- who have gone out of their way to draw attention to the fact that they often vote for Trump's proposals and work well with him. But when it comes to Republicans... the whole primary in most districts is based on which candidate is deeper up Trump's ass. Even politicians who know how history will judge him and know what a danger he is to democracy and the country and who are well aware that every word that comes out of his mouth is a self-serving lie, are savvy enough to know what the Fox brain-washed GOP base wants-- Trump and his alternative reality-- and they know if they don't cater to that, they could wind up being the next Mark Sanford

Ohio Governor John Kasich isn't running for office this year and if he does run again in the future, it will be against Trump or at least against Trumpism. He was on Meet The Press yesterday (video clip up top). He was there to explain why the special election in his old district-- OH-12-- was not a good thing for the GOP, but I noticed something else he mentioned: "People just want the government to do its job, to improve the situation for them. Not to be, not to be on the front page and creating a chaotic environment all the time. They don't want that." Is that so? I think he was describing Democratic voters and independent voters, not most of the voters of his own party. They apparently crave cheap, gaudy entertainment-- exactly what Trump is and has always been. Trump may model himself after Mussolini, Hitler and Putin to some extent, but even more of a role model was P.T. Barnum. He's been compared to Barnum before-- and he's always said he takes it as a compliment.

Neither Phineas Taylor Barnum nor Señor Trumpanzee coined the phrase "there's a sucker born every minute," but both men have lived their lives as though they did. Barnum plagued American for most of the 19th Century, a hustler and grifter who Trump has always admired. He was a businessman/showman, author and politician. He freely admitted that his actions were meant to "put money in my own coffers" and, more than anything else he considered himself "a showman by profession." His name is synonymous with hoaxes and self-serving "philanthropy." Like Trump, he made some spectacularly bad investments and went bankrupt. And like Trump, he ran for office, as a Republican. He served 2 terms in the Connecticut state legislature and one term as mayor of Bridgeport.

When Kasich told Chuck Todd and the Meet The Press audience that he wasn't "making the case" against Trumpanzee but just trying to return the party to its roots, he was being somewhat disingenuous. The problems he has with the GOP are, after all, all Trump's policies. "The Republican Party has never been for protectionism. The Republican Party doesn't support a notion that families shouldn't be held together. The Republican Party never supported the notion that we should ring up debt... The Republican Party has never believed that we should walk away from our allies who have helped us keep the peace since World War II. These positions are... they don't even resemble the Republican Party. They do now... and the Republican base and GOP candidates around the country are fully embracing them-- like automatons.

Kasich's point about OH-12-- which is so close it has even been officially called yet-- was that Balderson should have been able to walk away with the win without breaking a sweat and that, nationally, Republicans ought to be worried, not celebratory.

"It wasn't a good night because this is a district that you should be winning by, you know, overwhelming numbers," he told Todd. "The last guy won by, I don’t know, 17 points. So, what you had is, I think, a message from the voters to the Republicans that you've got to stop the chaos and you've got to get more in tune and stop alienating people and try to figure out, how do families do better." Too late-- at least for the midterms.

Let me go back to the idea of politics on 24-hour news channels and on social media being all about entertainment. Look at the Meet the Press interview again. Was that entertaining? Not really. Kasich is pretty dull and Chuck Todd isn't much better. Nor is either trying to be entertaining. They're trying to be serious and deliver some kind of an interpretation of self-serving news. Trump supporters are stupid and ignorant-- drug addled and generally with incredibly low IQs and lower attention spans-- and they want that excitement and red meat and "owning the Dems" that Trump gives them. When he's finally gone from the scene-- losing in 2020 or impeached before that or whatever--  will they be able to calm down and go back to the status quo ante? Or has Trump set a tone that his successors will have to take into account from now on? Obama, more than most of his predecessors, actually was fairly entertaining, but in a relatively high brow way. Now we're talking about really low brow crap... like The Apprentice. Will that be Trump's ultimate contribution to America? This morning, John Kasich responded to one of his childish and delusional tweets:

Can A President-- Even An Illegitimate One-- Be Guilty Of Treason?

The Diplomat by Nancy Ohanian

Yesterday, the NY Times reported that Señor Trumpanzee "upended two days of global economic diplomacy late Saturday, refusing to sign a joint statement with America’s allies, threatening to escalate his trade war on the country’s neighbors and deriding Canada’s prime minister as 'very dishonest and weak,' In a remarkable pair of acrimony-laced tweets from aboard Air Force One as he flew away from the Group of 7 summit toward a meeting with North Korea’s leader, Mr. Trump lashed out at Justin Trudeau. He accused the prime minister, who hosted the seven-nation gathering, of making false statements."

At the same time, Bloomberg reported that Señor T's comments "undermine the G-7, a bloc that was once a pillar of U.S. foreign policy and has long acted as a defender of the global economic system. It could also cause fresh friction with his northern neighbor as tensions percolate over efforts to redraw the North American Free Trade Agreement." The joint statement Trump refused to sign is the one he had already agreed to, Everyone knows that the fat drug addicted slob in the White House is jealous of the handsome, fit and intelligent Canadian prime minister. Canada's tariffs are about half what the U.S.' are.

Trudeau’s office responded to the tweets with a written statement, saying the prime minister’s comments in public and in private with Trump were “nothing he hasn’t said before” and that he was “focused on everything we accomplished here at the G-7 summit.” Trudeau himself declined to comment during an appearance with Argentina’s president. "Good to see you guys," Trudeau said to journalists asking for reaction. "It’s a beautiful evening, a great weekend."

A senior U.K. government official said Theresa May’s government stands by commitments made in the communique, and a similar statement was issued by the German government. “I think they’ll all come down on Trudeau’s side” with the possible exception of Japan’s Shinzo Abe, Kirton said. “This is clearly six versus one.”

French President Emmanuel Macron has not responded to Trump’s post-summit tweets.

Even before Trump’s shock reversal, Macron bemoaned the lack of G-7 unity, giving a hint that the tensions hadn’t been put to rest. Trump had at one point proposed that G-7 nations eliminate all tariffs, barriers and subsidies.

“I heard President Trump say he wants maximum trade and minimum tariffs for G-7 members. Be my guest,” Macron told reporters Saturday. “We need seven to dance that tango, and the next move needs to be made by the one who first took a step backward.”

In a tweet later, Macron said Trump’s isolation from the international community is “contrary to American history.”

Butcher's Helper by Nancy Ohanian

Later in the day he issued a statement: "We spent two days to obtain a text and commitments. We will stand by them and anyone who would depart from them, once their back was turned, shows their incoherence and inconsistency." Why is Trump doing this? Can an one doubt he was repaying a debt to his benefactor in the Kremlin?

Yesterday, after the damage was done, Putin said he is ready to meet Trumpanzee "as soon as Washington was ready, adding Vienna could be a possible venue for such a summit."

Putin: "As soon as the American side is ready this meeting would take place depending on my working schedule of course. The US president himself repeatedly said that he would consider such a meeting helpful. I can confirm this. It’s true."

Putin asked Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz on a visit to Vienna earlier this week to help organise such a meeting and that Washington was considering it.

Under the conservative [neo-fascist, not conservative] Kurz, Austria has strived to act as a mediator between Russia and the West.

While the EU-state imposed sanctions on Russia over Crimea along with the rest of the bloc, Austria did not expel Russian diplomats like other Western nations following the March poisoning of a Russian former double agent and his daughter in Britain, an attack London has accused Moscow of being behind.

Trump's Director of National Intelligence former Indiana Republican Senator Dan Coats told the Atlantic Council that Russia "is attempting to influence the midterm elections in the United States in November as well as divide the transatlantic alliance." His statements are sure to flip Trump out and send him into a rage.

Coats said Russia had already undertaken an “unprecedented influence campaign to interfere in the US electoral and political process” in 2016. Russia, Coats pointed out, has also meddled in France, Germany, Norway, Spain, and Ukraine. "It is 2018, and we continue to see Russian targeting of American society in ways that could affect our midterm elections," he said.

Coats’ comments are aligned with assessments by the US intelligence community and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who in his previous role as director of the Central Intelligence Agency warned that he expected Russia to attempt to disrupt the midterm elections.

...“These Russian actions are purposeful and premeditated and they represent an all-out assault, by Vladimir Putin, on the rule of law, Western ideals and democratic norms,” he said.

“[Putin’s] actions demonstrate that he seeks to sow divisions within and between those in the West who adhere to democratic norms,” he added.

Is Congress going to let this slide? Probably. I don't see Ryan and McConnell standing up to Trump on this; do you? Max Boot is a conservative foreign policy expert but does anyone care that he's saying that "This transatlantic rift is a gift to Russia that amply repays Vladimir Putin's investment in helping the Trump campaign." It's the truth but Republicans aren't ready to hear it. John Kasich is leaving office and he said that Trump's pivot "does not protect or defend the national security interests of the United States or our allies." Who care what he says? Independent voters in November? Or is Putin taking care of that, as Coats alleges?

Trump On Kasich: "Digusting"

According to Harry Enten Trump is adored by the Republican base and their adoration is increasing. His job approval rating among Republicans is 85%. Trump, in fact, has a higher approval rating among Republicans than Obama did among Democrats just before the 2012 New Hampshire primary. "That's probably "why there aren't any potential challengers being named who really have too much of a future in the Republican Party. The biggest name is Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Kasich could potentially make some hay in New Hampshire, though there's no reason right now to think he could actually threaten Trump's chance at the nomination. He only won his home state in 2016 primary season and struggled to win many votes outside of college-educated moderate voters in the northern part of the country."

That said, CNBC reported yesterday that Kasich is reaching out the big GOP donors to see if they'd be open to funding a primary against Trump. CNBC reported that "Republican megadonors have indicated to his top political lieutenants that they are willing to back him over Trump under certain circumstances... In private discussions with Kasich's top political lieutenants, GOP megadonors have said they would support a Kasich presidential campaign depending on whether Republicans can hold congressional majorities this fall and how close federal investigations get to Trump."

[T]he same Kasich allies who have met with some of the most influential donors in the country have suggested to the governor that there are two scenarios in which he should challenge Trump in a primary.

First, would come after a potential 2018 congressional midterm wave that gives Democrats majorities in the House and the Senate. With that, Republican voters could potentially move toward a candidate like Kasich, who is considered more of a centrist in the GOP. Such a loss in the midterms could also signal to GOP donors that there's a need for drastic change at the top.

Trump's approval rating stands at just lower than 42 percent, according to a polling average calculated by nonpartisan website Real Clear Politics.

The other scenario pitched to Kasich would ride on the political implications of the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. The probe is looking into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives during the 2016 presidential election and whether the president obstructed justice in the investigation.

If the investigation makes its way into the Oval Office, Kasich's friends have said, it may be an opportunity for the governor to run as either a Republican or an independent.

This latest development comes as buzz continues to build around another potential Kasich run for the White House. In March, he said "all of my options are on the table" for 2020, according to Politico.

The Ohio governor is also hitting states that are critical to winning presidential primaries. During his visit to New Hampshire earlier this month, he said in an interview with the New York Times that he considers himself a "hybrid" Republican and more people are approaching him since his loss in 2016.

"I have people of all shapes, sizes, philosophies and party preferences that approach me. But what does that mean? I don't know. I'm on television, so all the sudden they want to talk to me. Television moves everybody up, right?" he told the Times.

Charlie Black, a former advisor to Kasich's 2016 presidential campaign, told CNBC that he thinks the scenarios are part of an ongoing discussion and warned that his old boss would not stand a chance against Trump in a primary within the current political climate.

"Trump presently has about an 85 percent job approval among primary voters. Unless that dropped dramatically, no one can compete with him for the nomination," Black said. "He would have to be under 50 before I would advise anyone to run."

For donors, a blue wave in the upcoming elections could be a sign that the leadership of the GOP has to change starting at the top-- particularly after investing millions of dollars in an electoral effort that many political strategists say could be a wash for Republicans.

The House is where the GOP is running into the biggest hurdles, with incumbents struggling to raise money and their districts turning in the favor of Democrats.

...If Kasich, who won only his home state during the 2016 GOP primaries, chooses to run in 2020, he's going to need the cash that he struggled to cobble together the last time he ran for president.

While he had a formidable fundraising operation, Kasich's 2016 presidential campaign committee ended up with $176,000 on hand, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. At the same time, his campaign raised $18 million, while the pro-Kasich super PAC, New Day for America, brought in $15 million.

The PAC is still active and has $281,000 on hand, according to financial disclosure reports. Even though the group hasn't received many contributions this year, it raked in donations that went up to $100,000 in 2017.

No love lost between these two guys:

Who's Sad Trump Is Sparking A Devastating Civil War Among GOP Candidates?

How loyal a Republican candidate is to Señor Trumpanzee is now being treated as a determining factor by many. Awesome-- for Democrats. At a time when Republicans who embrace Trump top strongly risk losing independent voters or risk losing Trumpists by shunning him, the party is further splintering. As the Washington Post reported a few days ago, Michigan's far right gubernatorial candidate, Attorney General Bill Schuette, is running the TV ad above that starts and ends with Trump's endorsement. (In between is nonsense about the policies of the last Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm, who was replaced by Republican Rick Snyder in 2011.) Schuette's other ad on TV right now just flat-out attacks his Republican primary opponent, Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, claiming he "deserted Donald Trump, helping Hillary Clinton's campaign." Watch:



James Hohmann wrote that "Fealty to Trump has become more of a litmus test than ever for Republicans. Emboldened by private polling and focus groups that show the president is incredibly popular with the base, GOP candidates are stepping up attacks on their rivals over any daylight they’ve shown with Trump, even if it stemmed from his personal conduct toward women or apostasy on traditional conservative orthodoxy. It’s another illustration of the degree to which Trumpism has come to define the Republican Party. This is no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. It’s the party of Donald J. Trump." The Trumpists are attacking... everywhere. The battle between Scalise (LA) and McCarthy (CA) to succeed Ryan is already seeing each claim-- quietly-- that he is Trumpier than the other.

Meanwhile, Ohio's Lt. Governor and gubernatorial candidate, Mary Taylor, is being sliced and diced by extremist Mike DeWine because she isn't Trumpy enough. His allies are attacking Kasich and Taylor. Though Kasich is far more popular among Ohio voters than Trump, a mailer from a DeWine cutout group, Ohio Conservatives For A Change, claims "We stopped John Kasich short of the White House. Now we must stop Mary Taylor short of the governor’s office." The primary is May 8. Taylor is being castigated for supporting Kasich over Trump in the 2016 Republican primary. It might be worth noting two things: DeWine also endorsed Kasich's presidential bid during the primary and that these were the results of that Republican primary:

• Kasich- 956,762 (46.8%)
• Trump- 727,586 (35.6%)
• Cruz- 267,592 (13.1%)
• Rubio-59,418 (2.9%)

Current polling shows Kasich with a 54% approval rating, compared with 41% for Trump. (Kasich's disapproval is just 31% while TRump's is 20 points higher-- 51%.) The problem, though, is that among Republicans only Kasich's approval is 55% (said as his approval among independents) while Trump's approval is 75% among Republicans (and just 39% among independents). That same poll shows DeWine eviscerating Taylor 50-18% one even among independents who plan to vote in the GOP primary, DeWine is ahead 43-33%.

This can only help the Democrat

Can Politicians Allied With The NRA Be Held Accountable?

$340,664... and counting

Ann Kirkpatrick was once the staunchest NRA ally among congressional Democrats. Her rating was "A" and she was chosen to give the keynote address at their national convention. She cosponsored even their deadliest and most toxic legislation and she was rabid in her disdain for the Obama administration's mildest efforts to stop the murder-spree. Today, she's running for Congress again, whining to anyone who will listen that she's changed her blood-soaked ways. More on Kirkpatrick tonight. Meanwhile, she's not the only Democrat-- in the context of the March For Our Lives-- who are running frothier own (political) lives.

Conservative Democrat Mark Warner (VA) has a long record as being an NRA ally, even if not as slavishly so as Kirkpatrick. Yesterday he was on Face the Nation singing a new tune from this week's top ten. "I think it’s time to change our positions and reexamine them, he stumbled all over himself. "I think it’s time for us to have a legitimate debate about restrictions on gun magazines and assault weapons."

Warner was one of the only Senate Democrats who voted against a ban on assault-style weapons in 2013 after the NRA/GOP massacre at Sandy Hook. Of course the whole RepublicanParty was against the ban-- and still is. Yesterday, Ohio Governor Jon Kasich (R) was on State of the Union blaming Rick Saccone's loss of a blood red Republican seat in PA-18, the heart of Trump country, on the GOP clinging to its opposition to sane gun policies. "We've already seen what the public thinks, we saw [a Republican loss in] an election in Pennsylvania. I think people do want changes here." Ne also thinks elected officials should be held accountable at the ballot box for going along with party policies that are out of touch with the public. Buy the way, this Fox News poll, shows how the public feels about gun policies:

Kasich plans to run against Trump in 2020 and who told the March For Our Lives activists "you've got to keep it up," also said he thinks "people should be held absolutely accountable at the ballot box." He said there are 3 types of politicians when it comes to the debate over guns in this country: "those that want no changes on guns; those people that think there ought to be significant changes even while we protect the Second Amendment; and the third group are a bunch of politicians who are afraid of their own shadow." (The NRA endorsed Kasich for reelection in 2014.)

Since 1990, the NRA and other gun groups have spent $37,298,705 buying influence in Congress-- $32,361,024 to Republicans and $4,257,494 to Democrats. Among currently serving senators, there top 10 are all Republicans:

• John McCain (R-AZ)- $618,113
• Ted Cruz (R-TX)- $463,157
• Marco Rubio (R-FL)- $244,019
• Rand Paul (R-KY)- $231,587
• Ron Johnson (R-WY)- $190,998
• John Thune (R-SD)- $181,215
• John Cornyn (R-TX)- $174,325
• Pat Toomey (R-PA)- $167,051
• Roy Blunt (R-PA)- $143,543
• Richard Burr (R-NC)- $124,550

The top recipients of contributions fromcurrently serving Democrats in the Senate were Joe Donnelly (IN-$22,400) and Joe Manchin (WV-$20,700). Among currently serving House members the big bucks flowed to these ten murder-complict congressmembers:

• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $340,664
• Don Young (R-AZ)- $197,272
• Ken Calvert (R-CA)- $147,166
• Steve Pearce (R-NM)- $129,250
• Martha McSally (R-AZ)- $126,306
• Pete Sessions (R-TX)- $126,276
• Ed Royce (R-CA)- $109,120
• Mike Coffman (R-CO)- $107,093
• Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)- $105,550
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $99,000

Other than Peterson, all the Democrats who have taken big contributions from the gun industry have been defeated-- Nick Rahall (WV), Alan Mollohan (WV), Allen Boyd (FL), Ike Skelton (MO), Tim Holden (PA) and Rick Boucher (VA). This year, the NRA allies who have been recruited to run by the DCCC-- like Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Elaine Luria (VA)-- are too wily to accept any NRA money, at least so far. I hope someone tells the March For Our Lives activists about their records though. They, like Republicans, should be held accountable at the ballot box in November.