The Next Generation Of Democratic Congressional Leadership-- Even Worse Than The Current Batch Of Losers

The Democrats' Wall Street bagman, Joe Crowley

I don’t know if Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) is a rising star in Congress, but if I had to bet, I’d bet yes. He has good instincts and natural leadership abilities. Yesterday, The Hill ran a piece on their perspective— the lowest common denominator establishment perspective— on 7 congressional rising stars among House Democrats. It was an especially motley crew outside of Gallego. Without drama, I would call the list a death knell for the Democratic Party.

I asked one well-respected Democratic congressman what he thought of the list. He snorted and told me in confidence, after reading the piece in disgust, “Those are the slugs who qualify as rising stars! Except for Gallego, the only liberal listed, who is viewed by leadership as a troublemaker. It speaks volumes that Barbara Lee, a champion and a hero, lost out [in a recent leadership election] to a nobody like Sanchez, whose only qualification is that she would never challenge Crowley in any leadership race.”

Ah, yes… Crowley, the Democratic Party boss of Queens— a man who has never had a serious election battle and who runs the Wall Street-owned New Dem caucus and is probably among the half dozen most corrupt members of one of the most corrupt institutions on Planet Earth, the stinking sewer known as the U.S. Congress. The journalism student clueless imbecile who wrote the piece may or may not have ever heard the name Joe Crowley before— there’s nothing in the brief description that indicates she had— notes that he had been “a shoo-in to become new the Democratic caucus chairman when colleagues started urging him to mount a challenge to Pelosi. The 54-year-old Queens congressman is popular among fellow Democrats and is a prolific fundraiser.” Yes, now pdf she had only emphasized that connection a little she would have been on to something. Crowley has taken $6,124,239 in legalistic bribes from the Finance Sector. The banksters love Crowley and Crowley loves the banksters. The only current members of the House who have gorged themselves on more Wall Street bribery are 4 Republicans (Paul Ryan, Jeb Hensarling, Ed Royce and Pat Tiberi.) Crowley is uniquely corrupt among House Dems. And he buys influence with his colleagues— that’s what The Hill means by “popular among fellow Democrats.” One senior Democrat told me that “If you’re new in the House and you want to tap into dirty Wall Street money, you go to Crowley… He makes the connections… He’s like a crime boss.” The only Democrats who even come close are corrupt conservatives Steny Hoyer, who has taken $5,932,348 and Jim Himes, the new New Dem chieftain, who has gobbled up $5,530,977.

The other insights into Crowley by The Hill are that he “passed on running for minority leader this time [but that] serving as caucus chairman will give him a high-profile role crafting House Democrats’ strategy during the Trump administration” and that “if Pelosi, Hoyer or Clyburn move on in the coming years, Crowley would be well-positioned to offer himself as a next-generation leader with years of messaging experience.” Another lame conservative Democrat with lame, conservative FAILED messaging… like Steve Israel.

By the way, in the current cycle alone, the Wall Street banksters 4 favorite crooked Democrats were:

• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ, a Hoyer protegee)- $1,056,190
• Crowley (New Dem-NY)- $1,049,573
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $967,700
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)- $921,218

OK so what about the rest of the rising stars? Here’s the sad list— each rated with his or her Progressive Punch lifetime crucial vote score:

• Tim Ryan (OH)- 78.09 (F)
• Joe Crowley (NY)- 85.47 (C)
• Linda Sanchez (CA)- 95.48 (A)
• Cheri Bustos (IL)- 48.56 (F)
• Eric Swalwell (CA)- 80.59 (D)
• Ruben Gallego (AZ)- 91.67 (A)
• Tulsi Gabbard (HI)- 73.75 (F)

Pretty sad lot. Why not actual thinkers and legislators like Ted Lieu (CA), Mark Pocan (WI), Judy Chu (CA) and Matt Cartwright (PA)? And the promising freshmen like Nanette Barragan (CA), Pramila Jayapal (WA), Jamie Raskin (MD) and Ruben Kihuen (NV), who judging by their pre-congressional records of accomplishment will be the engines of a better progressive future than that the same old garbage dragging the Democratic Party deeper into perdition.

One of the savviest Democratic political operatives, having read The Hill story, said a bunch of unprintable stuff and then summed it up thusly: “If Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell are the closest things to rising stars, Barron Trump may end up being president after daddy. There wasn’t a word in that story that indicated any of these people had an idea between them or the leadership skills it would take to lead someone out of a burning building… Interesting how they didn’t even mention that Bustos is a Blue Dog who votes with the Republicans on their crap as much as she votes with the Democrats. They should use her as the poster child for what’s wrong with the Democratic Party, not what’s promising about its future.”

Is The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party Taking Over? Only If You Let Them

Patrick Murphy... with Little Chucky Schmucky

The Democratic Establishment is panicking progressives into voting for unspeakably corrupt conservative candidates, warning them that Trump is under the bed and that if they don't vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, he will kill and eat everyone-- and not necessarily in that order. In recent days, we've been warning you about how the DCCC has orchestrated a return of the Blue Dogs. Blue Dogs and New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- are getting millions of dollars in support for their campaigns from the DCCC and Pelosi's illegally coordinated House Majority PAC, while progressives have been almost entirely left to fend for themselves, often after the DCCC badgered donors into not contributing to progressives' campaigns.

This week, the New Republic ran a piece, Will 2016 Mark the Return of the Blue Dog Democrat? which throws around the term "Blue Dog Democrat" very loosely. Blue Dog Democrats fill out an application and there are membership dues and a secret handshake. It's not a randomly hideous state of mind; it's a defined group one joins. The Blue Dogs have turned people down who applied for membership-- literally-- for not being right-wing and corrupt enough. So... unless someone can show you the secret handshake, they're not really a Blue Dog. A conservaDem, on the other hand, that's a better description of Missouri Senate candidate Jason Kander.

Xander is running against one of the most egregiously corrupt Senate Republicans, Roy Blunt, whose wife is one of the "top corporate lobbyists in Washington" and whose 4 children are all K Street lobbyists as well. Kander is an anti-corruption reformer. But... the writers have bought into the old Beltway conservaDem conventional wisdom that only reactionaries can win in states like Missouri. They're incorrect and it's a fatal flaw of establishment Democratic strategy.

But should Kander win this Senate fight, he would be the most prominent member of a new crop of white, young, male Democrats emerging in the South—politicians who would have fit neatly into a Democratic Party with an influential conservative wing, but are somewhat anachronistic in a party that has grown more liberal, urban, and diverse in the Obama era. This is the irony of Kander’s candidacy: If the Democratic Party wants to start winning in the South, it may have to reach towards its Blue Dog past, rather than its multi-ethnic present and future. Twenty years ago, Missouri was a remnant of the solid South, a bulwark of conservative Democrats who were for guns and against abortion.

Kander, better than Blunt

Kander's approach is smart and is based on an assumption "that Missourians have grown tired of career politicians like Roy Blunt who have been grandfathered into political power. 'He is Washington through and through,' said his communications director, Chris Hayden. 'Jason believes that it’s time for a new generation of leadership.'" Not a word of policy there-- just process. Nothing inspiring or about how Kander can help Missouri families make a better life. Ethics reform is good and it's a strength Kander is making the most of... but progressive policy is missing from his pitch. His "biographical campaign grounded in character, not ideology" is not enough for anything other than-- at best-- a step up the careerist ladder. When he gets into pushing policy, it's to show how anti-Obama he is.

“He was the first Democrat to come out against the Iran deal.” In an election season that has partly been defined by establishment vs. anti-establishment politics, Kander falls squarely in the latter camp. Not only is he running against Republican elites, but is also keeping his distance from Hillary Clinton. He appeared with Clinton at an early campaign rally, but hasn’t been seen with her for months and sat out the Democratic National Convention in July.

Kander’s twist is that he doesn’t belong to the main anti-establishment wing of the Democratic Party-- the Bernie Sanders wing. When we asked Hayden which senators Kander most admired and would want to work with in Congress, he listed Iowa’s Joni Ernst and Arkansas’s Tom Cotton, two fiercely conservative Republicans who, like Kander, are also veterans.

It gets worse. The authors, Alex Shephard and Laura Reston, then ballyhoo a Democrat so bad-- an "ex"-Republican, spoiled rich-kid with ZERO accomplishments and a loyalty to Wall Street and a wealthy and powerful Saudi family who's helped finance his career-- Patrick Murphy, literally the worst Democrat the part is running in 2016. "Kander," they wrote, "isn’t the only young, white Democrat to run for office in the South, drumming up national media attention as the Next Big Thing in the region. Patrick Murphy, the Democratic Senate candidate in Florida, fits a similar mold. He’s moderate and charismatic, a rising star in state politics." He isn't "moderate." He's conservative, nor is he charismatic; he's drunk. If he's a rising star in state politics, Florida is further up shit's creek with no paddle. They describe Murphy's (and Kander's) policies as "so bland, indeed, that they rely heavily on their youth to manufacture enthusiasm among voters. At the heart of their strategies is the idea that old order is corrupt and decrepit." Youth doesn't last forever; Bernie still has his policies at 75 years old. As far as ethics... maybe Kander can do what few politicians ever do and stay straight. Murphy is already one of the most corrupt Washington politicians, a veritable case study in what voters find disgusting and reprehensible about politics. I suspect Shephard and Reston didn't do enough homework on Murphy before writing their piece to get a passing grade from a high school civics teacher.

Queens County boss and former New Dem head, Joe Crowley, is one of the most corrupt men to have ever served in Congress. Democratic members in Congress are being told that the next leader after Pelosi and Hoyer are gone will be either Crowley or Wasserman Schultz, also a New Dem and who may be even more corrupt than he is! If this is the best the Democrats can do for leadership, the party doesn't deserve to run Congress. Nor can Americans afford to let them. That's why so many millions of Americans just want to blow up the whole system and are willing to vote for a fascist pig like Trump.

They almost seemed more eager to get out the (DSCC) party line than giving their readers any insights into the face of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. "Even running neck-in-neck with Blunt," they assert, "Kander has shown that Democrats have a shot in the South if they rise above partisanship and engage in anti-establishment politics. His performance in Missouri will likely be seen as a blueprint for Democrats in the region and other conservative areas." But then they did get into the crux of the problem.

The problem for the Democratic Party is that, if these candidates begin to win, it will introduce new tensions to a congressional coalition that has grown accustomed to being more uniformly liberal. Kander is a throwback from the conservative wing of the Democratic Party—the so-called Blue Dogs who were all but flushed out of Congress in the revanchist backlash to President Barack Obama that began in the 2010 midterms. Their influence has been supplanted by the coalition Obama cobbled together: women, African-Americans, Latinos, and young voters, who together constitute the future of the Democratic Party at the national level.

Blue Dog Democrats often frustrated the national party-- to say nothing of the left-- by refusing to tow the party line: Think of the unseemly deal-making that the Democrats had to undergo to get a single vote for Obamacare from Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson (which ended up being unnecessary anyway). Kander’s opposition to the Iran deal, to say nothing of his desire to work with far-right senators like Ernst and Cotton, suggest that he wouldn’t exactly be a rubber stamp for a Clinton White House. Of course, Kander is preferable to Blunt, just as Joe Manchin is preferable to any West Virginia Republican. The question is whether the Democrats, who have turned left over the last eight years, are capable of putting together a stable and coherent governing coalition, particularly in an institution like the Senate, which tilts power toward rural, conservative areas.

But having a conflicted, raucous coalition may be preferable to the alternative. The Republican Party in the past decade has gone through a series of purges that have resulted in a homogenous, shrinking party obsessed with the purity of its members. And look where the GOP is now.

Patrick Murphy doesn't understand why cutting Social Security and Medicare is wrong; he's too dumb to understand

I often hear naive Democrats talk about how even a fake Democrat as reactionary and corrupt as Patrick Murphy is "better than a Republican" or, in this case, "better than Rubio." He will, after all, vote with the Democrats to confirm judges which Rubio will not do and he'll vote with the Democrats on other things as well. But, a Senator Murphy would mean that inside the Democratic party there is another force tugging it to the right, pushing Wall Street's agenda, closing down possibilities of serious progressive solutions to problems. Rubio, a Republican, isn't capable of impacting the Democratic Party that way. Blue Dog and New Dems (Murphy is a New Dem), drag the party brand into the toilet with him and make it more difficult for voters to see the difference between the two parties-- because the difference blurs for the sake of the politicians' own careers. American families get lost in the shuffle. I'd never vote for Patrick Murphy, even if it meant Rubio getting another term. As George Orwell famously said, "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims... but accomplices."

No Blue Dogs on this list:

Tony James Was A Great Guitarist In Generation X, But The Tony James In This Post Is A Bankster-For-Hillary

I was determined to start Sunday off with something uplifting. I mean it's Sunday. But it's a season infected by Trump. The best I could do was humor (above) and a couple of sardonic bits and pieces... like Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon escalating the al-right's war against Paul Ryan. The goal is to deprive Ryan of the Speaker's gavel next year and to destroy his career. Breitbart isn't just asserting that Ryan is trying to help elect Hillary but that he "leads the pro-Islamic migration wing of the Republican party" and that he's sabotaging Trump.

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs called on Ryan to step aside for his efforts to “undercut” Trump in his fight against Clinton.

“[Paul Ryan] should have the character to step aside,” Dobbs said. “I don’t think he should survive this… This man shouldn’t be there.”

“[Ryan] understands the consequences of what he does. If he undercuts Trump to the point that he loses the election, he’ll be responsible for the next three Supreme Court justices, [and] the direction of the country,” Dobbs said.

“Ryan has no concept of his responsibility as Speaker… and his duty to the nation,” Dobbs added, noting that Ryan’s future has become “intertwined” with that of Hillary Clinton’s. “He is a laughing stock leader. He is a small man dressed up in a big job… Ryan should no more be Speaker of the House than Hillary Clinton should be President of the United States. And make no mistake, the future of those two are intertwined.”

Indeed, the Washington Post recently speculated about the future relationship of the could-be Clinton-Ryan Washington power couple. “Their relationship could become Washington’s most important in determining whether the federal government functions over the next four years,” the Washington Post wrote.

Pat Caddell and others have observed that the revelation of the quiet alliance between the establishments of both parties-- praised by corporate media and denounced by grassroots conservatives and liberal progressives like Jill Stein-- may prove to be one of the most significant outcomes of the 2016 election and could prove ruinous for the Republican Party. As recent reports have highlighted, in a post-2016 political environment it remains unclear whether the Republican Party can maintain its current structure of being controlled by congressional leaders who represent the desires of the party’s donors but undermine the interests of its voters.

...“We are on the verge of seeing the Republican Party go the way of the Whigs,” Pat Caddell told Breitbart News exclusively. The Party is “at war with their voters. They are literally abandoning their own. The very base that has nominated Trump is a base that Paul Ryan can ill-afford to alienate, but on the other hand, he doesn’t believe in them. He does not believe what they believe… Having lost all of their citadels of strength, the party leaders have now abandoned all of their principles. Paul Ryan is in real trouble.”

Caddell explained that Paul Ryan is the “voice” of a Washington establishment that has “absolutely made clear” that it would prefer Clinton over Trump. “What you have is a Bush and Clinton dynasty. And the curtain has risen on the corruption that they’re all in the same game and that ultimately they’re allies. That’s what the American people have been revolting about. I fear that the establishment’s mind doesn’t even understand that that’s what the base is revolting against.”

Not funny enough for you? How about Chris Christie headed for federal prison? It's not like there are any sentient beings on the planet who didn't know he planned out the whole bridge closure debacle, but now it's being testified to under oath in open court. His deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, testified that she and Christie discussed the closure of the George Washington Bridge in advance and he gave the go-ahead.

At the same time, she testified that the governor himself sought to freeze out Steve Fulop after the Democrat was elected mayor of Jersey City. She told the jury she had planned a "mayor's day" meeting to bring together members of the administration with the incoming mayor, but the event was suddenly called off.

Prosecutors have pointed to that cancellation as another example of the how the governor's Office of Intergovernmental Relations, which was headed by Kelly, systematically punished elected officials who would not endorse Christie. But Kelly said she had no idea why the event was dropped.

She told the jury she was ordered by Kevin O'Dowd, the governor's chief of staff, to have each department call Fulop's office one-by-one and cancel.

Christie, she said tearfully, later marched into the office and declared, "No one's entitled to a fucking meeting."

She said the governor told her later to "continue to ice Fulop-- that no one was to talk to Fulop."

The Daily News report could be read as an epitaph of whatever is left of the foul-mouthed Christie's political career.

The former aide to Gov. Chris Christie accused of creating a traffic nightmare on the George Washington Bridge broke down on the stand Friday as she described her boss lashing out at her.

Bridget Anne Kelly said she was discussing the program for a press conference related to a fire in the Jersey Shore town of Seaside Heights when Christie exploded at her three years ago.

“He had a water bottle in his hand and he said, 'What the fuck do you think I am? A fucking game show host," Kelly said, her voice cracking.

The governor then hurled the bottle at her, Kelly testified.

“I moved out of the way and it hit my arm," the sobbing mother of four added.

“You're afraid of the governor?" defense lawyer Michael Critchley asked her.

"Yes, yes," she replied.

The ugly incident took place in Sept. 2013 as the politically-motivated lane closures were underway.

Is it any wonder Trump preferred him to Pence as a running mate? But as Skip Kaltenheuser pointed out Friday night, not all the ugly corruption came from Trump and the GOP. He and they may be more horrible than Hillary and the Democratic establishment but... it's just a matter of degrees. They're monstrous as well, just not quite as monstrous. They know how not to cross the line the way Trumpanzee does.

[Bradley Birkenfeld's] revelations enabled the US Treasury to recover $15 billion in back taxes, fines and penalties. They also put in motion international investigations of offshore banking's many misdeeds, and juiced up reformers seeking tougher oversight. Impacts on Swiss private banks-- there are scads of such banks, all shapes and sizes-- include a 2013 tax treaty facilitating the exchange of tax data between countries. This put a hitch in Switzerland's offshore tax haven status that vacuumed money. And plenty of dirt. Alas, though trickier, Birkenfeld says the multitude of nefarious practices requiring secret accounts still have plenty of global options.

Thing is, what the US reaped was a fraction of what could have been garnered had the massive tax evasion been fully brought to heel. That failure only increases the debt load every American carries. Why the lack of DOJ prosecutorial enthusiasm against tax cheats and their enabler bankers?

I don't want to step on too many nuggets, but Secretary of State Clinton stepped in to do the negotiations with UBS. She required UBS to disclose only 4,700 out of 19,000 illegal account holders. Birkenfeld's curious, as we all might be, as to who made the selection and how, and why the names were never made public. Why was the fine so inadequate compared to long-term profits, and why did DOJ so carelessly offer undeclared account holders anonymity and repeated amnesties?

Who are these titans of favoritism? Will the real masters of the universe please stand up?

It brings to mind proposals for excessively reduced corporate taxes for repatriating money sloshing around abroad, but I digress.

In Washington's small world of startling coincidence, before the negotiated deal UBS only contributed sixty grand to the Clinton Foundation. Afterwards, notes Birkenfeld, it went up by a factor of ten. UBS also partnered with the Foundation providing a low-interest thirty-two million dollar loan for a Foundation program. And President Clinton, the First, earned over a million and a half dollars "for a series of fireside chats with the bank's Wealth Management Chief Executive, Bob McCann...Bill Clinton's biggest payday since leaving the office of the Presidency."

...Birkenfeld reckons Americans are on the hook for a trillion dollars escaping off-shore, so they ought be making demands.

Elizabeth Schulte observed what many of us are seeing, namely that Trump's horror show is hiding what could be a rotten Democratic agenda. "Each time the Trump campaign lurches and careens to the right," she wrote, "it takes the heat off the Clinton campaign to defend its candidate's agenda." She then takes a break from the regularly scheduled Trump train wreck to talk about what Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party have up their sleeves: an immigration agenda that doesn't do much to change the status quo; a cozy relationship with the banksters; and gradual, incremental gutting of all the hopes and dreams Bernie painted for the electorate.

David Sirota has been on this beat for a long time-- and for all the right reasons. Last week he warned of shenanigans that could prove horrifying for American families that have nothing whatsoever to do with Trump.

While Hillary Clinton has spent the presidential campaign saying as little as possible about her ties to Wall Street, the executive who some observers say could be her Treasury Secretary has been openly promoting a plan to give financial firms control of hundreds of billions of dollars in retirement savings. The executive is Tony James, president of the Blackstone Group.

The investment colossus is most famous in politics for its Republican CEO likening an Obama tax plan to a Nazi invasion. James, though, is a longtime Democrat-- and one of Clinton’s top fundraisers. The billionaire sculpted the retirement initiative with a prominent labor economist whose work is supported by another investment mogul who is a  big Clinton donor. The proposal has received bipartisan praise from prominent economic thinkers, and James says that Clinton’s top aides are warming to the idea.

It is a plan that proponents say could help millions of Americans-- but could also enrich another constituency: the hedge fund and private equity industries that Blackstone dominates and that have donated millions to support Clinton’s presidential bid.

The proposal would require workers and employers to put a percentage of payroll into individual retirement accounts “to be invested well in pooled plans run by professional investment managers,” as James put it. In other words, individual voluntary 401(k)s would be replaced by a single national system, and much of the mandated savings would flow to Wall Street, where companies like Blackstone could earn big fees off the assets. And because of a gap in federal anti-corruption rules, there would be little to prevent the biggest investment contracts from being awarded to the biggest presidential campaign donors.



...Rather than funneling the hundreds of billions of dollars of new tax revenue into expanding Social Security benefits, as many Democratic lawmakers have called for, James proposed something different: A decade after George W. Bush’s failed attempt to divert Social Security revenue into private retirement accounts, the Blackstone president outlined a plan to create individual retirement accounts, some of whose assets would be managed by private financial firms.

...Critics see James’ proposal as an effort by a politically connected private equity mogul to present a Wall Street-enriching scheme as a social good-- at a moment when his own firm has faced lower profits, and at a generally challenging time for the alternative investments industry.

That industry relies on investments from state and local pension systems, which over the last decade have invested billions in alternatives in hopes of reaping above-market returns in exchange for higher fees. Recently, though, regulators, pension trustees, investment experts and academics have questioned whether retiree savings should be invested with firms like Blackstone in the first place.

Some pensions are pulling out their money. Other pension systems have been turned into 401(k)-style plans, which are difficult for the alternative investment industry to break into because of federal laws that discourage those plans from buying into riskier, illiquid investments.

In the face of these challenges, James’ proposal could provide a government-mandated flow of money from workers’ paychecks into the high-fee alternative investment industry.

“This new plan depends on sweeping government mandates, the appropriation of trillions of dollars from the private sector that is then handed over to zillionaire investment managers who make no guarantees about rates of returns or discounted fees,” said South Carolina Treasurer Curtis Loftis, a Republican who serves on his state’s pension investment council, which contracts with Blackstone. “The only guaranteed benefit I see in this plan is one for wealthy money managers and their cronies. Wall Streeters reading this plan will understand, without having specifically been told, that having Hillary Clinton and the federal government use its power to aggregate the existing and future retirement funds of working Americans and entrust it to them is the Holy Grail of finance.”

Chris Tobe, a Democrat who advises institutional investors and who served on Kentucky’s pension board, put it just as bluntly: “James’ plan is a deliberate attempt to get around federal protections for retirees because alternative investments are not generally allowed in the 401(k) world. This is about making Blackstone and other private equity firms even richer than they already are.”

Clinton has cast herself as skeptical of the “shadow banking” world that Blackstone operates in, and she has said she wants to close a loophole that lets private equity managers pay a lower tax rate than most other workers.

Yet for all of Clinton’s tough talk against Wall Street, James and others associated with Blackstone have been among her biggest fundraisers, and during a recent cocktail party in Washington D.C. to promote the plan, James said he was optimistic that a Clinton win could make his proposal a reality.

“What the election would mean for our plan: Yes, we’ve spent a fair amount of time with a number of Hillary’s policy advisors. So far they have been very encouraging about the plan,” he told the assembled crowd. “I am hopeful she’ll grab this issue once elected, and run with it. I think the signals are warm on that.”

Sirota also introduces his readers to Queens County boss and former New Dem chief, Joe Crowley, a glad-handing congressman who specializes in Wall Street corruption. He's slithered into position as the only House Dem seriously challenging the odious Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the post-Pelosi/post-Hoyer party leader-- the Speaker track. Either of them leading the Democratic Party is absolution repulsive. Sirota mentioned in passing that James' proposal "touts legislation from House Democratic Vice-Chairman Joe Crowley that would direct many employers to open individual retirement accounts for their employees. Crowley's office has promoted the initiative as one that would have the new accounts invest retiree savings in "a limited number of low-fee index fund options." However, the bill includes a provision that would give federal officials latitude to potentially invest the new money in alternative investments. Blackstone donors are collectively the third largest donor to Crowley during his congressional career, and Crowley has raised more than $1.6 million from donors in the securities and investment industry, according to CRP." Uplifting, right? This is what the Democratic Party has degenerated into. How do we fight back and derail this catastrophe? Electing committed progressive reformers like Zephyr Teachout, Pramila Jayapal, Tom Wakely, Paul Clements is a sure first step. Here:

Hoyer Shows His True Colors Again-- Spoiler: Not Blue

Intimates of Nancy Pelosi's say that as much as she wants to retire as Democratic leader, she won't do it while there is a chance Steny Hoyer will get the job. Most House Democrats know that if Hoyer ever becomes Speaker-- God forbid-- all legislation will be filtered through K Street and nothing will ever get done. Hoyer is a Beltway lobbyist favorite. The only current member of the House who has taken more in legalistic bribes from lobbyists than Hoyer ($982,932) is Boehner ($1,238,821). The next most corrupt are notorious crooks Charlie Rangel ($847,353) and Don Young ($735,782). But yesterday the hypocritical Grandma Hoyer was holding forth on his favorite topic: civility. He could be plotting to help the banksters rob his own constituents blind, but he flips out if he detects someone isn't being civil to another House Member.

Up top is an ad that the Sacramento Central Labor Council paid to run against reactionary New Dem Ami Bera for his repulsive record of pro-Wall Street stands against working families. CREDO has also targeted Bera with a well-deserved ad for his ugly efforts on behalf of the banksters to push forward Fast Track authority. Unions are also threatening to end support for other Wall Street traitors like Blue Dog Brad Ashford (NE) and New Dem leader Gerry Connolly (VA). Bera is freaking out over the ad and went crying to Hoyer, who promptly attacked... Alan Grayson.

“I don’t think it’s helpful,” said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat. “Both [Minority] Leader [Nancy] Pelosi and I have urged members to have respect for one another’s positions. We’ve also urged our friends in labor to have respect.”

On Monday, Florida Rep. Alan Grayson blasted out a fundraising appeal to supporters where the Democrat urged them to “petition your government to redress your grievances” over the fast track legislation. He specifically called out 18 Democratic lawmakers for either supporting or leaning toward ‘yes’ on the bill, which is expected to come to the House floor for a vote this month.

...The criticism from Grayson and union leaders-- and the rush from senior Democrats to protect their own-- highlight how contentious a vote on fast-track authority is within the House Democratic Caucus.

Hoyer, who is undeclared on TPA but congressional sources see as leaning toward ‘yes,’ described the email as disrespectful.

“I think Mr. Grayson’s actions are not helpful and I don’t think fair to other members. I think that members aught to refrain from directly pressure at their colleagues. They aught to have respect,” Hoyer said.

Grayson’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.

Labor has also mounted an aggressive campaign to stop fast-track. The AFL-CIO has targeted Bera as their de facto whipping boy on trade, with labor activists slamming him in newspaper editorials, at rallies and in a a $84,000 ad buy in his Sacramento district.

“It’s not just that Rep. Bera is publicly backing fast track for the TPP-- a misguided position that we fear will result in job losses for American workers and a race to the bottom on environmental, labor, and human rights issues-- but also that he also broke his explicit word on fast track,” the Coalition to Stop Fast Track, a group of labor unions opposed to the legislation, blasted out to supporters on Tuesday.

Hoyer said that the public lashing of Bera-- who received the backing of labor unions during the 2014 midterm elections-- is not “fair.”

“Ami Bera is an excellent member….[he’s a] strong supporter of working men and women in this country,” Hoyer said.

Hoyer’s remarks were echoed by Democratic Caucus Vice-Chairman Joe Crowley on Tuesday.

“I think it’s more important that we in the Democratic Party are having a healthy debate while recognizing that some of the activity outside of the beltway is not particularly helpful,” the New York Democrat said. “I think that many of our colleagues are facing some very difficult choices in the near future and some are feeling some very spirited heat. That’s not an easy place to be.”

Crowley, one of the most corrupt men to ever worm his way into Congress-- virtually the Sepp Blatter of sleazy Beltway politics-- is the former chairman of the New Dems, and his disdain and contempt for "activity outside of the Beltway" is typical of his anti-democracy bent. Crowley has taken over $5,000,000 from the banksters and financial sector in trade for his influence (both as Democratic Caucus Vice Chair and as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee). Only 5 current Members of the House have taken more in legalistic bribes from the finance sector than Crowley-- and what a rogue's nest of slime and self-serving scum!

• John Boehner (R-OH)- $11,239,584
• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)- $6,155,145
• Charlie Rangel (D-NY)- $5,540,043
• Ed Royce (R-CA)- $5,522,298
• Pat Tiberi (R-OH)- $5,124,413

No doubt Crowley and Hoyer are still smarting over Grayson's response to another New Dem, John Delaney, penning an op-ed last week attacking progressives and progressives values. Hoyer didn't label that or Delaney uncivil, but Grayson responded by musing: "Corporate tax breaks, corporate welfare, corporate trade giveaways and sucking up to Wall Street... 'New Democrats' sound a lot like old Republicans." They sure do!

Hoyer's attack on Grayson isn't coincidental to his support for life-long-Republican-turned-New Dem Patrick Murphy, who is running against Grayson for the open Florida Senate seat. You can slap Hoyer upside the head and help Grayson win that race here.

The Democratic Party Has A Long And Proud Tradition Of Standing Up For Working Families-- What Happened To It?

Friday we took a look at why voters are increasingly turning off to the two Establishment political parties. We looked particularly at why turnout among Democratic base voters is so low. For example, the Queens Democratic Party boss, Congressman Joe Crowley, the former New Dem chairman and a House leader, only managed to persuade 47,370 of his constituents to bother voting for him last month-- in one of the deepest blue districts in the entire country, which Obama won 136,783 (81%) to 30,978 (18%) in 2012. The Democratic Party of Joe Crowley isn't doing squat for people, predominantly Hispanic, black and Asian, (medium household income- $46,900) who live in Woodside, Jackson Heights, Sunnyside, Maspeth, Elmhurst, Corona, Willets Point, and College Point in Queens and Throggs Neck, Schuylerville, East Bronx, Morris Park, Middletown-Pelham Bay, Van Nest and Pelham Gardens in the Bronx. Crowley serves Wall Street; that's it. He hopes the harried people who live in his district never figure out the only thing he has in common with the Democratic Party is his ironic membership in it.

It's worth noting that where stalwart progressives who constantly carry a clear message of economic populism and social justice-- we looked at Barbara Lee (CA), Keith Ellison (MN) and Mark Pocan (WI)-- the results were the polar opposite of Crowley's. Pocan, who, like Crowley, didn't have a credible challenger, saw a huge wave of grateful Democratic voters turn out for him. He drew nearly 5 times the number of voters Crowley did, 224,548. Should that be a wakeup call to the DC Democrats? It isn't.

Last week Walter Dean Turnham and Thomas Ferguson, respectively professors from the University of Texas (Austin) and University of Massachusetts (Boston), penned a powerful 5 alarm analysis that DC Democrats miss at their own peril. Writing for Alternate, their premise is that last month's Democratic Party debacle-- which the scleratic and ostrich-like Democratic leadership refuses to see as a debacle; Israel claiming he saved the day by not losing more seats, for example-- "likely heralds a new stage in the disintegration of the American political order" and it's based on an undeniable fact, that "increasing numbers of average Americans can no longer stomach voting for parties that only pretend to represent their interests." They estimate that only 36% of eligible voters even bothered showing up last month. Among drop-offs from a presidential election to a midterm, this was the second largest of all time-- 24 percentage points!

Turnout in Ohio, for example, fell to 34 percent-- a level the state last touched in 1814, when political parties on a modern model did not exist and it had just recently entered the Union. New York trumped even this: turnout in the Empire State plunged to 30 percent, almost back to where it was in 1798, when property suffrage laws disenfranchised some 40 percent of the citizenry. New Jersey managed a little better: turnout fell to 31 percent, back to levels of the 1820s. Delaware turnout fell to 35 percent, well below some elections of the 1790s. In the west, by contrast, turnout declined to levels almost without precedent: California’s 33 percent turnout appears to be the lowest recorded since the state entered the union in 1850. Nevada also hit a record low (28 percent), as did Utah at 26 percent (for elections to the House).

...It seems plain that the American political universe is being rapidly reshaped by economic and cultural crisis into something distinctly different. The Democrats’ messaging this year was, indeed, almost eerily spectral. But its otherworldly feebleness was rooted in fundamental facts that are not going away and cannot be fixed by switching media advisers.

The first problem was the administration’s dismal economic policy record. Though some Democrats try to sugarcoat the dismal facts by focusing on changes since 2009, when the President assumed office, the truth is that the fruits of the recovery have gone lopsidedly to the very richest Americans. Wall Street and the stock market boom, but wages continue to stagnate, and unemployment remains stubbornly high, with millions of Americans withdrawn from the labor force or working only part time. As incomes recovered from 2009 to 2012, for example, 95 percent of all the gains went to the top 1 percent of income earners.  The rest of the population was left far behind. As of July 2014, real median household income was still more than 6 percent below its value in early 2008. The administration’s continuing efforts to court Wall Street, along with its reluctance to sanction even flagrant misconduct by prominent financiers just pour salt into these wounds.

The other reason for the messaging failure is graver, because responsibility for it cannot possibly be fobbed off on the Republicans. Though the full figures are still coming in, we are confident that what Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen demonstrated to be true in 2012 will hold for 2014, despite claims to the contrary in parts of the media: The President and the Democratic Party are almost as dependent on big money-- defined, for example, in terms of the percentage of contributions (over $500 or $1000) from the 1 percent as the Republicans. To expect top down money-driven political parties to make strong economic appeals to voters is idle. Instead the Golden Rule dominates: Money-driven parties emphasize appeals to particular interest groups instead of the broad interests of working Americans that would lead their donors to shut their wallets.

...Exit polls from the 2014 House races suggest that the old New Deal political formula has become like the grin of the Cheshire Cat. Traces of the ancient pattern are still there in the aggregate: In the lowest income bracket (under $30,000 in the 2014 exit polls) voters overwhelmingly prefer the Democrats by 59 percent to 39 percent.  As income rises, that percentage falls off steeply, with the slightest of hiccups in the very highest bracket.  Conversely, upper income voters were much more likely to vote Republican, though a modest gender gap remained in the national electorate, if not that of every state. (Nationally women voters preferred the Democrats by only 51 percent to 47 percent; the Republican advantage among men was much larger – 57 percent to 41 percent.) But after six years of profound policy disappointment, not enough lower income voters bothered to go to the polls.

Right now Hillary Clinton’s strategists appear to be pinning their hopes on firing up another ritualized big money-led coalition of minorities and particular groups instead of making broad economic appeals. That hope might perhaps prove out, if the slow and very modest economic recovery continues into 2016, or the Republicans nominate another Richie Rich caricature like Mitt Romney, who openly mocks the poorest 47% of the electorate. But exit surveys showed that in 2014 many women voters thought economic recovery and jobs were top issues, too.  And one may doubt how robust the recovery can be in the face of a steadily rising dollar, which now seems baked in the world economic cake for a considerable time to come.

But if the time has perhaps passed when a Democratic Party dominated and financed by Wall Street and Silicon Valley can mobilize anything but remnants, the Republicans can hardly count on smooth sailing for very long. In 2016, if voters are offered another choice between Republican Lite and real Republicans, the affluent Americans who will mostly turn out may well once again cast ballots for the real thing... In any case, both direct poll evidence and common sense confirm that huge numbers of Americans are now wary of both major political parties and increasingly upset about prospects in the long term.  Many are convinced that a few big interests control policy. They crave effective action to reverse long term economic decline and runaway economic inequality, but nothing on the scale required will be offered to them by either of America’s money-driven major parties. This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system evident in the 2014 congressional elections.

How can we be sure the DC Dems are ignoring the 2014 warning and hustling down the road to their own doom? The first garbage candidates the "new" DCCC chairman Ben Ray Luján has worked to recruit are New Dem Emily Cain in Maine and "ex"-Republican Monica Vernon in Iowa, neither of whom has anything to do with what makes working families chose to be Democrats rather than Republicans and neither of whom has even the slightest ability to inspire working class voters. And now we get word that the DCCC is furiously trying to re-recruit defeated retreads who already lost out to Republicans because of their inability to carry a progressive message. Blue Dog Michael McMahon, the lame-o who "Mikey Suits" Grimm beat to win his seat, is a perfect example.

How many DC Dems would feel comfortable even listening to, let alone giving, a speech like the one Franklin Roosevelt delivered to Congress in January, 1936 after his stunning landslide rout of the Republicans 27,747,636 to 16,679,543 with every state but Vermont and Maine-- an election that delivered the Democrats a 76-16 seat majority in the Senate and a 334 to 88 seat majority in the House? That's when it meant something to be a Democrat aside from catering to aggrieved bits and pieces of the electorate. You can read the whole speech here; I'm just going to present a few excerpts to mull over.

Within our borders, as in the world at large, popular opinion is at war with a power-seeking minority.

That is no new thing. It was fought out in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. From time to time since then, the battle has been continued, under Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

In these latter years we have witnessed the domination of government by financial and industrial groups, numerically small but politically dominant in the twelve years that succeeded the World War. The present group of which I speak is indeed numerically small and, while it exercises a large influence and has much to say in the world of business, it does not, I am confident, speak the true sentiments of the less articulate but more important elements that constitute real American business.

In March, 1933, I appealed to the Congress of the United States and to the people of the United States in a new effort to restore power to those to whom it rightfully belonged. The response to that appeal resulted in the writing of a new chapter in the history of popular government. You, the members of the Legislative branch, and I, the Executive, contended for and established a new relationship between Government and people.

What were the terms of that new relationship? They were an appeal from the clamor of many private and selfish interests, yes, an appeal from the clamor of partisan interest, to the ideal of the public interest. Government became the representative and the trustee of the public interest. Our aim was to build upon essentially democratic institutions, seeking all the while the adjustment of burdens, the help of the needy, the protection of the weak, the liberation of the exploited and the genuine protection of the people's property.

It goes without saying that to create such an economic constitutional order, more than a single legislative enactment was called for. We, you in the Congress and I as the Executive, had to build upon a broad base. Now, after thirty-four months of work, we contemplate a fairly rounded whole. We have returned the control of the Federal Government to the City of Washington.

To be sure, in so doing, we have invited battle. We have earned the hatred of entrenched greed. The very nature of the problem that we faced made it necessary to drive some people from power and strictly to regulate others. I made that plain when I took the oath of office in March, 1933. I spoke of the practices of the unscrupulous money-changers who stood indicted in the court of public opinion. I spoke of the rulers of the exchanges of mankind's goods, who failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence. I said that they had admitted their failure and had abdicated.

Abdicated? Yes, in 1933, but now with the passing of danger they forget their damaging admissions and withdraw their abdication.

They seek the restoration of their selfish power. They offer to lead us back round the same old corner into the same old dreary street.

Yes, there are still determined groups that are intent upon that very thing. Rigorously held up to popular examination, their true character presents itself. They steal the livery of great national constitutional ideals to serve discredited special interests. As guardians and trustees for great groups of individual stockholders they wrongfully seek to carry the property and the interests entrusted to them into the arena of partisan politics. They seek-this minority in business and industry-- to control and often do control and use for their own purposes legitimate and highly honored business associations; they engage in vast propaganda to spread fear and discord among the people-- they would "gang up" against the people's liberties.

The principle that they would instill into government if they succeed in seizing power is well shown by the principles which many of them have instilled into their own affairs: autocracy toward labor, toward stockholders, toward consumers, toward public sentiment. Autocrats in smaller things, they seek autocracy in bigger things. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

...[T]he challenge faced by this Congress is more menacing than merely a return to the past-- bad as that would be. Our resplendent economic autocracy does not want to return to that individualism of which they prate, even though the advantages under that system went to the ruthless and the strong. They realize that in thirty-four months we have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people's Government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people. Give them their way and they will take the course of every autocracy of the past-- power for themselves, enslavement for the public.

Their weapon is the weapon of fear. I have said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." That is as true today as it was in 1933. But such fear as they instill today is not a natural fear, a normal fear; it is a synthetic, manufactured, poisonous fear that is being spread subtly, expensively and cleverly by the same people who cried in those other days, "Save us, save us, lest we perish."

I am confident that the Congress of the United States well understands the facts and is ready to wage unceasing warfare against those who seek a continuation of that spirit of fear. The carrying out of the laws of the land as enacted by the Congress requires protection until final adjudication by the highest tribunal of the land. The Congress has the right and can find the means to protect its own prerogatives.

We are justified in our present confidence. Restoration of national income, which shows continuing gains for the third successive year, supports the normal and logical policies under which agriculture and industry are returning to full activity. Under these policies we approach a balance of the national budget. National income increases; tax receipts, based on that income, increase without the levying of new taxes. That is why I am able to say to this, the Second Session of the 74th Congress, that it is my belief based on existing laws that no new taxes, over and above the present taxes, are either advisable or necessary.

National income increases; employment increases. Therefore, we can look forward to a reduction in the number of those citizens who are in need. Therefore, also, we can anticipate a reduction in our appropriations for relief.

In the light of our substantial material progress, in the light of the increasing effectiveness of the restoration of popular rule, I recommend to the Congress that we advance; that we do not retreat. I have confidence that you will not fail the people of the Nation whose mandate you have already so faithfully fulfilled.

I repeat, with the same faith and the same determination, my words of March 4, 1933: "We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity; with a clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with a clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life. We do not distrust the future of essential democracy."

I cannot better end this message on the state of the Union than by repeating the words of a wise philosopher at whose feet I sat many, many years ago.

"What great crises teach all men whom the example and counsel of the brave inspire is the lesson: Fear not, view all the tasks of life as sacred, have faith in the triumph of the ideal, give daily all that you have to give, be loyal and rejoice whenever you find yourselves part of a great ideal enterprise. You, at this moment, have the honor to belong to a generation whose lips are touched by fire. You live in a land that now enjoys the blessings of peace. But let nothing human be wholly alien to you. The human race now passes through one of its great crises. New ideas, new issues-- a new call for men to carry on the work of righteousness, of charity, of courage, of patience, and of loyalty. . . However memory bring back this moment to your minds, let it be able to say to you: That was a great moment. It was the beginning of a new era. . . This world in its crisis called for volunteers, for men of faith in life, of patience in service, of charity and of in- sight. I responded to the call however I could. I volunteered to give myself to my Master-- the cause of humane and brave living. I studied, I loved, I labored, unsparingly and hopefully, to be worthy of my generation."

Which elected officials could you imagine giving a speech like that today? Barack Obama? Not a chance. Hillary? Don't make me laugh. Besides Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Lee, Keith Ellison, Mark Pocan, I can't think of anyone with both the will and the capacity. Can you?

Why Are Voters So Unenthusiastic About Reelecting Run Of The Mill, Garden Variety Democrats?

You mean Crowley rocking out with Huckabee doesn't get Queens & Bronx voters out to the polls?

Turnout for the midterms in California was a dismal 42% this year. Barbara Lee (CA-13- Oakland) didn't have a real race, but her constituents turned out for her in greater numbers than any other congressional candidate in the whole state, more than any other Democrat and more than any Republican. 166,182 went to the polls to voice their gratitude for a congresswoman who stands up for working families. (In 2012 she was reelected with 250,436 votes and Obama won the district with 268,093 in 2012 and 283,183 in 2008.)

The upper Midwest seems like an especially civic-minded area and Minnesota and Wisconsin always get good turnout. In Minnesota, for example, all the Democratic incumbents scored over 100,000 votes-- a very different story than in most of the country. Keith Ellison led the way with 167,076 votes,a nice healthy midterm vote-- although he had won reelection in 2012 with 262,102 votes. Similar story in Wisconsin, The Democratic incumbents all scored over 100,000, with Mark Pocan leading the way with 224,548, the biggest turnout anywhere in the whole country for any Democrat running for the House. His level of support was hardly down at all from 2012 when he won with 265,422 votes.

What do these three Democrats have in common aside from loyal constituents? Pocan has the single most progressive voting record in the entire Congress. Ellison and Lee are two courageous, stalwart progressives who never hesitate to stand up loud and clear on behalf of the ordinary people who don't hire lobbyists. These are their ProgressivePunch lifetime crucial vote scores:

• Mark Pocan 98.71
• Keith Ellison 95.49
• Barbara Lee 94.87

At least as important is their willingness to lead on tough issues that send other Members of Congress fleeing under the bed. And Democratic and independent voters appreciate it. Compare their resulting to results in two other states' Democratic delegations, Texas and New York. Voters were competency uninspired and stayed away from the election in droves, catastrophic in New York swing districts and most just embarrassing in Texas' obscenely gerrymandered Democratic ghettos districts. Keep in mind, all districts have approximately the same number of people.

• TX-09- Al Green- 77,979
• TX-15- Rubén Hinojosa- 48,561
• TX-16- Beto O'Rourke- 49,257
• TX-18- Sheila Jackson Lee- 75,963
• TX-20- Joaquin Castro- 66,538
• TX-23- Pete Gallego- 55,436 (lost the seat to a CIA agent)
• TX-28- Henry Cuellar- 62,471
• TX-29- Gene Green- 41,229
• TX-30- Eddie Bernice Johnson- 92,971
• TX-33- Mark Veasey- 43,729
• TX-34- Filemon Vela- 47,457
• TX-35- Lloyd Doggett- 60,027

Don't get me wrong; some of these Democratic incumbents won with stupendous margins-- Mark Veasey with 86.5%, Gene Green with 89.5%, Al Green with 90.8%... but that's because of gerrymandering, not because these legislators are inspiring anyone to get out and work for them and vote for them the way Barbara Lee, Keith Ellison and Mark Pocan do. And New York is in even worse shape than Texas. Texas Democrats lost one mangey, worthless Blue Dog, Pete Gallego. New York Democrats crashed and burned:

• NY-01- Tim Bishop- 73,860 (lost the seat to a teabagger)
• NY-03- Steve Israel- 85,310 (likely GOP target in 2016)
• NY-04- Kathleen Rice- 85,294
• NY-05- Gregory Meeks- 72,454
• NY-07- Nydia Velázquez- 53,283
• NY-08- Hakeem Jeffries- 71,280
• NY-09- Yvette Clarke- 78,157
• NY-10- Jerry Nadler- 82,880
• NY-12- Carolyn Maloney- 83,870
• NY-13- Charlie Rangel- 64,142
• NY-14- Joe Crowley- 47,370
• NY-15- Jose Serrano- 51,665
• NY-17- Nita Lowey- 93,001
• NY-18- Sean Patrick Maloney- 93,001
• NY-20- Paul Tonko- 118,993
• NY-24- Dan Maffei- 75,690 (lost the seat... again)
• NY-25- Louise Slaughter- 93,053
• NY-26- Brian Higgins- 79,344

Again, there were some huge wins by percentage but no voter enthusiasm whatsoever. Take Joe Crowley for example, the Queens County Democratic Party boss and a member of the House Leadership with millions of Wall Street dollars in his campaign kitty. He won with a gigantic 88.2%... but with a disgraceful 47,370 votes. He didn't even try too engage the voters, neither on policy nor even in a competent get out the vote effort.

Is there not a problem when Democratic congressmen can't inspire the people back home to get out and vote for them. Why can Mark Pocan get 224,548 voters while Joe Crowley only gets 47,370? And why is Joe Crowley on a leadership track? Isn't that exactly what is wrong with the Beltweay Democratic Party?

Most Americans Don't Like Their Own Congressmember

Like most Americans, I don't like my congressman. Adam Schiff is a slimy Blue Dog/New Dem of low moral character who will do anything to further his careerist goals. He's far more conservative than his newly redrawn district but few voters in the district suspect as much. There is no Republican running against him but he has $2,042,527 cash on hand against an unknown independent opponent, Steve Stokes, who raised $5,562 ($4,047 in the form of a check from himself). In 2012 Schiff was reelected with 76% of the vote. In CA-28 (Hollywood, Burbank, Glendale, Los Feliz, Atwater, Silberlake and West Hollywood, a district with a PVI of D+20), more people voted for him (188,703) than for Obama (187,441). There is no awareness-- not even among local politicos-- that Schiff had an anti-gay voting record before gay districts neighborhoods were added to the district in 2010 or that Schiff had been a big cheerleader for attacking Iraq (and for anything else that would "harm" Israel's enemies) or even that Schiff was a low-life Blue Dog for his entire congressional career.

Most voters, across the country, are utterly clueless about who their own congressmember is and what he or she stands for. Most voters tend to cast their ballots based on party affiliation. Without a strong, well-financed primary challenge, even a well-educated district like CA-28 is probably doomed to decades of shitty representation by a self-serving careerist like Schiff. This morning, the Washington Post and ABC News released a poll that shows-- I think for the first time-- that a majority of Americans disapproves of their own Member of Congress. In the past voters have always disapproved on Congress while approving of their own Member.

Just over half the public, 51 percent, say they disapprove of the job that their own member of Congress is doing in the new poll, rising above the 50 percent threshold for the first time in the quarter-century of Post-ABC polling on this question. Just 41 percent approve. That's a new low, though it's not significantly different from ratings last October (43 percent), immediately after the end of a 16-day partial government shutdown that sent Republican approval ratings through the floor.

This all might not seem that surprising. After all, Congress has been held in very low regard for some time. But even as Congress's approval rating has sunk into the teens and stuck there, people generally saw their own member of Congress as different-- i.e. not part of the problem. A recent Pew poll, for instance, showed 69 percent of people wanted to unseat most members of Congress, but just 36 percent said the same of their own member.

The new numbers, which show Americans disapproving by their own member by double digits, suggest the people are less and less willing to give their own member a pass for Congress's sins.

The poll also finds, as usual, the Democrats' brand fares better than the Republicans' brand three months before the midterms, with 49 percent holding favorable views of the Democratic Party and 35 percent having a favorable view of the GOP. But Democrats' reputation edge is not expected to translate to big gains at the ballot box in November, with other polls showing 1) a much tighter race in whether voters plan to cast ballots for Democrats or Republicans, and 2) lower enthusiasm for voting among important Democratic-leaning groups. Election forecasters expect Republicans will maintain their majority in the House and say they also have a better than even chance of winning the six seats needed to take the Senate.

…Despite negative views of incumbent officeholders, the impact on incumbents' actual reelection hopes is likely modest, with the vast majority of officeholders expected to win reelection in November… Even with lagging popularity, though, incumbents have numerous other advantages that help ward off challengers, including congressional districts which lean toward their party, established fundraising networks, campaign experience and better name recognition than their challengers. They also benefit from voters' lack of homework; fewer than half the public in a recent Pew Research Center poll (46 percent), could correctly identify the party of their own representative.

A few days ago I was thrilled-- even if just for the briefest moment--- to see an e-mail pop into my inbox from a Schiff doppelgänger all the way across the country, Queens County Democratic Party boss Joe Crowley. Actually, Crowley is as conservative and ambitious as Schiff but he's more overtly corrupt. His e-mail was entitled "We could lose big." Normally I would never open an e-mail from Crowley but with a title like that… fingers crossed, I clicked. Of course it was just another dishonest plea for more money. Crowley, who takes more in bribes from the banksters than any other Democrat ($956,722 this cycle) has raised $2,522,321 this cycle, only 1% of it ($19,113) from small donors-- worse than most Republicans. His Queens-Bronx D+26 district reelected him with 83% of tech vote in 2012-- after another race with no primary opponent. This year he doesn't even have a Republican opponent. It's a minority majority district (48% Hispanic, 16% Asian, 10% Black) that includes College Point, East Elmhurst, Jackson Heights and Woodside in Queens and Co-op City, Morris Park, Parkchester, Pelham Bay, Throgs Neck and City Island in the Bronx. Few of the voters there know that Crowley is one of the most notoriously corrupt Members of Congress. They just think he's a good Democrat, which is always better than a Republican.

If you'd like to help honest, ethical, values-oriented progressives win House races, without having to worry you are inadvertently helping elect a crook like Crowley or Schiff, you can contribute directly to vetted candidates on this ActBlue page.