Does A President Actually Need To Know Anything... About Anything?

Smarter Than Trump by Chip Proser

Justin Amash plans to run for president on the Libertarian line. I wish he would have stayed in Congress but there's a strong chance he would have lost his seat. Jesse Ventura may run too (as a Green, no less). And Trump continues his real time meltdown in public. Or, as The Guardian's Arwa Mahadawi put it-- he's unravelling so badly that even his supporters can't ignore it. She wrote that she doesn't know "what kind of disinfectant he's been injecting, but the man does not appear to be well. The president’s lethal medical musing has turned him into (even more of) a global laughing stock and the widespread ridicule has clearly bruised his fragile ego. While Trump has never been a paradigm of calmness or competence, he has become increasingly irate and erratic in recent days. Now even his diehard supporters seem to be cooling towards him."

On a more serious note though, perhaps there are still some Republicans who have enough faith in science and reason to have had not with Trump. Historically, he's the most anti-Science president ever-- and that didn't start with his horrific and catastrophic response-- if you want to call it that-- to the pandemic. The NY Times' Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer reminded their readers that he never tires of reminding everyone what a scientific genius he is. And that despite a signature "disregard for scientific advice... a defining characteristic" of the Trumpanzee regime.

As the nation confronts one of its worst public health disasters in generations, a moment that demands a leader willing to marshal the full might of the American scientific establishment, the White House is occupied by a president whose administration, critics say, has diminished the conclusions of scientists in formulating policy, who personally harbors a suspicion of expert knowledge, and who often puts his political instincts ahead of the facts.

“Donald Trump is the most anti-science and anti-environment president we’ve ever had,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University. The president’s actions, he said, have eroded one of the United States’s most enviable assets: the government’s deep scientific expertise, built over decades. “It’s extraordinarily crazy and reckless,” he said.

...Well before winning the presidency, Mr. Trump had publicly questioned science by expressing skepticism about vaccines and suggesting climate change was a hoax fabricated by China.

Once in office, Mr. Trump’s administration quickly began work on one of its most far-reaching policies-- the systematic downplaying or ignoring of science in order to weaken environmental health and global warming regulations. Automakers, farmers and others had sought regulatory relief, saying that more flexible rules would still ensure progress on environmental protection while avoiding bureaucratic mandates. However, in implementing the rollbacks, the administration has marginalized key scientists, disbanded expert advisory boards and suppressed or altered findings that make clear the dangers of pollution and global warming.

More recently, as the coronavirus outbreak engulfed the nation, Mr. Trump has repeatedly clashed with his own public health experts.

He was slow to react to early internal warnings to take the outbreak more seriously and has promoted the use of various drugs to fight the virus even as scientists said there was no proof they would be effective. On Thursday, he suggested that injecting disinfectants might help defeat Covid-19, drawing global condemnation and ridicule.

And last week Mr. Trump publicly downplayed a warning by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the administration’s most visible medical expert, that the United States still lacked adequate capacity to test for the coronavirus. “I don’t agree with him on that, no,” Mr. Trump said. “I think we’re doing a great job on testing.”

The president also suggested that the virus might be gone by the fall, a line that was immediately countered by Dr. Fauci, who said: “We will have coronavirus in the fall. I am convinced of that.”

Historians and foreign policy experts said the administration’s disregard for scientific expertise-- combined with the nation’s broader retreat from international trade agreements and cross-border defense alliances like NATO-- is diminishing the nation’s status on the world stage. “America’s friends feel like they don’t even recognize us,” said Kori Schake, director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research organization.

Other critics noted that Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, a 2015 pact among nations to combat climate change, has left the world adrift on one of the biggest challenges to face humanity. And now, amid a sweeping global pandemic, Mr. Trump has said he will halt funding for the World Health Organization.

Part of what elevated America after World War II, Dr. Schake said, was that “we represented modernity in all its advantages,” whether by creating a polio vaccine or landing a man on the moon. “It will be a real struggle to restore the admiration for the United States that is such an important part of our power in the world,” she said.

The administration faces immense challenges in navigating the coronavirus outbreak. Shutdowns nationwide have already pushed 26 million people into unemployment. But health experts have converged on a broad agreement that sending people back to work too soon, before measures like a robust testing system are in place, risks causing a surge of new infections, deepening the crisis.

In many cases, the administration’s guidance broadly follows that scientific understanding. But experts have also warned that Mr. Trump’s frequent exhortations to quickly reopen the economy threaten to muddle a vital public health message at a precarious time.

“It’s precisely because we’re in this uncertain and perilous moment that it’s all the more important to rely on the best scientific advice,” said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of public health law at Georgetown University.

Mr. Deere, the White House spokesman, said any suggestion that Mr. Trump hasn’t consulted and relied upon health experts and scientific advisers “is just false.” On Friday Mr. Trump announced a phased approach to reopening the economy that the White House said is “based on the advice of public health experts.”

Past administrations have, to varying degrees, disregarded scientific findings that conflicted with political or policy priorities. For example, the Reagan administration was criticized by health experts for being slow to respond to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. And in 2011, President Barack Obama’s top health official overruled Food and Drug Administration scientists who had found that over-the-counter emergency contraceptives were safe for minors.

But within the Trump administration, the attacks on science and expertise have been far more broad.

“Scientists tell them inconvenient things,” said Jerry Taylor, president of the Niskanen Center, a centrist research organization, and former climate change denialist who now advocates for the acceptance of climate science. “Whether we’re talking about the E.P.A. or we’re talking about climate change broadly speaking, or we’re talking about the coronavirus, his administration is constantly engaged in magical thinking.”

Critics of the administration’s actions both on environmental matters and the virus say that federal policy has been shaped to favor short-term economic gain at the expense of public health.

With much of the nation sheltering at home from the coronavirus-- bringing commerce to a halt, sending unemployment skyrocketing and causing turmoil in the financial markets-- the motivations to restart the economy are powerful. But Mr. Taylor of the Niskanen Center said that some conservatives were incorrectly diagnosing the stay-at-home orders as the main driver of the nation’s woes rather than the virus itself.

Mr. Taylor likened it to the argument that government action to fight climate change would be too costly in various ways-- an argument that overlooks the significant costs of inaction. “If we leave the underlying problem unattended,” he said, “the economic cost will be far greater.”

Meanwhile, the pandemic hasn’t slowed the administration’s environmental rollbacks.

Over the past month the Environmental Protection Agency has issued several deregulatory policies, including on mercury pollution and automobile emissions, overruling advice from the agency’s own independent advisory board that such findings lacked scientific rigor. The E.P.A. also refused to tighten air quality standards, despite preliminary research suggesting that long-term exposure to dirty air could exacerbate the risk of death from the coronavirus.

The administration has maintained that it can safeguard health and the environment while loosening restrictions on industry. Andrea Woods, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said, “We have never ignored the science in making the very tough policy decisions required of the agency.”

The parallels between the administration’s environmental rollbacks and its coronavirus response are not exact. When it comes to the coronavirus outbreak, there is still an important counterweight to many of Mr. Trump’s impulses, most notably Dr. Fauci. Asked last week if he felt that experts at the National Institutes of Health were unable to speak their minds or oppose Mr. Trump, Dr. Fauci was unequivocal. “Absolutely no,” he said.

That stands in contrast to the administration’s approach on issues like climate change, where officials who have spoken out have found themselves sidelined.

In July, Rod Schoonover, a State Department intelligence analyst, resigned in protest after the White House blocked his discussion of climate science in Congressional testimony. In other instances, the administration has promoted climate denialists’ work and allowed them to insert misrepresentations of scientific facts into federal documents.

Still, there have been some prominent staff shake-ups at health agencies.

Before the pandemic began, the C.D.C. had reduced its staff in Beijing from approximately 47 to 14 under the Trump administration, a move that critics have said may have complicated its ability to confront the outbreak earlier. An agency spokesman said it had been done to focus more on “technical collaboration” with China, which requires fewer people.

In February, Nancy Messonnier, a top C.D.C. official, was removed from overseeing the agency’s coronavirus response. Dr. Messonnier had warned that Americans need to prepare for a “significant disruption” at a time when Mr. Trump was insisting that the virus was “very well under control in our country.”

Last week, Rick Bright was dismissed as the director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the agency involved in work on coronavirus treatments. Mr. Bright said he had been removed after urging caution in expanding access to hydroxychloroquine, the controversial treatment embraced by Mr. Trump. He also said the administration had put “politics and cronyism ahead of science.”

Mr. Trump has said he “never heard” of Dr. Bright. Mr. Deere, the White House spokesman, accused critics of waging a campaign “to criticize this president for discussing anything that might provide hope to the American people.”

That said, this brief e-mail came from a sharp-witted and much-loved congressman last night:

What kind of moron begins an e-mail solicitation with "Hey there?"

This kind of moron:

"Hey there. I’m Joe Biden, and I’m writing to you about a truly special moment in our campaign.

This afternoon, Secretary Clinton announced she's endorsing us. I’m so proud to have her support."

The entire freakin’ world economy is collapsing, U.S. COVID-19 deaths equaled U.S. deaths in the war in Vietnam today, and this jerk is touting an endorsement from Ms. Yesteryear.  (Are you still famous if your husband left office 20 years ago?)

I just can’t stand it.

The Bill, The Bill, The Bill... And, Don't Forget For A Moment That The Bill Will Come Due

The House passed the $2.2 trillion Wall Street bailout, filled with goodies for corporate America, by voice vote today-- but not before Trump lost his shit on Twitter this morning when someone told him Thomas Massie (R-KY) had decided to force a roll call vote. Here's a narrative version of Massie's tweet storm after being savaged by Señor Trumpanmzee (above), who is now likely to back Massie's very right-wing primary supporter, Todd McMurtry. "I swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and I take that oath seriously," he began. "In a few moments I will request a vote on the CARES Act which means members of Congress will vote on it by pushing 'yes' or 'no' or 'present.'" Actually, what it means is that every member of the House might have had to go on record as being for it or against it, something both Pelosi and McCarthy wanted to avoid-- and were able to. And it meant that enough members of Congress had to drag their asses back to DC to give leadership a quorum. It's Pelosi's own fault that she refused to pay attention to the Members who have been urging her to institute remote voting during the pandemic. Back to Massie:

The Constitution requires that a quorum of members be present to conduct business in the House. Right now, millions of essential, working-class Americans are still required to go to work during this pandemic such as manufacturing line workers, healthcare professionals, I am not delaying the bill like Nancy Pelosi did last week. The bill that was worked on in the Senate late last week was much better before Speaker Pelosi showed up to destroy it and add days and days to the process. This bill should have been voted on much sooner in both the Senate and House and it shouldn’t be stuffed full of Nancy Pelosi’s pork-- including $25 million for the Kennedy Center, grants for the National Endowment for the Humanities and Arts, and millions more other measures that have no direct relation to the Coronavirus Pandemic. That $25 million, for example, should go directly to purchasing test kits. The number one priority of this bill should have been to expand testing availability and creation of tests so that every American, not just the wealthy and privileged, have access to testing. We have shut down the world’s economy without adequate data. Everyone, even those with no symptoms, needs immediate access to a test. This bill creates even more secrecy around a Federal Reserve that still refuses to be audited. It allows the Federal Reserve to make decisions about who gets what, how much money we’ll print. With no transparency. If getting us into $6 trillion more debt doesn’t matter, then why are we not getting $350 trillion more in debt so that we can give a check of $1 million to every person in the country? This stimulus should go straight to the people rather than being funneled through banks and corporations like this bill is doing. 2 trillion divided by 150 million workers is about $13,333.00 per person. That’s much more than the $1,200 per person check authorized by this bill."

Oh, look-- two mega-rich worthless Wall Street suck-ups agree with each other that Massie is a bad, bad boy:

Massie amigo and fellow Libertarian, Justin Amash, who fled the Trump version of the GOP and became the House's only Independent, defended him in a twitter battle with Trump-worshipping Texas Republican Dan Crenshaw. Amash tweeted "Crenshaw has learned a lot from Donald Trump during his time in Congress. He mischaracterizes a $500 billion corporate welfare fund that will mostly benefit a few large corporations hand-picked by government. Then, when called on it, he changes the topic and calls others liars."

The Washington Post, as always, spoke for the ruling class Establishment: Mike DeBonis with a quintessential Postism: "The scores of lawmakers who rushed back to Washington Friday to secure passage of a $2.2 trillion rescue bill expressed shock and dismay at having to defy the advice of experts and risk their health amid a global pandemic that has already killed more than 1,000 Americans. But many were not surprised at which of their colleagues forced them to do it. During his seven years in Congress, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has established a reputation as a uniquely irascible congressional gadfly-- one who is frequently at odds with his own party’s leadership, rarely votes for major bills negotiated with Democrats, and, to make an ideological point, is willing to use the House rule book to inconvenience his colleagues. Now, with the coronavirus pandemic threatening the nation, many believe Massie has gone well beyond inconvenience into threatening the health-- and potentially the lives-- of lawmakers and staff. And while Massie’s GOP colleagues have long grumbled about his tactics, he has now attracted the scorn of the most powerful Republican: President Trump. Massie opposes the rescue bill on fiscal and constitutional grounds and threatened ahead of a planned voice vote Friday to require a quorum be present-- 216 members, half the House. Trump called him a 'third-rate Grandstander' on Twitter Friday. 'He just wants the publicity. He can’t stop it, only delay,' he said, calling on voters to 'throw Massie out of Republican Party!'"

Suicide Is Painless

There's disagreement on the left as well. Matt Stoller, writing for The Guardian this past Sunday, said it most clearly-- and most disturbingly: America will be unrecognizable after this pandemic if big corporations walk away with trillions of dollars and no strings attached.

Now, I’m not opposed to supporting industries. This is a crisis, and we do not want a lot of the productive capacity of the United States to fall apart because of a pandemic. But the key to supporting enterprises is to make sure that there are strict conditions, so that power doesn’t consolidate into the hands of monopolists and financiers cherry-picking distressed assets. Otherwise, America will simply be unrecognizable after this pandemic. CNBC personality Jim Cramer, for instance, is worried that after this pandemic America will have just three retailers. And he’s right to be worried about that.

Here’s how we can stop it. There are enough members of Congress to act and prevent what really looks less like a relief package and more a corporate coup. However, the problem is that this group is split into different political parties, and Congressional leadership is taking advantage of that dynamic to jam this through. US Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell wants big business to rule, so he’s playing a trick. He is refusing aid to workers. Democrats are negotiating with him to try to get unemployment assistance and social welfare. McConnell knows Democrats won’t pay attention to corporate bailouts if he takes the public hostage, and Democrats know that they can hand out favors to big business if they just talk about how they got larger checks for workers.

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Pramila Jayapal, in the lead-up to the vote, said she's able to overcome her instincts about the very things Stoller is most worried about. Her own state, Washington "is reeling from the spread of COVID-19, and I have worked tirelessly to ensure the federal government steps up and responds to this crisis."

This bill is an important step forward. It significantly expands unemployment insurance benefits for laid-off and furloughed workers, puts money directly into the pockets of struggling working people and families, provides critical relief in the form of emergency grants and forgivable loans to devastated small businesses and nonprofits, infuses cash into strained local and state governments and health care systems, increases the amounts of personal protective equipment in the Strategic National Stockpile, and supports struggling industries that do right by their employees.

It is not perfect and there is far more Congress must do to do to fully meet our obligation to our constituents. We need to get more money to our health care system, states and localities, guarantee testing and treatment for everyone, expand benefits to those that have been left out and protect the health and safety of people in the criminal justice and immigration detention systems. Congress must also conduct vigorous oversight of industry assistance to ensure taxpayer dollars are used to support workers, not to further inequality.

We are already at work immediately on the next package to ensure it includes provisions we fought for but did not get this time. This is a crisis of epic proportions and we must continue to do everything we can to respond with the scale sufficient to meet the suffering of people across our country. I am proud to represent a district and a state with so much compassion and commitment, and I will continue to fight for all my constituents as we weather this together.

AOC, in the other hand, feels that the House could work a little harder before being stampeded into a bill so foul.





I don't know what to make of these three pictures from a #1 best selling book, The Eyes of Darkness written by Dean Koontz four decades ago and published in 1981. Amazing coincidence... right? CNN has already debunked it as a conspiracy theory. So has Snopes, based on the purported origin of the disease. OK.

Tulsi v Hillary... Godzilla v Destroyah

Although... she's not wrong about the personification of the rot

Not everyone wishes Hillary would go away-- or at least go silent until after the election-- but everyone I know does. This blog has been a bastion of anti-Tulsi sentiment for at least 6 years, when she started serving in Congress. And it really has been a go-to-spot for all Tulsi's history long before she was known on the national stage. Take a look. I had a nice meeting with her before she declared she was running and she answered all my questions and then asked me to stop writing about her so negatively while she was running for president. I've refrained from the gratuitous remarks and covered her the same way I would cover any candidate. Now she's not really running for president any longer. She's running for governor of Hawaii (2022). She sees it as a better path to the White House in the future. Yesterday, though, Hillary gave her her biggest day of the campaign.

What Hillary had to say on David Plouffe's podcast was beneath her. She shouldn't have mentioned Tulsi-- even if she actually never actually did (at least not by name)-- at least in part because she doesn't know what she's talking about. Tulsi isn't going to run as a third party spoiler and it just made Hillary sound like a conspiracy nut to say so.

I doubt the Russians are "grooming" Tulsi but maybe Hillary knows more about that than I do. "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians... They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far." What is Plouffe doing, a gossip show?

"If the nesting doll fits," Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said when asked if the former secretary of state was referring to Gabbard.

"This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality," Merrill said. "If the Russian propaganda machine, both their state media and their bot and troll operations, is backing a candidate aligned with their interests, that is just a reality, it is not speculation."

Gabbard, in a late August interview with CNN, ruled out a third-party bid.

"I will not," the Hawaii Democrat told CNN. "No, I have ruled that out."

Gabbard has tried to fight off the charge that she is being pushed by Russian interests.

"Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I'm a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears," Gabbard said, referring to a recent story that said she is being backed by Russians on Twitter. "This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I'm an asset of Russia. Completely despicable."

Clinton also accused Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate in both the 2012 and 2016 elections, of being a "Russian asset."

"That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate."

Now read these tweets. They're absolutely epic!

Now Tulsi is raising money by bashing the hapless, bumbling Hillary. In a fundraising e-mail, her campaign wrote "Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard-- a combat veteran, soldier and Major in the Army National Guard-- of being 'groomed' to be a 'Russian asset.' ... If this a fight she wants to have, one that has implications for all of us and the future of our democracy, then I challenge her to come out from behind her proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media, and face me directly." And late last night Justin Amash (I-MI) jumped into the fray as well... and I have to admit, I like this man's thinking on this matter:

The New Bipartisanship: Members Of Congress From Both Parties Who Glory In Corruption Hate AOC

Trump and Pelosi make common cause: they both hate AOC

Friday, the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (HR 2500) passed 220-197. Every Republican voted against it, along with 8 progressive Democrats (Earl Blumenauer, Adriano Espaillat, Barbara Lee, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Mark Pocan, Ayanna Pressley and Rashia Tlaib). The Republicans opposed it because it didn't allocate enough money to the Military Industrial Complex and because several amendments curtailed Trump's ability to abuse the Pentagon and the separation of powers. Many progressives opposed the bill’s $733 billion price tag, but agreed to support it if certain amendments pass, particularly the ones constraining Trump’s war powers.

There were dozens of amendments, some of which-- by Ted Lieu and Ro Khanna-- we've talked about in recent days. Most of the amendments offered by Democrats-- like Ted's and Ro's-- passed. But not the two offered by AOC. One would have kept Trump from sending troops to the border and another was meant to bar funds from keeping migrants in Department of Defense facilities, in effect turning them into concentration camps. Amendment 429 failed 179-241-- 52 Democrats joining all the Republicans to oppose it-- and Amendment 430 failed 173-245-- 58 Democrats joining all but one Texas Republican to oppose it.




Most of the AOC-hating Blue Dogs and New Dems opposed both amendments. Here's the whole list of the Democrats who voted against one or both of the AOC amendments-- in case you keep track of things like that (also included is each member's ProgressivePunch grade):

• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- F
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- F
• Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL)- F
• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)- F
• Lacy Clay (MO)- B
• Emanuel Cleaver (MO)- C
• TJ Cox (CA)- F
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- F
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)- F
• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)- F
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- F
• Antonio Delgado (NY)- F
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)- F
• Jared Golden (ME)- F
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- F
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- F
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- F
• Steven Horsford (New Dem-NV)- F
• Crissy Houlahan (New Dem-PA)- F
• Marcy Kaptur (OH)- F
• Andy Kim (NJ)- F
• Conor Lamb (PA)- F
• Al Lawson (New Dem-FL)- F
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- F
• Mark Levin (CA)- B
• Dave Loebsack (IA)- F
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- F
• Stephen Lynch (New Dem-MA)- F
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- F
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)- F
• Joe Morelle (NY)- F
• Seth Moulton (New Dem-MA)- F
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)- C
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- F
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- F
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- F
• Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN)- F
• Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY)- F
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)- F
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)- F
• Mary Gay Scanlon (PA)- B
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)- F
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)- F
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- F
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- F
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- F
• Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI)- F
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- F
• Lauren Underwood (IL)- F
• Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)- F
• Sue Wild (New Dem-PA)- F
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- F
• Salud Carbajal (New Dem-CA)- F
• Matt Cartwright (PA)- A
• Ed Case (Blue Dog-HI)- F
• Sean Casten (New Dem-IL)- F
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- F
• Val Demings (New Dem-FL)- F
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)- F
• Vicente González (Blue Dog-TX)- F
• Jahana Hayes (CT)- A
• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)- F
• Anne Kuster (New Dem-NH)- F
• Jim Langevin (RI)- C
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- F
• Chris Pappas (New Dem-NH)- B
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- F
• Katie Porter (CA)- F
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- F
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- F
• Jackie Speier (CA)- C
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)- D
• Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA)- F

• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)- F "present"

By the way, another reason conservatives voted against the Pentagon funding bill is because it includes an amendment by Jackie Speier reversing Trump's ban on transgender soldiers. That amendment passed 242-187, with 10 Republicans-- Susan Brooks (IN), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Trey Hollingsworth (IN), Will Hurd (TX), John Katko (NY), Tom Reed (NY), Elise Stefanik (NY), Steve Stivers (OH), Fred Upton (MI) and Greg Walden (OR)--voting with the Democrats for equality.

And then there's the good kind of bipartisanship-- working for the common good

And a nice little UPDATE from this morning, courtesy of Señor Trumpanzee's, the Internet's biggest troll-- although, please keep in mind that AOC was born in New York City, just like Trumpanzee, Ayanna Pressley was born in Cincinnati, one part of Ohio that voted against Trumpanzee in 2016 and Rashida Tlaib was born in Detroit, another part of the U.S. that had the good sense to firmly reject Trumpanzee in 2016.

And he's sure that Nancy would pay? Has she contradicted him?

And, by the way, an awful lot of people get the news from The View, which helps explain why so many voters are so misinformed and even stupid beyond redemption. It's not Fox News, of course, but it really is just as steeped in self-righteous ignorance.

Washington Politics-- Hopelessly Broken?

In his State of the Union interview Sunday with Jake Tapper, Justin Amash (I-MI), Amash was steadfast in his position that it isn't Trump-- who he obviously detests-- that caused him to leaved the GOP but Congress itself. He told Tapper he had made the decision to leave the party before he called for Congress to begin the impeachment process and before Mueller issued his report. While Tapper kept trying to get him to say something negative about Trump, Amash wanted to make the point that he "had concerns with the Republican Party for several years. I have had concerns with the party system generally. When I first got to Congress, I thought I could change things from the inside. But, as I have spent time there, I have seen that, not only me-- I don't think there's anyone in there who can change the system. It's pretty rigid. It's top-down. It comes down from leadership to the bottom. And, over the years, it's gotten more rigid. So it's more difficult now to actually change the process than it was even a few years ago... I think this term in Congress has really shown how bad it can get. When I started the House Freedom Caucus-- I was one of the founding members-- what we were fighting for was better process. We were fighting for a more open government, a more accountable government. We wanted members to have a voice in the process, so that we'd have a deliberative body and we'd be able to represent people back home, whatever the outcome. Sometimes, the outcomes would be more conservative. Sometimes, the outcomes would be more progressive. But whatever the outcome, we wanted to open it up. But, over the years, I have seen that people are just falling in line behind the leaders, including people in my own caucus, you know, which I left. So it's gotten worse and worse. And I think this was the term that really broke it for me."

AMASH: I have worked within the Republican Party. I have tried to make changes from within. My colleagues have tried to make changes from within. It hasn't worked. It's not working for anyone.

And I'm not the only one trying. I have colleagues who are trying every day, and who are frustrated. But they are not speaking out the same way.

I hope they will speak out.

But it's time to try something different. It's time to be a committed independent representative for my district, so that everyone back home knows where I stand, because, right now, when you go back home, you hear Republicans who don't trust you because you're not aligned with the president. You hear Democrats who don't trust you because you're a Republican.

And most of the people in my district do trust me, they respect me, they support me. And I want those people to know that I'm there for them. I'm there to represent every single person in the community.

TAPPER: But not having any power on a committee, doesn't that hurt your ability to serve your constituents?

AMASH: In today's politics, the committees have almost no power.

And I want people at home to understand that. Everything is really run top-down. When I say that, I mean it very literally. The speaker of the House very much controls the entire process. The speaker decides what comes out of committee.

When Speaker Ryan, our Republican speaker, was there, the-- I was on several committees, and nothing ever came out of the committees that wasn't approved by Speaker Ryan.

TAPPER: So, let me ask you about that, because I talked to Brendan Buck, who was a senior adviser to both Speaker Paul Ryan and to Speaker Boehner.

And he says one of the reasons why Congress isn't functioning as it should is because of the Freedom Caucus. That's the perspective of a lot of people in Republican leadership, as I'm sure you know.

Specifically, Buck said: "You can't have an honest conversation about partisanship and polarization in the last five years without acknowledging the role the Freedom Caucus played. They insisted on loyalty to their own tribe above all else, and drove this toxic notion that compromise is treason."

As you mentioned, you're a founding member of the Freedom Caucus. What's your response to that? Do you-- do you think that the Freedom Caucus deserves any blame for how things are going in Congress right now?

AMASH: So I don't want to speak for the Freedom Caucus today, since I'm no longer a member.

But I will say, when the Freedom Caucus was founded, the purpose was to open up the process. And the speaker of the House and his spokespeople have it totally backward. They were closing down the entire system. And members of the Freedom Caucus said, well, we need to band together to ensure that we open this up. We want to be able to offer amendments on the House floor.

Under Speaker Ryan, for example, for the first time in congressional history, we had a whole Congress where not a single member of Congress was able to go to the House floor and offer an amendment. It was the first time in history. It was the most closed Congress in history.

And now, under Speaker Pelosi, we have the same problem, where we're not allowed to go to the House floor and offer amendments.

So, the thing is closed down. We need to open it up. And, sometimes, you have to form a group like the Freedom Caucus to stand up to the establishment in Washington.

...TAPPER: You have said that people turn to-- into-- quote-- "zombies" when they come to Washington, because they're telling you things privately that are different than what they say publicly.

What are you hearing from fellow Republicans privately-- obviously, you don't have to mention their names-- about your decision and about being a Republican member of Congress in the Trump era?

AMASH: Well, I get people sending me text messages, people calling me, saying, "Thank you for what you're doing, great op-ed."

When I was discussing impeachment, I had fellow colleagues and other Republicans, high-level officials, contacting me, saying, "Thank you for what you're doing."

So there are lots of Republicans out there who are saying these things privately. But they're not saying it publicly. And I think that's a problem for our-- for our country. It's a problem for the Republican Party. It's a problem for the Democratic Party, when people aren't allowed to speak out.

So I-- I think we really need the American people to stand up and say, hey, enough is enough. We have had it with these two parties trying to ram their partisan nonsense down our throats week after week. We want a person to go represent us and be open and represent the entire community.

TAPPER: Are you running for reelection as an independent to Congress?

AMASH: Yes, I am.

TAPPER: You are? And you think you can win as an independent?

AMASH: Yes. I'm very confident about that... I feel confident about running in my district. I feel a close tie to my community. I feel-- I care a lot about my community. I want to represent them in Congress.

...TAPPER: So you have come out in support of impeaching or at least beginning the proceedings of impeaching President Trump.

You said there's no point in formally bringing articles of impeachment right now because Speaker Pelosi doesn't support it. Is she making a mistake? Do you think that the Democrats should be starting impeachment proceedings, based on the Mueller report, what's in there about potential obstruction of justice, which is the case you laid out?

AMASH: Yes, from a principled, moral position, she's making a mistake.

From a strategic position, she's making a mistake. If she believes, as I do, that there's impeachable conduct in there, then she should say so. She should tell the American people, we're going to move forward with impeachment hearings and potentially articles of impeachment.

When she says things like, "Oh, I think that we need to have the strongest case before we go forward," what she's telling the American people is, she doesn't think there's a strong case. If she doesn't think that, then she shouldn't open her mouth in the first place and say she thinks there's impeachable conduct. I do believe there's a strong case. I believe she believes there's a strong case. And, if so, she should move forward and make sure that the American people understand what's going on, because people at home aren't reading the Mueller report. Most people don't have time to read a 448-page report.

They expect their members of Congress to do the work for them. They want Speaker Pelosi to do the work. They want other members to do the work. And if she doesn't want to go forward, then we're going to have a big problem.

TAPPER: Last question.

How many of your Republican colleagues do you think have actually read the Mueller report?

AMASH: I think it's probably less than 15 percent.

And I would say that's probably the case on both sides of the aisle.

TAPPER: Do you think it's -- that, once anyone reads it, they would reach the same conclusion as you?

AMASH: I think a large number of them would reach the same conclusion.

There are some who would reach different conclusions. But when you look at the conduct in there, when you look at the evidence that's presented, I think basically anyone would be indicted for that conduct, anyone who is not the president of the United States.

I want to make a very sharp left turn now-- so hold onto your hat. While Amash was on the air with Tapper, Politico published a piece by Laura Barrón-López and Sally Goldenberg about anomie inside the House Democratic caucus over this cycle's primaries. Marie Newman, the progressive Democrat running against lousy Blue Dog incumbent Dan Lipinski in Chicagoland, read it as well and I got the feeling from something she said that she and Amash might see their respective parties similarly. It's not about careerism; it's about service. "For me," she said, "alignment with your district is everything. If current incumbents are not in alignment, yes they should be primaried for sure. However, if an incumbent is still in strong alignment and producing proactive ideas, we should not be primarying just to do it. As a party, we need to work with focus and clarity."

Newman has been a particular target of another venal Blue Dog working to turn the Democratic Party sharply to the right-- vicious careerist and Rahm Emanuel protégée, Cheri Bustos, now chair of the DCCC and the person who started the current anti-democracy movement inside the Democratic Party by decreeing a ban on primaries against incumbents, in effect, against Blue Dog and New Dem incumbents from her own Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Somehow, Barrón-López and Goldenberg managed to write this without once mentioning Bustos' name. Politico is so incredibly in the bag for the establishment it's barely worth repeating-- or always worth repeating.

Shahid Buttar is the progressive Democrat, an attorney and activist, taking on Pelosi in San Francisco this cycle. If he wins in 2020, it will be the second most important news after Trump losing. "The grassroots base of the Democratic Party," he told me yesterday, "has been misrepresented by career politicians for entirely too long. It was one thing to subject the country to a supposed bipartisan consensus on corporate rule that helped facilitate climate change, mass incarceration, and continuing human rights abuses. But the complicity of Democratic leaders with our criminal president is too much to bear. They've had their time, and either failed to stop Trump, or succeeded in creating him. Either way, We the People have had enough. I'm looking forward to replacing Nancy Pelosi in November 2020 and to pursuing our country's visionary future, starting with the progressive interests that Pelosi has impeded: universal healthcare, a robust response to the mounting global climate crisis, executive accountability, and human rights."

Barrón-López and Goldenberg seem to want to help create a narrative that blames the primaries-- all of which have been in the planning stages for many months at the least-- on the backlash against Pelosi's decision to help Trump fund his concentration camps. "Tensions inside the House Democratic Caucus," they wrote dramatically, "are running high after an ugly debate last month over legislation to provide emergency aid for the humanitarian crisis at the border. Progressives lambasted leadership and some centrists who backed the measure as 'child abusers' because it lacked money to improve hygiene and nutrition standards for detained children migrants. That Democratic firefight and others have inflamed liberals looking ahead to 2020, including the group that was behind now-Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset win last year. The raw emotions have many in the party wary of an all-out battle for the party’s soul in primaries from the presidential race all the way down to the congressional level." Isn't that what primaries are all about? And isn't in healthy? Go back to what Newman said: "alignment with your district is everything. If current incumbents are not in alignment, yes they should be primaried for sure. However, if an incumbent is still in strong alignment and producing proactive ideas, we should not be primarying just to do it. As a party, we need to work with focus and clarity." No one could expect Politico to explain what's wrong with that. But I would love to hear Bustos, Pelosi and Hoyer try.

Barrón-López and Goldenberg seem unaware that candidates around the country are mounting primaries against incumbents gone bad-- from Mark Gamba's fight to replace Kurt Schrader in Oregon and over a dozen looming in California to challenges to Pelosi East Coast allies like Steny Hoyer (MD), Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), Nita Lowey (NY), Carolyn Maloney (NY), Richard Neal (MA)... In fact, there are 88 incumbents facing primaries-- so far. Barrón-López and Goldenberg mentioned that super-corrupt Queens County machine boss, New Dem Gregory Meeks told them that he's preparing "and if somebody decides to run, we're ready. But you're not going to catch us by surprise." The reporters should have been prepared to ask them about former legislative aide and international rugby star, Shaniyat Chowdhury, who already is running a strong grassroots campaign against Meeks. He reminded us that in 2016 and 2018 just 10% of eligible voters even bothered to come out and vote, disdain for Meeks running so high. "He’s so corrupt that when he’s driving down the streets, he thinks home foreclosures are promotional ads for his real estate friends. He’s so out of touch, most people say 'who?' when asked who their representative is. If who was a person, they’d get more votes than my opponent and win." 

“Members are looking over their shoulders,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the chairman of the House budget committee. [Barrón-López and Goldenberg didn't bother to mention he's likely to be primaried by progressive state Rep. Attica Scott.]

...There are still questions about how far-reaching and organized the effort to remake the Democratic caucus in the House will be-- and whether it could jeopardize the party’s control of the chamber. But the uptick of actual and threatened primary challenges presents an additional headache for the party as it seeks to hang on to its majority next year. An Associated Press analysis found that 40 percent of currently declared Democratic challengers were in districts with sitting Democrats.

Immediately following the 2018 election, the progressive group Justice Democrats put incumbents on notice, vowing to focus on sitting Democrats. Six months later, they’ve only announced two recruits. The targets: seven-term Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas and 16-term Rep. Eliot Engel of New York.

...In an effort to hamstring primary challengers, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fired a warning shot to the party’s consultants in March, telling them that they risked losing the party committee’s business if they worked for anyone primarying a sitting member of Congress.

“The question that comes up all the time is: Is there anybody internally assisting and abetting, encouraging people to run against incumbents?” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), who has faced Democratic opponents in previous cycles, said of members and their staff. [Barrón-López and Goldenberg didn't bother to mention Pascrell already has 2 primary challengers, progressive activist Zina Spezakis and a guy named Alp Basaran.]

But the DCCC’s so-called blacklist has only inflamed tensions more. The left is trying to build an alternative consulting infrastructure to support these insurgent candidates. Two alums of Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign rolled out plans for a new firm last week, reported the Daily Beast.

...The 2020 election would hardly be the first cycle in which rebels in either party took aim at the establishment. Typically, they have little success: In 2018, just four House incumbents were defeated in primaries, two Democrats and two Republicans.

Justice Democrats hopes to be a galvanizing force to change that. The group plans to back opponents to sitting Democrats who don’t support progressive ideals, or who failed to use their position as lawmakers in more aggressive forms, they say.

Though promising to dedicate more attention to Democrats, the group is also open to getting involved in a small number districts that could be turned from red to blue, according to their executive director Alexandra Rojas.

Justice Democrats is potentially eyeing challenges to Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Don Beyer (D-VA), according to a source close to the group.

Rojas didn’t deny or confirm any of the names, instead saying “anywhere we haven't announced yet means that we may or may not have someone.”

Though members have expressed frustration and concern about primary challenges, there appears to be less fear among members about the power of Justice Democrats, which has struggled to fundraise and provide a clear picture about where they plan to invest their time.

The recent district attorney race in Queens highlighted the growing party divide, as New York lawmakers Gregory Meeks and House Democratic Chairman Hakeem Jeffries threw their weight behind the establishment candidate, Melinda Katz, the borough president. In a statement, days away from the primary, Meeks blasted Sanders and Warren for getting involved in the local race on behalf of the insurgent candidate.

The episode rankled progressive activists like Shaun King, a loyal Sanders supporter, who backed the outsider candidate, Tiffany Cabán.

"Meeks should absolutely be challenged and defeated for his seat in Congress,” said King, co-founder of the Real Justice PAC.

King then directed his ire toward Jeffries, who he said is “out of step” with the progressive base. King took issue with Jeffries’ support of Katz, the establishment-aligned candidate who is currently ahead by only 20 votes, with the count still ongoing.

“Jeffries continues to duck and dodge on impeachment, continues to fail to support Medicare For All, and seems more interested in rising up the ranks of power than actually taking bold stands for his constituents,” King said, adding that he thinks the caucus chairman, who is on a leadership fast-track, should be primaried “without hesitation.”

“The leadership of Congressman Hakeem Jeffries on criminal justice reform issues, including the dismantling of ‘stop-and-frisk’ in NYC, ending inmate-based gerrymandering in the state, electing former District Attorney Ken Thompson in Brooklyn and the recent passage of the Historic FIRST STEP act speaks for itself,” said Jeffries’ spokesperson Michael Hardaway. “If you don’t know, now you know.”

Asked if she agreed with King’s call for a primary challenge against Meeks and Jeffries, Rojas of the Justice Democrats dodged. “Every politician needs to be on notice,” she said.

But six months after Politico reported that Justice Democrats was weighing a potential challenge to Jeffries according to two sources with direct knowledge, the group has not produced a candidate against him or Meeks or any other New York lawmaker aside from Engel.

“[King] came into my district and tried to hold a rally and only eight people showed up,” said Meeks. “Come on after me. You think you can get me, come on.”

“I'm preparing; I know Hakeem is,” Meeks continued. “And if somebody decides to run, we're ready. But you're not going to catch us by surprise.”

Justice Democrats was doing God's work when they helped AOC win her "impossible" race to replace "the next Speaker," Joe Crowley. Hopefully they'll find other candidates as good and help bring them into Congress. But elections aren't about Justice Democrats, as much as Politico likes that narrative. Elections are about candidates... and if Justice Democrats have two so far, that's great... although that doesn't say much about the 86 others (and counting). You can help some of the candidates who have stepped forward far by contributing what you can to their campaigns. Just click on the Primarying a Blue Dog 2020 thermometer on the right, where you'll find carefully vetted progressive candidates Marie Newman (IL), Shaniyat Chowdhury (NY), Eva Putzova AZ) and Michael Owens (GA). 

Before he decided to take on Blue Dog David Scott in the suburbs south and southwest of Atlanta, David Owens had served as Cobb County Democratic Party chairman. He knows a lot about how the party works and he knows how tough primaries are for challengers. "This isn't a narrative about people primarying Democrat incumbents because it something cool to do. It is rooted in the awaking of people across the country who are demanding more of their elected officials and demanding that their voices count more than corporations and industry lobbyists. Many incumbents are finding themselves having to now look over their shoulder for challengers because they didn't bother to extend their hand  to the community in the past. The party has shifted towards values that are more progressive. And it isn't just the Democratic Party; millions of people in this country have shifted to more progressive stances on issues around health care, education, jobs, economic and environmental justice. These are platform issues that voters are demanding solutions to. Representatives who are unwilling to listen to what their constituents are asking for and instead continue to do the bidding of corporations will find themselves will a lot of free time on their hands next summer."

And now a few words from a former primary winner who helps explain what this mess in the Democratic Party really is all about.