Why Do Conservative Incumbents Always Fear Debates? Take Wisconsin...

The results of last Monday's debate between Trump and Clinton show something different than just why conservatives don't like debates. Those results-- demonstrated again just a couple of hours ago in an ABC News/Washington Post poll released this morning-- show why an ill-prepared, adderall-fueled sociopath spouting conservative talking points he could remember, should probably skip debates... or any public appearance in front of people with 3-digit IQs. The big takeaway from the ABC poll is that, post-debate, 64% of Americans now express an unfavorable opinion of Trump, up 5 points from its pre-debate level. Only 18% of respondents said they thought Trump won the debate and only 29% of respondents think Trump's responses were factual-- 32% saying he intentionally lied. What about down-ballot, where conservatives are doing their best to avoid debating challengers? In Wisconsin, the most notorious of the Trumpists is shady former TV reality actor and current congressman Sean Duffy.

Duffy has another long vacation in front of him. Paul Ryan adjourned the House a couple of days ago so that his members could go home and defend their seats. Duffy, Donald Trump's top congressional surrogate in Wisconsin, seems to be too busy campaigning for Trump to take his own constituents' concerns seriously up in a sprawling northern district that stretches from Castle Rock Lake, Marshfield and Wausau in central Wisconsin, way out into the Minneapolis suburbs and up to Superior across from Duluth in the northwest corner of the state. The progressive Democrat vying for the seat. Mary Hoeft, has asked him to join her in debating the issues in every corner of the district-- 6 open, well-publicized debates across WI-07. He has continually ducked the question of debates and turned down invitations from nonpartisan organizations offering to host them. Suddenly, last week, he peremptorily announced that debates are set for Nov. 3 and 4, when early voting has ended-- and when most weekly newspapers won't be able to report the debate results until after the election. He picked his two hometowns-- one that has no television station, and he picked his own panelists and has indicated that Mary can take it or leave it. He even decided on the debate rules (with no opening statements so Mary can't talk about the aspects of his record that are important to Wisconsin's working families nor how he mishandled the whole debate situation).

Mary, a stalwart progressive, is a Blue America-backed candidate-- you can contribute to her campaign here-- and after she won her primary, in a landslide, the district was crossed off the DCCC candidates list. They're resfusing to help her in any way at all, even though Obama won the district, 53-45% in 2008 and then lost narrowly to Romney in 2012 and even though Russ Feingold is expected to trounce Ron Johnson across WI-07 on November 8. Clinton is also doing well in WI-07 and looking like she's going to run up big margins in Douglas, Bayfield, Ashland, Washburn, Jackson, Clark, Rusk, Barron, Sawyer, Forest, Oneida, Price, Lincoln, Chippewa, Juneau, Burnett and even St. Croix and Marathon counties. This is a district the DCCC could win-- while helping Clinton clinch it-- if they would just get over their obsessive hatred for progressives.

We asked Mary to take a few minutes away from her busy campaign schedule and explain how Duffy has been able to avoid a healthy public debate of the issues.

Is Sean Duffy Still Afraid To Debate A Woman?
-by Mary Hoeft, Democratic candidate for Congress, WI-07

"You've listened to Howie rake my opponent, Sean Duffy, over the coals, and justifiably so.  I've been hesitant to go too hard on Duffy because of my Western Wisconsin Nice Girl Upbringing. But DAMN, that man's got me mad now (or maybe I've been around Howie too long). The white gloves are off.

For months, I've worked to get Sean Duffy to agree to debate me. He's scared. He doesn't want to stand in front of an audience while I tell people that he chairs the banking oversight committee and took $400,000 in "political gifts" from bankers. He doesn't want me to say he recently received the single largest donation any congressman received from Wells Fargo.  He doesn't want me to say he's praising  Wells Fargo CEO Stumpf while blaming underlings for the scandal Stumpf condoned.

To silence me, Duffy refused to respond to every nonpartisan invitation to debate we both received. And then, last week, I received a strange call. A Wausau television station called me, asking for my reaction to the debates Duffy and I had agreed to. I was dumbfounded, I asked, "What debates?" Duffy had sent out a news release announcing he would participate in two debates, on November 3 and 4, in his hometowns of Wausau and Hayward. He thanked his handpicked panelists for agreeing to participate. There was no mention of an opponent. Apparently he felt I wouldn't be participating and he would have the stage to himself.

Duffy thinks he can treat a woman this way. Two years ago, he was trounced by his opponent Kelly Westlund in their first debate and withdrew from the second two. Kelly Westlund scared him. He tasted what it was like to lose to a woman and he didn't like it.

Like Trump, Sean may think  he can pull this crap on a woman he recently labeled "radical liberal socialist university professor!" He's wrong. I've spoken to every television station in my district. Our campaign has written to every panelist who agreed to participate. I've written to every newspaper. And now, I'm writing to you. The movement has begun.

If enough people know that Sean Duffy has violated my first amendment right to freedom of speech, people may pay attention. Sean Duffy isn't only a Wall Street Water Boy, he's a deceptive, manipulative politician who is about to be exposed."  Thanks Howie and Thank You!"

In Congress Duffy has spent his time working for the Wall Street interests that underwrite his political career-- since being elected to Congress in 2010 and grabbing a seat on the House Financial Services Committee-- Duffy has scooped up a whopping $2,319,422 in bribes from the Finance sector. This cycle alone, the banksters-- grateful for his go-easy approach to their misdeeds on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee he chairs-- have given him $823,909, more than any other member of Congress from Wisconsin other than Speaker Ryan. Mary would like to turn the congressional seat into one where the interests of working families are put forward, not just rich campaign donors. Please consider helping her get her grassroots message out. Corporate America isn't contributing to her campaign and the DCCC is ignoring her; she's counting on us:



Raising The Minimum Wage Is A Potent Electoral Issue-- For Those Who Use It

PPP polled minimum wage as an issue in half a dozen battleground states with heavily-contested state-wide races, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Illinois, Kentucky and Louisiana. Support for increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 was strong across the board, ranging from 61% in Illinois to 53% in Wisconsin. Opposition was strongest in Wisconsin, but still weak at just 39%. One key finding should serve as a warning to conservative anti-minimum wage fanatics, like former Illinois gubernatorial front runner Bruce Rauner.

The opposition of Republican candidates to increasing the minimum wage makes voters less likely to support them— and that could make the difference in what are shaping up to be very tight races. Voters in these six states say they’re less likely to vote for the Republican candidate based on their stance on the minimum wage by anywhere from 6 all the way up to 30 points. These contests are all within 5 points right now in the HuffPo Pollster average of polls, indicating that having a position so unpopular with voters could really hurt the GOP candidates in these races:

PPP emphasizes other findings in the six states, including that GOP opposition to increasing the minimum wage “has the potential to keep on hurting Republicans beyond this year’s election. In the 4 states with key Senate races this year, voters say by an average 26 point margin that they will blame the Republicans over the Democrats if no minimum wage legislation is passed this year.” That number is strongest in Iowa where 53% of respondents said they would blame Republicans, while only 22% said they would blame Democrats, a gaping 31% gap. Blue America has been behind one candidate in Iowa this cycle, progressive stalwart, Pat Murphy, basically the only truly excellent challenger the DCCC is helping this year. Pat, a former Speaker of the Iowa House who has a clear record of relentless devotion to the interests of Iowa’s working families, had this to say about the minimum wage issue in his state:

"I have talked to many working families in Northeast Iowa about strengthening our middle class. Their concerns are the same ones I share, providing financial support to the family, putting kids through school and retiring with dignity. Folks working full time shouldn’t live in poverty, it’s that simple. We need to raise the minimum wage to $10.10. Folks across Iowa know its the right thing to do and will help strengthen our middle class. That’s what they are telling me. For too long have we had to endure policies that help only wealthiest in this country. Now its time to help grow our economy and help the hard working families succeed by raising the minimum wage.”

Like Murphy, the two candidates Blue America is backing in Wisconsin, Rob Zerban and Kelly Westlund, have been actively campaigning in their districts on the opposite ends of the state, to increase the minimum wage. Kelly: “For months, Mr. Duffy has refused to support an increase in the minimum wage of $7.25, even though he ‘struggles’ to make ends meet on his congressional salary of $174,000 a year. Recently, he said he could support an increase, but only if it was part of a package deal that included deregulation and tax breaks for employers. I find it appalling that we have a Congressman who isn't willing to help working class people unless it comes with special favors for big business and campaign contributors. We deserve better.”

Rob Zerban has been on the front lines, battling it out with GOP scrooge Paul Ryan for almost 4 years now— and chipping away at Ryan’s support in southeast Wisconsin. This morning he told us that "The popularity of increasing the minimum wage is not surprising. The economic recovery has primarily benefited a relatively small percentage of people. Mainly the wealthy and well connected are benefitting, leaving most Americans behind. Nobody should be working 40 hours a week and live below the poverty line. Profitable corporations need to pay a living wage so that their workers don't need our tax dollars to survive with assistance programs. Housing assistance, heating assistance, food assistance programs that we provide are subsidizing corporate profits when they exploit their workers by not paying a living wage."

There is no one on this page who doesn’t actively support expanding the minimum wage to at least $10.10. Steve Israel’s DCCC has screwed up this election cycle for Democrats. But we can elect these progressives while his reactionary Blue Dogs and Wall Street-owned New Dems sink into oblivion. Can I ask you to step up… again?

Kelly Westlund Cheddar Bomb… Today

Blue-America endorsed candidate Kelly Westlund (WI-07) is running for the massive 72-county swing district seat in the northern, ventral an western part of Wisconsin. Sean Duffy, a sad Paul Ryan stooge, currently occupies the seat, although Obama won it 53-45% in 2008 and lost narrowly in 2012, 51-48%. The district was represented for over 40 years years by Dave Obey, who has endorsed Kelly: "I’ve won 25 elections in Northern Wisconsin, so I know what it takes to win up here. You have to stand up for people who are struggling to make ends meet. You have to tell the truth, even when powerful interests oppose you. And you must demonstrate to voters that you have passion and strong beliefs, ones that cannot be bought off by corporate lobbyists. Kelly Westlund shows these qualities every day. While incumbent Republican Sean Duffy opposes raising the minimum wage and complains about how hard it is to make ends meet on a $174,000 congressional salary, Kelly Westlund thinks hard-working Wisconsinites deserve a raise. She’s smart, she’s fearless, and she’s a fighter."

That's why we endorsed her and that's why we're asking you to contribute to her Cheddar Bomb today. Twelve days ago, Wisconsin Republicans controlling all aspects of state government announced they are now requiring voter identification. It put a few things in perspective for Digby, John and myself. Right-wing politicians like Scott Walker, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan and Sean Duffy are cut from the same gray flannel: anti-union, anti-women, anti-minimum wage, beloved by the Tea Party and the Koch brothers. It’s simple. If they win, we all lose. Kelly Westlund and other Wisconsin progressives are leading the charge for a higher minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, and workers’ rights. It’s simple. If progressives win, we will change the course of politics in Wisconsin, and the nation.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) noticed how important this race is as well: "At a  time when so many working families are struggling with a difficult economy, Kelly Westlund is the right person to help get our economy on track. Her experience helping local communities develop good jobs is exactly the kind of common sense values we need to bring to Washington. I'm proud to endorse Kelly for the U.S. Congress."

And closer to home, Phil Neuenfeldt, President Wisconsin AFL-CIO, also jumped into the battle a few weeks ago. "We are proud to support Kelly Westlund for Congress," he said on behalf of Wisconsin working families. "Northern Wisconsin needs someone like Kelly who is ready to support the rights of working people on the job, fight for a living wage and take on the special interests in Washington. We know Kelly will work hard every day for working people and middle-class Wisconsinites. Kelly’s commitment to community and improving economic opportunity proves she is the best choice for Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District."

It probably won't surprise any DWT readers to know that Steve Israel has forbade the DCCC to assist Kelly. It may be a swing district but he's wasting most DCCC money on Blue Dogs and New Dems in much redder districts where they have no chance to win. Kelly does have a chance to win-- despite Israel's venal incompetence. Please consider helping her today here. She's asking for $7 contributions. Since August, Kelly's campaign has called 45,000 voters, knocked on 10,000 doors, and established 11 field offices. WI-07 is a battleground district between Scott Walker and Mary Burke. Helping Kelly's get out the vote effort today, is going to help guarantee the fate Walker has earned over the last 4 years.

Foolishly, Crackpot Republican Die-hards Are Still Running Their Crazy War Against Women

Study: Wisconsin Republicans fear and loathe women even more than other Republicans do

Today is the twentieth anniversary of Joe Biden's Violence Against Women Act, signed by Presdient Clinton on September 13, 1994. It had broad bipartisan support and passed the House 235-195 and the Senate 61-38. Needless to say, the opponents were conservatives, who almost immediately went into action trying to undercut it on every level after it became law. Reauthorizing VAWA has become more difficult as time went by, as fewer and fewer Republicans were willing to support something that flies so directly in the face of their cherished War Against Women.

The bill was introduced in the House on October 26, 1993 by Jack Brooks (D-TX), 131 Republicans voted against it; 46 Republicans voted for it. Shamefully 64 Democrats crossed the aisle in the other direction and voted with the Republicans, including Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Nathan Deal (then a Georgia Blue Dog, now a corrupt, right-wing Republican governor of that state), Ralph Hall (then a Texas Blue Dog who soon switched parties and is now completely senile and drooling on himself and was recently defeated for reelection in a primary), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) and Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV).

Some of the prominent Republicans who you are still familiar with but who voted in favor of men beating up women with impunity are Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), sick and deranged sex criminal Ken Calvert (R-CA), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), presidential wannabe Rob Portman (R-OH), sex-obsessed sociopath Rick Santorum (R-PA), and, of course, GOP felons Duke Cunningham (CA), Tom DeLay (TX), and Newt Gingrich (GA).

Among the anti-woman senators who voted in favor of violence against women only 7 are in the Senate today: Dan Coats (R-IN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John McCain (R-AZ), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Richard Shelby (R-AL). Larry Craig (R-ID) was forced to resign after it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he spent virtually all his spare time trolling men's restrooms in airports and train stations looking for men to perform fellatio on; several of the most vehement GOP misogynists finally died and went to Hell-- like Strom Thurmond (R-SC) and Jesse Helms (R-NC), although most of them are lobbyists or in rest homes today.

The last time the House voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, the GOP rammed through a weakened version that passed 222-205 while the actual reauthorization was defeated 187-236. Shockingly, only two Republicans voted for it. The Senate then went ahead and passed the real bill on February 12, 2013 with only 22 of the most virulent anti-women right-wing idiots in the history of Congress voting no-- all the regular suspects, like Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Thune (R-SD), Miss McConnell (R-TX), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (R-AL), etc. The Senate version was then shoved up the House's ass because of public outrage and it passed 286-138 every single Democrat + 87 Republicans voting YES, but with 138 Republicans still proudly waving their anti-women flags (including Tennessee rapist Scott DesJarlais).

Although it is an entirely different bill, Republican opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, stems from the same sick, toxic worldview and hatred for and fear of women. On June 5, 2012 the Republicans were able to filibuster it to death in the Senate, even fake moderate Susan Collins (R-ME) voting to continue the filibuster. When the Democrats brought it up again this year, on April 9, the GOP successfully filibustered it again. Paycheck fairness, they made clear, is not something they believe in.

Because Senate Republicans keep killing it with filibusters, the House Republicans can keep it buried in committee. However, this week, miraculously, the Democrats overcame a Republican filibuster and now there will at least be an up or down vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act itself… at least in the Senate. The cloture vote passed 73-25, 18 Republicans trying to avoid the grief of another anti-women vote so close to the midterm election. (Of course, most of the die-hard haters-- folks like Ted Cruz, Jim Inhofe, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, and sex pervert David "Diapers" Vitter-- happily filibustered away.

So that may put the House in an awkward position. The GOP strategy has been to bottle the bill up in John Kline's Education and the Workforce Committee and just let it die there. If it passes out of the Senate, that will make that strategy less effective and the pressure of Kline particularly will become intense. His Democratic opponent, Mike Obermueller, is already turning up the heat.

"It's not surprising that there would be strong bipartisan support for the Paycheck Fairness Act," he told voters in Minnesota this week. "This bill will help make sure that women get equal pay for equal work and will prevent employers from firing a female employee just because she asks her male co-worker how much he makes. Everyone in our country deserves a level playing field to work with and people here in Minnesota want action on this important middle class issue. Out in Washington D.C., Congressman John Kline doesn't seem to be listening, as he has been sitting on the Paycheck Fairness Act in his House committee for months. Nearly 200 members of Congress have demanded that the Paycheck Fairness Act be brought to the floor for a vote. Congressman Kline should immediately move this bill out of his committee and onto the House floor, where I predict it will pass with broad bipartisan support as well."

Obermueller is correct. If the bill gets to the floor of the House is should have smooth sailing. Most of the anti-women Blue Dogs who would vote against this kind of thing were defeated in 2010 and the handful of asshole left aren't enough to make a difference. And there are enough Republicans in precarious positions electorally-- despite Steve Israel's malpractice in running the DCCC-- to make it too dangerous for at least a couple dozen Republicans to vote NO on Paycheck Fairness. These dozen vulnerable Republicans, for example, wouldn't dare further piss off women voters in their districts by voting no:

• Fred Upton (MI-06)
• Dave Reichert (WA-08)
• Rodney Davis (IL-13)
• Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
• David Valadaio (CA-21)
• Chris Gibson (NY-19)
• Mike Coffman (CO-06)
• Joe Heck (NV-03)
• Peter King (NY-02)
• Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
• Jeff Denham (CA-10)
• Sean Duffy (WI-07)

Speaking of Sean Duffy, Wisconsin Republicans repealed the state's own statewide equal pay law a couple of years ago when they won control of both houses of the legislature and the governor's mansion. It's what Republicans do when they get the chance. In November Duffy is facing Blue America-backed Kelly Westlund in a swing district being ignored by the DCCC. Duffy is vulnerable and Westlund has been a strong and articulate advocate for equality. Yesterday she told us that "Ron Johnson's vote against paycheck fairness for women is, sadly, what we've come to expect from Republicans in Wisconsin. Sean Duffy voted against equal pay for equal work and co-sponsored Todd Akin's bill to redefine rape. Under Scott Walker's leadership, Wisconsin actually repealed the state version of the paycheck fairness law. This oppressive Republican Boys' Club has got to go."

All the Blue America candidates support equal pay for equal work and, going into the last months of the campaign, can all use whatever help you can afford to give them. Steve Israel has a deal to not go after any Republican committee chairmen or party leaders, like Upton, Ryan and Kline. He never has and until they throw his corrupt ass out of the DCCC, they never will. However… looks like someone else is riding to the rescue this year while Israel plays footsie with Boehner. The following statement from Mike Obermueller's campaign was issued last night in response to news that Kline had been selected for Bill Maher’s Flip-a-District contest:

“This news confirms what we’ve been hearing more and more of each day: folks in the second district are tired of John Kline, and they’re ready to kick him out office. People are fired up and are organizing across the district to remove him from a seat he’s become too comfortable in.

“From willingly shutting down the government as a political stunt, to holding up Equal Pay for Equal Work legislation, to trying to raise interest rates on student loans, Kline has proved again and again that he does not truly represent our neighbors in this district.

“We’re glad that the low-profile Kline is beginning to receive the attention he deserves for his actions. It’s a boost to everyone who has worked so hard on our campaign to know Kline is starting to be seen for the Tea Party congressman he is.

“Our momentum is building every day. And even with this attention, our efforts won’t change. We’re continuing to build our campaign on the strength of the grassroots organizing we know it will take to win this race.”

Suck on it, Steve Israel, you fucking crooked a-hole!

Stopping Militarization Of Local Police Departments

Below is a copy of the letter Blue America sent out to all members letter last night. We were eager to make sure everyone was aware that most Democrats joined the Republicans in voting against the amendment Grayson offered to just the brakes on excessive militarization of local police departments but that congressmembers who Blue America has helped get elected-- from Grayson himself, right up through last year's two big success stories, Matt Cartwright and Beto O'Rourke-- defied the leadership and voted for the amendment.

Our candidates this year are cut from the same stock. Shenna Bellows, for example, says she would have introduced companion legislation in the Senate. This was the letter:


When Alan Grayson brought up an Amendment to stop funding the extreme militarization of local police departments, the Republican House leadership flipped out and ordered it killed. Grayson outmaneuvered them by rounding up 19 Republicans to vote with him-- as well as some of the Blue Dogs like John Barrow and Jim Matheson who normally vote with Boehner. But the Republicans didn't need those 19 rebels and their pet Blue Dogs; this time they had the House Democratic leadership.

At the urging of the bill's Democratic floor manager, Military Industrial shill Pete Visclosky (D-IN), Hoyer and Pelosi gave the amendment an official thumbs down. Much to Grayson's dismay, 145 Democrats voted with the GOP against a bill that would halt using federal taxpayer dollars to arm local police with rocket launchers, tanks, guided missiles, mines, torpedoes, ballistic missiles, toxicological agents, grenade launchers and even nuclear weapons! Pelosi called Grayson's amendment "a blunt instrument." Every Democratic House leader voted against it: Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Wasserman Schultz, Van Hollen, Becerra, Crowley and, of course, the most odious of all, Steve Israel. And then came Ferguson, Missouri.

As a Blue America member there's a good chance you contributed to at least one of the 43 Democrats in the House who voted for the Grayson amendment. That's because the kind of candidates we help recruit and back are the kind of political leaders who think the same way Grayson does on matters like this.

Blue America was the first national PAC to back Donna Edwards-- at a time when Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer were working frantically to defeat her. She voted for the Grayson amendment. We backed Bruce Braley (IA) when he first ran for Congress. This year he has a tough Senate race but that didn't stop him from doing the right thing and getting behind Garyson's proposal. Last cycle, we fought hard for progressive insurgents Matt Cartwright (PA) and Beto O'Rourke (TX) who ran against entrenched, conservative Establishment stooges. Matt and Beto were slammed by Hoyer's political machine but your contributions helped get them over the line. They both ignored Hoyer and voted for the Grayson amendment. So did all these past Blue America candidates: Raul Grijalva (AZ), Keith Ellison (MN), Barbara Lee (CA), Jerry McNerney (CA), John Tierney (MA), Mike Honda (CA), Judy Chu (CA), Rush Holt (NJ).

Kelly Westlund is running for the northwest Wisconsin congressional seat (WI-07) that Paul Ryan clone Sean Duffy was able to grab when Dave Obey retired. And Duffy, like Ryan, voted against the Grayson amendment. Kelly strongly supports it. "Police should be able to protect themselves," she told us "but there is a difference between military tactics and law enforcement tactics. Adding military weaponry to a crowd control scenario only has the potential to escalate conflict. I stand with Representative Grayson to limit the funding of military weaponry to local law enforcement agencies."

This cycle, Blue America is attempting to help elect another strong batch of sterling progressives. We don't know what all the specific issues that will come up are, but we do know where these men and women are coming from and we feel confident that they will do the right thing, not serve the interests of Big Business and not dance to the tune of corrupt Beltway forces. 

August Primaries

There are quite a few of them but the ones progressives have a stake in, in chronological order, are Hawaii (August 9), Wisconsin (August 12), and then a late super-Tuesday on August 26 for Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma. That same day has primaries in Alaska, Missouri, Oregon and Vermont with interesting races but no races that pit a progressive against a shill from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Up top is the brand new video from one of the most grassroots campaigns anywhere, the Tom Guild campaign for the open Oklahoma City congressional seat. Guild came in a strong first in the 3-way June 24th primary, beating non-courageous, and conservative Establishment Democrat Al McAffrey:

• Tom Guild- 11,597 (42.1%)
• Al McAffrey- 8,505 (30.9%)
• Leona Leonard- 7,424 (27%)

McAffrey, who is being partially financed by Krumme Oil, has out-raised Guild but small contributions through ActBlue are keeping Guild competitive. OK-05 doesn't have an astronomical media market and Guild is using contributions to keep his ad on TV news shows and on a field operation and get out the vote effort.

Yesterday we took a brief look at the WI-07 primary, where a Republican right wing lunatic and gun fanatic, Mike Krsiean, switched his party registration so he could primary progressive Democrat Kelly Westlund in the race to replace Paul Ryan-clone Sean Duffy. The other Wisconsin primary to watch is in the southeast part of the state, WI-01, where an L.A.-based UFO conspiracy buff, Amar Kaleka, is challenging Rob Zerban (on the same day that a Republican marijuana activist named Jeremy Ryan is challenging Paul Ryan in the GOP primary. Republican crossbow expert Ryan Ryan says he will challenge whichever of the two Ryans wins when he's old enough to run in 2016.) So far Paul Ryan raised $6,938,372; Rob Zerban raised $494,878; Amar Kaleka raised $138,353; and neither Jeremy Ryan nor Ryan Ryan has raised enough to file with the FEC. In WI-07, Sean Duffy has raised $1,808,688; Kelly Westlund has raised $303,214; and Mike Krsiean and his 700 pound pig Barney are refusing to report their fundraising to the FEC.

There's an important primary in Phoenix, where Ed Pastor, first elected in 1991, is retiring from a super-blue district, AZ-07 (PVI D+16). Obama beat hometown boy John McCain there 65-34% and in 2012 wiped out Mitt Romney 72-27%. Whoever wins the Democratic primary August 26 will be the next congressmember. There are 4 Democratic candidates, Ruben Gallego, Randy Camacho, Jarrett Maupin and, from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, Mary Rose Wilcox. Gallego, who has been endorsed by Raul Grijalva, Dolores Huerta, MoveOn, the Sierra Club, Climate Hawks Vote and Daily Kos, is the progressive fave in the race and Mary Rose Wilcox is just another grotesquely conservative, corrupt EMILY's List pick. They're the only two who have raised any money-- $434,873 for Gallego and $335,656 for Wilcox. Celinda Lake has done the only published poll (May 22) and it shows Gallego leading Wilcox 38-32%.

Primary day in Hawaii, two weeks from yesterday, is really important and it features two races, one for Senate and one for the House, that pit shills from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party against proven progressives. The Senate race is a match-up between Senator Brian Schatz, one of the best members of the Senate-- right up there with Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin-- against a corrupt conservative New Dem, Colleen Hanabusa. Everything you need to know about the Senate primary is here. The House race is to replace Hanabusa in the seat she gave up to run against Schatz. The progressive in the race is Stanley Chang and he's being challenged by two conservatives, Mark Takai and Donna Kim. Back in May the Congressional Progressive Caucus endorsed Chang. Last week, Japanese-American congressman, Mark Takano, lied to his fellow caucus members and convinced them that his Japanese-American pal Takai is not really a conservative and railroaded them into making it a "dual endorsement." They should have known better because Takano, one of the least effective and least trustworthy members of the CPC, also went to bat for corrupt conservative Pete Aguilar (a New Dem) on behalf of DCCC chairman Steve Israel (a Blue Dog who was behind both Aguilar and Takai).

One of the CPC members I respect, even admire, sent me a note that explained how Takano had persuaded him and other members to go for the dual endorsement. I don't have permission to publish it but I will publish my own response to that member:

Yeah, I know. And Brat had no chance to beat Cantor either. So Stanley had "no chance" so you endorsed an anti-gay conservative who's slightly better on most things-- but not all-- than Donna Kim, splitting the progressive vote and guaranteeing that Kim will win. Sorry it took so long to get back to you but the electricity in my neighborhood was down all day 'til just now.

Takai talks a good game, but he's not a progressive, as I've been writing about on my blog.

Many Democrats including el presidente have "evolved" on marriage equality in recent years, but Takai's flip-flop is very recent and smacks of opportunism, which is how the press in Honolulu interpreted it. Takai voted no on civil unions twice and was in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2012. He only reversed his position after deciding to run for Congress, a few months ago. Does a "progressive" go from no on civil unions and pro-marriage amendment to yes on marriage in the blink of an eye?

Takai introduced bills to drug-test welfare recipients twice. He's terrible on choice. You mentioned emergency contraception as an issue that is important to you, but Takai has repeatedly said that he would vote for religious exemptions for hospitals that don't wish to offer emergency contraception, including in statements to the Hawaii Family Forum in 2010 and 2012. This is not ancient history.

You expressed concern about the polling, but the most recent poll (by Civil Beat) was conducted over two months ago. It had a sample size of 249 people and a margin of error of nearly 5%. This poll was in the field just 2 days after Stanley's first TV ad went live and right at the point where Stanley's campaign began ramping up their voter outreach. It does not reflect today's reality on the ground. The media in Hawaii paid barely any attention at all to this race until very recently, due to the high-profile primaries for Senate and Governor. In May, voters were not knowledgeable about the candidates and were only responding on the basis of name recognition.

Labor unions and other local organizations are notoriously risk-averse in their endorsements and tend to go for establishment figures. Stanley has gone out of his way to court labor and all the local unions like him. Many of the major unions like HGEA have decided to stay neutral in this race. The endorsement by Equality Hawaii is a joke. There was no questionnaire, no process, no interview; just a few board members getting together to back Takai. Equality Hawaii is widely mocked and hated by the progressive LGBT community in the state. Takai's endorsement by the Star-Advertiser is meaningless and they are very conservative, having endorsed the worst Democrat in contemporary Hawaii politics Mufi Hannemann (anti-equality so-called Democrat turned Independent this cycle) twice for Governor in 2010 and Congress in 2012. Needless to say, he lost both times.

I'm not sure what evidence Takai gave you for his strong ground game, but we have people on the ground in Honolulu and they are NOT seeing it. Except for Schatz, Stanley's campaign is the only one in the state that has a serious field operation. I'm talking about real voter outreach, not just appearances like sign-waving, which is what many in Hawaii mean when they talk about canvassing.

Kim said in this week's debate, when asked who she would vote for if she weren't running: "To be very honest, I would be supporting Mark Takai, because I've worked with Mark Takai for many years in the State House of Representatives. We get along very well and I respect Mark."

Takai is going through the motions to pander to the progressive community, and if you watch his talking points over the past several months you will notice this evolution. Sure, it's great that he's on our side now for some issues, but I have a hard time imagining him in the Progressive Caucus-- MAYBE the way Jared is-- and I very much doubt that he'll be a reliable progressive vote if elected. His interest first and foremost is bringing more military resources to Hawaii.

XXX, I don't expect anything better from Takano, but you got sold a bill of goods and I feel awful about it.

Endorsed Mark Takai, who has a virulently homophobic voting record, but… what the hell?

An Unstable Republican Jumps Into A Wisconsin Primary Against Kelly Westlund-- And He Has A Pig Named Barney Frank

Mike Krsiean (left) with his 700 pound Berkshire Boar (right), who he's named Barney Frank

Mike Krsiean is a Republican crackpot who envisions himself in Congress. His attempts to run as a Republican and as an independent have failed-- and failed miserably-- so he's decided to run as an anti-Choice/pro-gun "Democrat" pushing the Republican austerity agenda enumerated in Paul Ryan's budget. And he's taking his garden variety GOP ideas to a Democratic primary against progressive Kelly Westlund. Not that he's that garden variety. Even some of his fellow-right wingers find him and his conspiracy theories off the charts. And I wonder if he's the only member of the JFPO-- Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership-- to run for Congress. From an admirer: Krsiean says his "goal is to help steer the Democratic Party toward the right and constitutional integrity. Much like Ron Paul did within the Republican party… [I]f socialists can invade the Republican party and destroy unity, why can’t a constitutionalist invade the Democratic party and stir things up a bit and possibly take a primary?" I know he hates the Republican incumbent, Sean Duffy, but I haven't heard anyone ever refer to that particular reactionary Paul Ryan-clone as a socialist before.

Fortunately for residents of Wausau, Superior, Stevens Point and the rest of WI-07 in northwest Wisconsin, the Democrats are fielding one of the best candidates they have anywhere, Kelly Westlund, a young woman Blue America endorsed last year. As we noted at the time, Kelly has been an outspoken advocate for increasing the minimum wage and for expanding opportunity so that anyone can succeed based on talent and merit, not their family net worth or their ability to exploit tax loopholes. Her other Republican opponent, the one running as a Republican, Sean Duffy, refuses to support raising the minimum wage to a living wage for working people, and made a splash on the national stage by whining that he struggles to get by on his salary of a mere $174,000/year. Is it any wonder he is incapable of relating to the trials and problems of ordinary working Americans?

Kelly served on the Ashland City Council from 2011-2014. As a small business owner, she runs a consulting firm that partners with local farms, small businesses, local governments, and civic organizations to work on economic and community development projects. Westlund previously served as executive director for the Alliance for Sustainability and was an adjunct professor of sustainable community development at her alma mater, Northland College.

Last week, Norman Lear's organization, People for the American Way, announced their endorsement as well. PFAW Political Director Randy Borntrager: “Kelly Westlund is a fighter for fairness and equality, and she’s a strong voice for Wisconsin’s working families. Kelly is fighting for a  Congress that represents all people instead of just millionaires and corporations."

Yesterday, we spoke with her about one of the points she's been making in her campaign, the oppressive and dysfunctional nature of how American electoral campaigns are financed. "I've always been optimistic," she told us, "about the potential for positive change-- a political process that engages people in government to build a more equal and just society. Always up for a challenge, I like to go straight to the root of the problem. And when it comes to politics, money is the problem." Let me quote her verbatim:

I jumped into this race with my eyes wide open. I knew it would take a lot of money to win. But I come from a swing district with an average household income of less than $40k per year. There's an expectation that candidates come to the table with money in hand. I came to the table with a network of waitresses, teachers, farmers, and students-- not exactly millionaires on their best days.

But some candidates can be competitive, even if they don't have access to hundreds of thousands of dollars within the first few weeks of the campaig.

As a former City Councilor, nonprofit executive, and small business owner, I had all the qualifications. But qualifications didn't seem to matter. Instead, I was expected have significant wealth or immediate access to it. In too many cases, after all, that's what it takes to win.

It's no wonder the wealthy few have so much influence on our political process. No wonder working-class people aren't represented in Congress when both parties embrace a framework that translates wealth to political power.

It's wrong, whichever side of the aisle you're on.

Always the hard-nosed optimist, I'm working hard to show that there's a better way to do politics. I'm standing with workers, talking to voters, and taking the fight to my Tea Party congressman.

It's working. We have a solid team in place and the momentum is building every day. Polls show he's vulnerable. I'm viable, organized, and determined to lead by example. I know that we can do better, and I intend to do my part.

Having to raise funds while I'm running for office on campaign finance reform? The irony isn't lost on me. But we can't change the conversation-- in government OR political parties-- until we have different people sitting at the table.

At this link you'll find every post where we ever mentioned Kelly's name. And at this link you'll find an opportunity to seamlessly contribute to Kelly's grassroots campaign against the two Republicans running against her, pig rancher Mike Krsiean from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and Sean Duffy from the Holy Church of Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand Devotion. The second link's the more important one.

House Republicans And Blue Dogs Defeat Minimum Wage Increase

Yesterday the House passed the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act 228-295, generally along party lines. All but 4 (completely random) Republicans voted for it and all but 6 Democrats-- Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- voted against it. No biggie. More interesting, though, was an amendment Alan Grayson brought up.

Grayson has been more successful at putting together ad hoc coalitions to pass legislation than anyone else in Congress. This one, however was a bridge too far. He couldn't get a single Republican to sign on and the Blue Dogs were against it too. It failed 230-193. What Grayson-- and all the Democrats minus 5 of the most reactionary Blue Dogs in the House-- Barrow (GA), Rahall (WV), Schrader (OR), Matheson (UT) and Costa (CA)-- wanted to do was pass legislation to raise the minimum wage for federal workers.

The idea was to pass it to help lay the foundation for a $10.10 minimum wage in the private sector. But conservatives don't want to raise the minimum wage at all and they adamantly opposed it. Several were angry that Grayson forced a roll call vote so that they had to go on the record-- in an election year-- voting against a minimum wage increase, especially with progressives campaigning on that very issue. Take the huge swing district in northern Wisconsin, WI-07. Seam Duffy is a garden variety GOP hack and he opposes the minimum wage in general and opposes any kind of an increase in particular. But his Democratic opponent this year, Kelly Westlund, is campaigning hard on raising the minimum wage.

Kelly (who was endorsed by Blue America): "History and common sense tell us that the best way to restore economic growth is to provide some economic opportunity to those who don't already have it. Protecting earned benefits and increasing the minimum wage will put money into the pockets of people who will spend it, creating real economic stimulus that just doesn't happen when rich people get more tax cuts... Sean Duffy refuses to support raising the minimum wage to a living wage for working people, and then he complains that he struggles to get by on his salary of $174,000 a year... We've had 4 years of economic growth with some of the highest corporate profits and stock prices that we have seen in years, but wages are stagnant, inequality is growing, and upward mobility is at a standstill. Too many people see the American dream as an empty promise. It’s up to us to restore that promise."

Those statements are very similar to what other progressive candidates are saying around the country. And on the House floor Grayson said, "This amendment would end the federal government's practice of paying poverty wages to its workers, and hopefully set an example for the private sector to stop paying poverty wages to its workers. A fair day's work should result in a fair day's pay."

"As you know," Grayson wrote to all his House colleagues before the vote, "the President called on Congress to raise the minimum age to $10.10 earlier this year. Shortly thereafter, he signed an Executive Order to raise the minimum wage for people working on new federal service contracts. (There’s no reason for a federal employee to be making less than a contractor working in the same job.)"

There are almost no Democrats who aren't taking the same position on this Grayson and Westlund are. Sure you have the fake Democrats from the Republican wing of the party, like the 5 Blue Dogs who crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP. And then you have a tiny handful of conservative Democrats who are unfriendly towards the legitimate aspirations of working families. When Hawaii passed the $10.10 minimum wage bill this year, their very conservative Senate president, Donna Mercado Kim, led the opposition. And now she's running against progressive Stanley Chang for the Honolulu-based congressional seat. Chang, a former Elizabeth Warren law student, who's been endorsed by Grayson (as well as by Blue America), is using increasing the minimum wage as one of the top planks on his platform, a real contrast with Kim:

We need to raise the minimum wage and we need to do it now, because no one who works full time should live in poverty. I join President Obama in calling for a national minimum wage of $10.10 an hour. Last year alone, Wall Street bonuses in New York alone were $26.7 billion dollars. That is $11 billion more than the combined income of every minimum wage worker in the country. We can do better for working families.

America needs a raise, but the last time Congress approved an increase was 2009. This is why we need to pass legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 over three years and index it to inflation. Americans must be secure in the knowledge that rising prices will not threaten the value of their hard-earned paychecks.

Increasing the minimum wage has huge benefits for our economy as well. Workers who earn this wage are likely to spend their money on consumer goods, injecting much-needed economic stimulus. Leading economists have determined that better paid workers tend to stay in their jobs longer, reducing the cost in time and money of training new employees. With fewer Americans living below the poverty line, expenses for government benefits will decrease.

The DCCC is lending no assistance whatsoever to help elect Chang of Westlund-- Steve Israel hates progressives and does all he can to defeat them. But he is helping fellow anti-worker Blue Dogs John Barrow and Nick Rahall with millions of dollars. Don't waste your money on the DCCC. If you want to back candidates who support a progressive vision for the country, contribute to those candidates directly-- here.

You Not Wanting To Be Known For Something That You Have Done, Is Not The Same Thing As You Not Having Done It

Rachel Maddow does not play requests. "We will not," she explained, "stop reporting on the political actions, and the consequences of the political actions, of rich and powerful men, even if they send angry letters every time we do it." If you've read much of Thomas Frank's work, you probably have a good idea he's in the same boat. Frank's Salon article this morning, about the deal with the Devil business Republicans made with the racists and crackpots, will probably generate a lot of the same kind of angry letters the Koch brothers sent Maddow. If there was one thing worth reading over the weekend, though, that was it. It may be too dense and subtle for your average right-wing loon to set his hair on fire over, but… well I hope no one ever explains it to my Hate Talk Radio addicted brother-in-law before a family function.

Time was, the only place a guy could expound the mumbo-jumbo of the free market was in the country club locker room or the pages of Reader’s Digest. Spout off about it anywhere else and you’d be taken for a Bircher or some new strain of Jehovah’s Witness. After all, in the America of 1968, when the great backlash began, the average citizen, whether housewife or hardhat or salary-man, still had an all-too-vivid recollection of the Depression. Not to mention a fairly clear understanding of what social class was all about. Pushing laissez-faire ideology back then had all the prestige and credibility of hosting a Tupperware party.

But 30-odd years of culture war have changed all that. Mention “elites” these days and nobody thinks of factory owners or gated-community dwellers. Instead they assume that what you’re mad as hell about is the liberal media, or the pro-criminal judiciary, or the tenured radicals, or the know-it-all bureaucrats.

For the guys down at the country club all these inverted forms of class war worked spectacularly well. This is not to say that the right-wing culture warriors ever outsmarted the liberal college professors or shut down the Hollywood studios or repealed rock ’n’ roll. Shout though they might, they never quite got cultural history to stop. But what they did win was far more important: political power, a free hand to turn back the clock on such non-glamorous issues as welfare, taxes, OSHA, even the bankruptcy laws, for chrissake. Assuring their millionaire clients that culture war got the deregulatory job done, they simply averted their eyes as bizarre backlash variants flowered in the burned-over districts of conservatism: Posses Comitatus, backyard Confederacies mounting mini-secessions, crusades against Darwin.

For most of the duration of the 30-year backlash, the free-market faiths of the economists and the bosses were kept discreetly in the background. To be sure, market worship was always the established church in the halls of Republican power, but in public the chant was usually States’ Rights, or Down with Big Gummint, or Watch Out for Commies, or Speak English Goddammit. All Power to the Markets has never been too persuasive as a rallying cry.

So confidently did the right proceed from triumph to triumph, though, that eventually they forgot this. Inspired by a generous bull market and puffed up by a sense of historical righteousness so cocksure that it might have been lifted from The God That Failed, that old book in which ex-Communists disavowed their former convictions, the right evidently decided in the ’90s that the time had come to tell the world about the wonders of the market.

For all this vast and sparkling intellectual production, though, Americans hear surprisingly little about what it’s like to be managed. Perhaps the reason for this is because, when viewed from below, all the glittering, dazzling theories of management seem to come down to the same ugly thing. This is the lesson that Barbara Ehrenreich learns from the series of low-wage jobs that she works and then describes in bitter detail in her book Nickel and Dimed. Pious chatter about “free agents” and “empowered workers” may illuminate the covers of Fast Company and Business 2.0, but what strikes one most forcefully about the world of waitresses, maids and Wal-Mart workers that Ehrenreich enters is the overwhelming power of management, the intimidating array of advantages it holds in its endless war on wages. This is a place where even jobs like housecleaning have been Taylorized to extract maximum output from workers (“You know, all this was figured out with a stopwatch,” Ehrenreich is told by a proud manager at a maid service), where omnipresent personality and drug tests screen out those of assertive nature, where even the lowliest of employees are overseen by professional-grade hierarchs who crack the whip without remorse or relent, where workers are cautioned against “stealing time” from their employer by thinking about anything other than their immediate task, and where every bit of legal, moral, psychological, and anthropological guile available to advanced civilization is deployed to prevent the problem of pay from ever impeding the upward curve of profitability. This is the real story of life under markets.

The social panorama that Ehrenreich describes should stand as an eternal shrine to the god that sucked: slum housing that is only affordable if workers take on two jobs at once; exhausted maids eating packages of hot-dog buns for their meals; women in their 20s so enfeebled by this regimen that they can no longer lift the vacuum cleaners that the maid service demands they carry about on their backs; purse searches, drug tests, personality tests, corporate pep rallies. Were we not so determined to worship the market and its boogie-boarding billionaires, Ehrenreich suggests, we might even view their desperate, spent employees as philanthropists of a sort, giving selflessly of their well-being so that the comfortable might live even more comfortably. “They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for,” she writes; “they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high.”

These are the fruits of 30 years of culture war. Hell-bent to get government off our backs, you installed a tyrant infinitely better equipped to suck the joy out of life. Cuckoo to get God back in the schools, you enshrined a god of unappeasable malice. Raging against the snobs, you enthroned a rum bunch of two-fisted boodlers, upper-class twits, and hang-em-high moralists. Ain’t irony grand.

Earlier today, we looked at a report that Obama and the Democrats are shifting their emphasis away from economic inequality at the behest of party conservatives. I had left a message for the progressive Wisconsin Democrat, Kelly Westlund, running for Dave Obey's old seat now held by Big Business shill Sean Duffy, asking her for a comment. By the time we touched bases the post was already up. But her comment works just as well in regard to Tom Frank's essay. "The function of government," she asserted, "is to fight inequality. Call it what you want, but we can't address the problem if we're not willing to talk about it candidly. The fact is, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is disappearing. That's not good for anyone."

Most Congressional Warmongers Are Republicans, Of Course, But Plenty Of Democrats Are Too

Obama hasn't helped our country's image recover from 8 years of Bush-Cheney as much as everyone expected. In fact, the U.S. is looked at as the biggest threat to world peace-- by far.

Over 12 years into the so-called "Global War on Terror," the United States appears to be striking terror into the hearts of the rest of the world.

In their annual End of Year survey, Win/Gallup International found that the United States is considered the number one "greatest threat to peace in the world today" by people across the globe.

Who sees America as the biggest threat? People almost everyone, including here in North America, where the U.S. is considered the top threat to peace by 37% of Mexicans, 17% of Canadians and 13% of… Americans-- probably people who spend a lot of time watching John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham showboating on C-Span. Or maybe they tune into senile Califiornia Democrat Dianne Feinstein who said last week that "I think most important is that we take direct action now against ISIS."

Thursday, 23 House Republicans joined 142 Democrats in an attempt to require that no funds in the Department of Defense FY2015 Appropriations bill go towards combat operations in Iraq. That was an amendment Barbara Lee' proposed. Predictably, none of the Republicans being opposed this year by the Blue America candidates were among the Republicans who voted for peace.

With the exceptions of Paul Ryan and Sean Duffy, every Member of Congress from Wisconsin voted against financing more combat in Iraq, including Jim Sensenbrenner ®, Mark Pocan (D), Tom Petri ®, Ron Kind (New Dem), Reid Ribble ®, and Gwen Moore (D). We contacted Kelly Westlund, the progressive Democrat from Ashland who's running for the northern Wisconsin House seat currently held by Duffy. "Unlike Representative Duffy, who voted no on the amendment, I'm not willing to drag our service men and women into another prolonged conflict," she told us. "I don't want to provide any kind of military assistance until we have a better understanding of the situation and a plan to move forward… This is how a prolonged military presence starts. We must clearly define our objectives if we are providing assistance… The situation in Iraq is an extremely complicated and cannot be resolved immediately or with a simple solution. But, I am concerned with the President’s decision to send 300 military advisers to Iraq. Additional military force should not always be the answer.”

Our newest endorsee, Alan Cohn from the Tampa Bay/Polk County area (FL-15), is also running against a Republican warmonger, Tea Party extremist Dennis Ross, who-- unlike Florida conservative Republicans Bill Posey and Ted Yoho-- voted against curtailing a rush to war in Iraq again. "What's happening right now," Cohn told us today, "has been inevitable from the moment Dick Cheney lied us into this misguided war. It's still incredible to me we went into Iraq when our first priority after 9/11 should have been to get Osama Bin Laden and defeat Al Qaeda. Instead, we bungled two wars at the cost of the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers and we had to wait for a new president to bring Bin Laden to justice. I don't claim to know what the U.S. can do to fix Iraq but I am sure the answer isn't going to come from Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and their incompetent band of bunglers who are responsible for the situation which is tragically unfolding."

Another consistent warmonger through his 27 years in Congress was Fred Upton, who eagerly voted NO, even while fellow Michigan Republicans Justin Amash and Dan Benishek stood up and voted for peace. His opponent this year, Paul Clements, is in lone of the most important and winnable races of the cycle, one that Steve Israel at the DCCC refuse to get involved with. This is where national grassroots support can make a real difference.

"For 28 years," Clements told us, "Fred Upton has stood with those that seek to make war abroad while our communities in southwest Michigan suffer. Upton has received over $100,000 from the Defense sector over his career, and rewarded them kindly by supporting an agenda of endless war while cutting vital investments here at home. Just this year he voted for the Ryan budget that increases funding for defense spending while slashing vital programs for seniors, veterans and our future. We need independent leaders focused on making investments at home that improve our economy, education system and environment. That means holding those that push for endless war accountable and shifting budget priorities towards home and diplomacy. It doesn't matter to me if we have a Republican president stumbling into an indefensible sectarian civil war across the globe or a Democratic president doing the same thing. I want to represent the men and women of southwest Michigan and they are not interested in seeing our country, in John Quincy Adams words, 'go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.' Michigan has pressing problems of its own to deal with and a religious war between Sunnis and Shia is not part of it."

If, as a conscientious voter, you oppose getting involved in another Iraq war, it's not enough to just use the old rule of thumb that says Republicans are the culprits. sure, most of them are, but so are more than a few Democrats-- especially the ones being pushed the hardest by the DCCC and it's warmongering chairman, Steve Israel. Guarantee: no warmongers on this list of candidates.

When Wealth Controls The Agenda… Opportunity For Economic And Social Advancement Dries Up

This weekend's "must read" was Trip Gabriel's NY Times piece, 50 Years Into The War On Poverty, Hardship Hits Back. He writes that "much of McDowell County looks like a rural Detroit, with broken windows on shuttered businesses and homes crumbling from neglect." Ironically, "beginning in the 19th century, the rugged region produced more coal than any other county in West Virginia, but it got almost none of the wealth back as local investment." Today "nearly 47 percent of personal income in the county is from Social Security, disability insurance, food stamps and other federal programs… The poverty rate, 50 percent in 1960, declined-- partly as a result of federal benefits-- to 36 percent in 1970 and to 23.5 percent in 1980. But it soared to nearly 38 percent in 1990. For families with children, it now nears 41 percent."

McDowell County, the poorest in West Virginia, has been emblematic of entrenched American poverty for more than a half-century. John F. Kennedy campaigned here in 1960 and was so appalled that he promised to send help if elected president. His first executive order created the modern food stamp program, whose first recipients were McDowell County residents. When President Lyndon B. Johnson declared “unconditional war on poverty” in 1964, it was the squalor of Appalachia he had in mind. The federal programs that followed-- Medicare, Medicaid, free school lunches and others-- lifted tens of thousands above a subsistence standard of living.

But a half-century later, with the poverty rate again on the rise, hardship seems merely to have taken on a new face in McDowell County. The economy is declining along with the coal industry, towns are hollowed out as people flee, and communities are scarred by family dissolution, prescription drug abuse and a high rate of imprisonment.

Fifty years after the war on poverty began, its anniversary is being observed with academic conferences and ideological sparring-- often focused, explicitly or implicitly, on the “culture” of poor urban residents. Almost forgotten is how many ways poverty plays out in America, and how much long-term poverty is a rural problem.

Of the 353 most persistently poor counties in the United States-- defined by Washington as having had a poverty rate above 20 percent in each of the past three decades-- 85 percent are rural. They are clustered in distinct regions: Indian reservations in the West; Hispanic communities in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas; a band across the Deep South and along the Mississippi Delta with a majority black population; and Appalachia, largely white, which has supplied some of America’s iconic imagery of rural poverty since the Depression-era photos of Walker Evans.

Friends of Democracy wasn't focusing just on McDowell County or on West Virginia or on the rural counties that account for so much of America's poverty when they issued a report on how progressives can run against Big Money in politics and win. "Washington," they wrote, "is broken. Faith and trust in Congress is at a historic low. Issues that matter to the American people are falling to the wayside. You’re not running for office to perpetuate the status quo, you’re running to change it. To improve your community, strengthen your state and fix our country. The good news is running on fixing our broken campaign finance system is good for you as a candidate as much as it is good for the country. 7 out of 8 congressional candidates who ran on this issue in 2012 won-- we’re looking to double that number in 2014."

Just 11 percent of voters think that they are the priority of members of Congress. Too many voters have little faith that their needs factor into decisions that politicians make, believing that politicians instead cater to big donors and special interests instead.


Voters view Washington’s inability to address major issues of the day, like getting the economy back on track and solving our national energy policy, as the result of a broken political system that rewards the best fundraisers rather than those who can move ideas forward. The issue of money in politics is, in most voters’ minds, inextricably linked to addressing the major challenges confronting all of us, rather than a separate policy area on which to make yet another set of promises.

…Two bills in Congress are gaining great traction. In February 2014, two bills were introduced-- the Government By the People Act (H.R. 20), introduced by Leader Pelosi and Rep. Sarbanes (D-MD) with 130 original co-sponsors and the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 2023), introduced by Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin with 16 original co-sponsors. Both bills have unprecedented support from Democrats in Congress, political campaign donors, the traditional reform community as well as the larger progressive movement.

Polling shows that almost two-thirds of voters support passing an election law that would couple small donations with matching funds in exchange for taking no large campaign checks and an even bigger number of independent voters say that a candidate's position of campaign finance reform will be an important factor in their choice on election day. Voters don't like the idea of feeling disempowered by Big Money buying up democracy. Even voters in the reddest areas of the country. You may have read that Kansas-- which hasn't elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since the 1930s-- has a radical right governor, Sam Brownback, who just signed a bill guaranteeing that there will be no Medicaid Expansion in his state this year. Brownback is also the most hated governor in America and is very likely to lose his reelection bid-- to a Democrat-- in November. This month a poll showed Paul Davis beating Brownback 45-41%-- and by 48-35% among Independents. (Point of reference: Romney beat Obama in Kansas 60-38%, the Republican winning all but two of Kansas' 105 counties.)

Wisconsin is a much wealthier state than West Virginia. The medium household income is $50,395 as opposed to West Virginia's $38,482. But WI-07, the northwestern part of the state, has had a tougher time that most of the rest of the state. The medium household income is $45,868 and voters there see the connection between distorted wealth inequality and political power. The progressive Democrat running for Congress in the district this year is Kelly Westlund, who has been endorsed by Blue America. This morning she explained the connection:

"I knew our political process was broken when I decided to run for Congress, but I underestimated just how bad it really is. In a representative government, citizen voices ought to speak louder than campaign contributions, but as wealth consolidates at the very top, so does political power. The fact is, organizations on both sides of the aisle have embraced the money-driven approach to campaigning, and that means that the wealthy few can buy access to candidates and elected officials that regular people just can't afford. Equating money with free speech leaves the vast majority of middle- and working-class people at a serious disadvantage when it comes to engaging effectively in our shared democracy. I think that's wrong, and it's time we change it."

And speaking of disempowered voters, lets go back to West Virginia for a moment. In 2012 McDowell County also went for Romney and by an even greater margin than West Virginia as a whole-- 64-34%, two points better for the Republican than his statewide landslide. However, on the same day, Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin took 66% of the county's vote for governor and Democrat Joe Manchin took a startling 72% for the U.S. Senate seat. Democrat Nick Rahall was reelected to the House against Republican Rick Snuffer 65-35%. Short of kicking mass drug addiction, will getting Big Money out of politics turn things around for McDowell County? It's worth trying.

As Adam Liptak reported for the NY Times yesterday, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says "the court had made a disastrous wrong turn in its recent string of campaign finance rulings. "The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," he said. "It’s really wrong."

He talked about what he called a telling flaw in the opening sentence of last month’s big campaign finance ruling. He filled in some new details about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to the Citizens United decision. And he called for a constitutional amendment to address what he said was the grave threat to American democracy caused by the torrent of money in politics.