What Kind Of People Are Being Implanted Into The Defense Establishment By Trump-- Who Benefits And How?

 

Is secretive right-wing operative Ezra Cohen-Watnick actually paid by Russia?

This morning, David Sanger and Eric Schmitt reported for the NY Times that Trump is stuffing the Pentagon and the intel agencies with political hacks loyal to himself. To what end? they asked. "Trump," they wrote, "made the appointments of four top Pentagon officials, including a new acting defense secretary, this week, leaving civilian and military officials to interpret whether this indicated a change in approach in the final two months of his presidency." Ignoring the objections of General Paul Nakasone, director of the National Security Agency, Trump also installed Michael Ellis, a crackpot extremist, document leaker and former Devin Nunes aide, as a general counsel.

Officials and former officials interviewed by The Times yesterday "agreed that there was a large element of score-settling and attention-grabbing" by Señor Trumpanzee and his inner circle. The worst of the garbage Trump has put into position are Kashyap Patel [another lunatic Nunes aide], Anthony Tata and Ezra Cohen-Watnick, all "highly ideological Trump foot soldiers. Mr. Patel has a long history of trying to discredit the investigations into Russian interference, Mr. Tata’s nomination was withdrawn over the summer in part because he had called President Barack Obama a 'terrorist leader,' and Mr. Cohen-Watnick [almost surely a Putin spy] was quietly eased out of the National Security Council in 2017 after clashes with Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, then the national security adviser."

Related, Politico's Nancy Cook and Gabby Orr wrote early this morning, that "On Monday, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows gathered senior aides on a call. One of his goals: to plot the conservative policy moves they could push through in their final 10 weeks on immigration, trade, health care, China and school choice... Meadows was asking aides on the call to give him three goals by the end of the week that could be accomplished by Biden’s inauguration, according to two people briefed on the conversation. Since then, staffers have compiled a list of roughly 15 moves they could make through executive orders, executive actions or finalizing agency rules that they plan to pursue in the coming days, according to interviews with three administration officials." Trump is rarin' to go and hopes to start issuing "as soon as possible."

In addition to rolling out executive orders and actions, Trump’s plans for the next several weeks include firing Cabinet officials who have irked him or refused to follow his lead on investigations. He kicked off the axings Monday by tweet-firing Defense Secretary Mark Esper. In the coming weeks, Trump may also fire CIA Director Gina Haspel and FBI Director Christopher Wray. Haspel was spotted in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office on Tuesday afternoon.

Senator James Lankford (R-OK) has threatened Trump that if he doesn't stop the monkey business by tomorrow he will step in. Specifically, he is demanding that President-elect Biden be given the same intel briefings all presidents-elect get: access to presidential daily intelligence briefings.

"There's nothing wrong with Vice President Biden getting the briefings to be able to prepare himself and so that he can be ready-- the President's already getting those," Lankford said, adding that Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, a Democratic senator from California, also has the appropriate clearances to begin receiving briefings because she serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, also called for Biden to receive the briefings.

"As has been done in every other transition, the President should order that Biden and his team receive the PDB, as has been done in the past, even during the contested election of 2000," Warner said Wednesday. "It's simply irresponsible to withhold this in these uncertain times."

Do You Want To Catch The Coronavirus? No Guaranatees But You Could Probably Catch It In Tulsa On June 20

Tulsa is Oklahoma's second largest city with around 400,000 people and close to a million in the Tulsa metro area. It's the county seat of Tulsa County and extends into Osage, Rogers and Wagoner counties. If everything goes wrong for Trump-- as it appears to be now-- he's still going to win the 4 Confederate states Strom Thurmond won in 1948 + Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Oklahoma was Trump's third best-performing state in the 2016 election-- 65.32%. The Tulsa area-- minus the city itself (which was plenty Trumpy)-- was even Trumpier than the rest of the state:

• Osage- 66.31%
• Rogers- 75.65%
• Tulsa- 58.39%
• Wagoner- 73.50%

By way of comparison, Trump's worst-performing county in the state was Oklahoma County, where he beat Hillary 141,569 (51.68%) to 112,813 (41.18%). In other words, the state is a red hellhole and the Tulsa area is redder than the state in general.

The coronavirus pandemic is expanding in Oklahoma-- and Tulsa is even worse off than Oklahoma City. The cases per 100,000 statewide is 204. It is 200 per 100,000 in Oklahoma County and 237 per 100,000 in Tulsa County. Tulsa County has the highest number of cases in the state, 1,525. Wagoner and Osage counties in the Tulsa metro also have more cases per 100,000 than the statewide average.

So, crackpot narcissist Trump picked Tulsa's Bank of Oklahoma Center (BOK Center) arena for these its of his first "post"-COVID mass rally. An indoor arena and home of the Tulsa Oilers (an ice hockey team), it has 19,199 seats. The last big shows before the shutdown were Chance the Rapper, KISS and Tool. Among the events cancelled were the Black Crowes, Bon Jovi, Justin Bieber, and Tame Impala. Currently on the arena's schedule are Joe Rogan (Sept. 12), Vampire Weekend (Sept. 30), Def Leppard & ZZ Top (Oct. 3) and... Señor Trumpanzee and the MAGA Rally, June 20.

He was probably lying, but Trumpanzee campaign manager Brad Pascale claimed on Twitter over the weekend that they've "passed 800,000 tickets." I hope they don't jam them all into the arena because there are only 37 public restrooms and even in the best of circumstances, there are long lines... and folks urinating in places they shouldn't be.

Why go to all the trouble? Trump's going to win Oklahoma's 7 electoral votes anyway (and landslide majorities in the Tulsa metro). Well... this rally is just to make him feel good after all the bad polling from normal states lately. AP reputed that "health experts question the decision, citing the danger of infection spreading among the crowd and sparking outbreaks when people return to their homes. The Trump campaign itself acknowledges the risk in a waiver attendees must agree to absolving them of any responsibility should people get sick... Scientists believe the virus spreads far more easily in crowded enclosed spaces than it does outdoors, where circulating air has a better chance of dispersing virus particles. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outlines the highest risk events for transmission of the coronavirus this way: 'Large in-person gatherings where it is difficult for individuals to remain spaced at least 6 feet apart and attendees travel from outside the local area.' The CDC recommends cloth masks in places where people might shout or chant."

Citing the spike in cases, Bruce Dart, executive director of the Tulsa Health Department, said he wished the rally would postponed to a later date “when the virus isn’t as large a concern as it is today.”

“I think it’s an honor for Tulsa to have a sitting president want to come and visit our community, but not during a pandemic,” Dart said in an interview Saturday with the Tulsa World. “I’m concerned about our ability to protect anyone who attends a large, indoor event, and I’m also concerned about our ability to ensure the president stays safe as well.”

Dart said the risk of spreading the virus increases with higher numbers of people congregating for longer periods of time.

Oklahoma health authorities said that anyone who attends a large public event should get tested for COVID-19 shortly afterward.

Shelley Payne, director of the LaMontagne Center for Infectious Disease at the University of Texas at Austin, said the Trump rally meets every criteria for the riskiest type of event.

“I would certainly recommend that people wear masks and try to keep as much distance as possible,” Payne said.

Julie Fischer, an associate research professor of microbiology and immunology at Georgetown University, said the event could have wide repercussions for the country.

“With a little bad luck, that scenario could end in the seeding of community outbreaks of COVID-19 across the U.S.,” she said.

The Trump campaign has declined to respond to repeated questions about whether it will require attendees to wear masks, socially distance or take other measures to reduce the risk of virus transmission.

Trump has made clear that he believes empty seats are bad optics. “I can’t imagine a rally where you have every fourth seat full. Every-- every six seats are empty for every one that you have full. That wouldn’t look too good,” he said in April.

...Trump has been eager to resume the rallies that are the centerpiece of his campaign. The president revels in his large crowds. The events let him vent and gauge the kind of rhetoric that will appeal to his ardent political base. They also help his campaign expand its voter databases and will serve as a contrast to Democratic challenger Biden, who has suspended campaign events because of the virus and hasn’t attracted the same size of crowds.

But the decision to pull the trigger now was driven, in large part, by the mass anti-racism protests that have taken place across the country in the wake of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis. Campaign and White House officials say the protests-- and the limited public health outcry they generated-- gave them cover. If it was OK for tens of thousands of people to march through the streets, demanding racial justice, why can’t Trump rally his supporters, too?

Of course, the protests were held outside, with many participants wearing masks.

“Any large gathering, whether of protesters or ralliers, is dangerous,” Jha said. But infection is less likely at an outdoors moving march than at a crowded event in an enclosed space, he said, citing the air flow.

The Trump campaign, in recognition of the risk, has tried to protect itself from lawsuits with waiver language on its registration website.

“By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present,” the campaign advised those signing up for the rally. “By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.” liable for illness or injury.

This morning, the biggest newspaper in eastern Oklahoma, the Tulsa World, published an editorial: This is the wrong time and Tulsa is the wrong place for the Trump rally. "Tulsa," wrong the editors, "is still dealing with the challenges created by a pandemic. The city and state have authorized reopening, but that doesn’t make a mass indoor gathering of people pressed closely together and cheering a good idea. There is no treatment for COVID-19 and no vaccine. It will be our health care system that will have to deal with whatever effects follow... There’s no reason to think a Trump appearance in Tulsa will have any effect on November’s election outcome in Tulsa or Oklahoma. It has already concentrated the world’s attention of the fact that Trump will be rallying in a city that 99 years ago was the site of a bloody race massacre. This is the wrong place for the rally. When the president of the United States visits your city, it should be exciting. We think a Trump visit will be, but for a lot of the wrong reasons, and we can’t welcome it."

Note to potential widows: if your husband goes and contracts COVID-19 and gives it to your children and parents and then he and they all die, you are not bound by the waver and you can sue Trump and the BOK Center. Also, if you go to the rally dressed like this, you will probably be safe. (On CNN's State of the Union yesterday, James Lankford confirmed he's attending the Tulsa Hate Fest but refused to confirm whether or not he'll be wearing a mask. Ever the leader-of-men, Lankford told Jake Tapper that "You see actually very few masks in Oklahoma now. There are still some that use masks. But we encourage people strongly if they’re high-risk individuals, if they’re older individuals, if they have other health issues not to get out even with a mask." Lankford was either consciously lying or incredibly stupid when he told Tapper how great Oklahoma is doing. It isn't. The How We Open Safely website ranks Oklahoma as one of the worst states, not one of the best nor even trending well. The increase in cases over the last two weeks was an astounding 128%, which practically makes Lankford's comments on CNN yesterday criminal! And as far as Intensive Care Unit availability Oklahoma's is dangerously low (35%) and the state is only testing 60% of the U.S. daily recommendation.

Which Side Will James Lankford Take In The Coming Evangelical Civil War?

In 2009 James Lankford stepped down as as the student ministries and evangelism specialist for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma and as director of the youth programming at the Falls Creek Baptist Conference Center in Davis, Oklahoma to run for Congress. His voting record is pure Trumpist and even before Trump, his record was fanatically far right. He claims to believe deeply in Jesus Christ. And yet, for example, he’s an anti-LGBTQ warrior. And so on. In the video of his appearance on Face the Nation Sunday he talked about how a president should be a role model for the nation’s youth and then offered a scathing indictment of the president from whom he has been a lockstep supporter.

“I don’t think that President Trump as a person is a role model for a lot of different youth. That’s just me personally. I don’t like the way that he tweets… some of the things that he says, his word choices at times are not my word choices. He comes across with more New York City swagger than I do from the Midwest and definitely not the way that I’m raising my kids… It’s also been a grand challenge to be able to say, for a person of faith, for a person who believes that there is a right way to go on things I wish that he did. And he was more of a role model in those areas. Now, saying all that, on the area of life where I'm very passionate about, on the issues of abortion, for instance. He's been tenaciously pro-life. He's focused on putting people around him that are very focused on religious liberty, not honoring a particular faith, but honoring any person of any faith to go be able to live and practice that faith and to have respect for that. That's helpful for any person of faith. And to be able to say, give me the space to be able to live my faith and to be able to put people into the administration that will also allow that and encourage that. So for people of faith, it's a bit of a conundrum at times that I look at some of the moral decisions that he's made and go, I disagree with that. But he's also been very, very protective of areas like life and very protective of areas of religious liberty to be able to allow people to be able to live their faith out. And at the end of the day, what we're really looking for in an administration is folks that allow us to be able to live our principles.”

Recently, a group of evangelical pastors and supporters under the rubric of Vote Common Good asked, “What brings you hope? Is it, as Mr. Rogers once famously said, ‘Looking for the helpers’ Is it remembering all the times where love won in the past and having faith that it will happen again? Is it a blind optimism, undamped by the cynicism of the world?  For us, hope is more than just an emotion, it is a way of living. Hope isn’t just that comes to us in life, it is a reason that we live. Hope is essential, it is growing, and it will not be put out. Hope is here, and in 2020, it will trump hate.”

In 2020, their hope will become action as they organize and host the Faith, Hope and the Common Good Summit & Presidential Forum is Des Moines. The summit “will serve as a training for citizens, faith leaders, community organizers, activists, and political candidates on engaging in civic life and the common good” and shortly after the summit, they will begin their Faith, Hope, and Love for a Change on Election Day 2020 National Bus Tour, traveling to every single state to speak with voters of faith and conscience. Their goal with the tour is “to reach those who want to see our common good be elevated, and to encourage those who have been awakened since 2016. In short, 2020 is the year where our hope comes alive.” In 2018 their tour took them from coast to coast where they introduced Democratic candidates to evangelical voters. In CA-45 they helped Katie Porter win a red Orange County seat. In IA-04 and TX-10 they helped bring J.D. Scholten and Mike Siegel closer to election than anyone could have imagined. This cycle they will be working to help both Scholten and Siegel with evangelical voters again.

Writing for the MaddowBlog the day after Christmas, Steve Benen noted that the civil war brewing in the evangelical movement could be catastrophic for the Trump reelection efforts. Evangelicals-- like Lankford-- have overlooked his tsunami of personal failings to get a step up on their innate hatred and bigotry and to see right-wing judges appointed to courts high and low. Benen wrote that “And while it’s best not to overstate matters-- polling suggests Trump’s support among evangelical Christians is much higher than among Americans in general-- these divisions and public conflicts are exactly what the president’s re-election campaign hoped to avoid. For his part, the Washington Post’s Michael Gerson wrote in his latest column, ‘Christians are called to be representatives of God’s kingdom in the life of this world. Betraying that role not only hurts the reputation of evangelicalism; it does a nasty disservice to the reputation of the Gospel.’ That’s almost certainly not what the White House wants to hear.”

An OpEd by Mario Nicolais in the Colorado Sun on Sunday asked if a generational divide over Trump could lead to an evangelical exodus. He wrote of the war of words in evangelical publications between Mark Galli, Timothy Dalrymple and Napp Nazworth and the old guard of the anti-Jesus sell-outs like Trumpists Ralph Reed, Franklin Graham and James Dobson.

For political purposes, depending on whom you believe, the rift either represents the ramblings of an elitist few or the full-fledged veil of the evangelical temple rent in two. The latter represents not just an existential crisis for Trump and his presidency, but a long-term quandary for all Republicans.

In 2018, white, born-again/evangelical Christians supported Republicans running for Congress at a clip of 75%. No other major religious group eclipsed 56%. Any significant dip in those numbers could cause a ripple effect across the electoral spectrum. Republicans simply have no obvious alternative to replace lost evangelical voters.

Unfortunately for them, that is precisely what some analysts already predict. Earlier this year, the left-of-center FiveThirtyEight website released data that young white evangelicals support for Trump had softened. As younger evangelicals tended to be more liberal on immigration and LGBT rights, their support for Trump teetered.

…Now that generational divide may be super-charged by Galli, Dalrymple and Nazworth. Already leery of Trump and other Republicans, the moral cover provided by CT and its allies may grant young evangelical voters the freedom to abandon the party of their parents.

If that abandonment takes place within the next 10 months, the six days before this Christmas may prove to be the most consequential for the Republican Party in decades.

Doug Pagitt, executive director of Vote Common Good, pointed out that theTrumpist faction “got spooked and I think they realized, ‘we don’t have a handle on the many factions.’ You know you’re in trouble when your argument now is, ‘I don’t have all the evangelicals. We just have some and some are breaking off.’ That’s the beginning of a collapse, and that’s something some of us have been saying all along. It feels to a lot of us that the things we were going to say come November 2020 felt like they needed to be said here in December. Impeachment feels like it’s an issue of national crisis, whereas election just feels like it’s part of the natural cycle.”

Do You Think Mueller Will Have A Couple Of Flynns Arrested This Week Or Next Week?

Yesterday, NBC broke the news most of all have surmised, namely that Mueller has enough evidence on Flynn to bring charges against him and his crackpot son (the one who was pushing the story about Hillary running a child prostitution business from the basement of a popular DC pizzeria (that has no basement). Their team of reporters asserts flatly that Mueller's team has "gathered enough evidence to bring charges in their investigation of President Donald Trump's former national security adviser and his son as part of the probe into Russia's intervention in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation... Mueller is applying renewed pressure on Flynn following his indictment of Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort." The big point of leverage has to do with Flynn lying to investigators about his money-laundering, serious charges that could land him and his son in prison. Meet The Press was all over Putin-Gate yesterday too. Senators Warner (D-VA) and Lankford (R-OK):

Mueller's team is also examining whether Flynn attempted to orchestrate the removal of a chief rival of Turkish President Recep Erdogan from the U.S. to Turkey in exchange for millions of dollars, two officials said.

...Flynn's son, Michael G. Flynn, who worked closely with his father, accompanied him during the campaign and briefly worked on the presidential transition, could be indicted separately or at the same time as his father, according to three sources familiar with the investigation.

If the elder Flynn is willing to cooperate with investigators in order to help his son, two of the sources said, it could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences.

...Investigators also revealed Monday that former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had pleaded guilty to lying to federal officials and had been cooperating with Mueller's investigation.

If the senior Flynn is charged, he would be the first current or former Trump administration official formally accused of criminal wrongdoing by the Mueller team.

So far, the probe has only ensnared campaign officials, and the White House has argued that the connection to the president is minimal. An indictment of the president's former national security adviser and his son would scramble that dynamic.

...The FBI is also investigating former CIA Director Jim Woolsey's account to the Wall Street Journal-- which he confirmed to MSNBC-- that Flynn and Turkish officials discussed a potential plan to forcibly remove Gulen from the country in September 2016, according to sources close to Woolsey, who say the former director has spoken to FBI agents working for Mueller about the matter.

Flynn was fired in February following public revelations that he had lied to Vice President Pence about his dealings with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak.

Most hated occupant of the White House ever

Oklahoma's Clyde "Steve" Russell Is The Odd Man Out When It Comes To DACA

Lankford (R) & Guild (D) finally found something to agree on-- a humanitarian approach to DACA

This morning, we took a look at how Trump's DACA craziness is playing out in California and Texas. Did you imagine this could even help elect Democrats in states as beet red as Oklahoma. I'm sure it isn't news to you that the Blue America-backed candidate in the Oklahoma City-centered congressional district, Tom Guild, uses the hashtag #IStandwithDreamers. Yesterday he posted Trump's decision "will affect and disrupt the lives of 800,000 Dreamers, including 100,000 in Texas, many in the area of Southeast Texas already devastated by Harvey. This decision is heartless and will devastate the lives of hundreds of thousands of valuable and valued immigrants who were brought to the U.S. by their parents while they were young children. This action is divisive, undermines families, hurts our economy, and robs America of the talents of well-educated and productive immigrants who are integrated into the fabric of our society and often have little connection with the countries of origin of their parents who brought them to the U.S. 45 said he would deal with this issue with "great heart". Maybe he should visit the Wizard of Oz and ask for a new and improved and compassionate heart." It's the kind of statement we would expect from Tom (whose campaign you can help support here).

But Oklahoma's very conservative junior senator, James Lankford surprised a lot of fellow right-wingers both in DC and in Oklahoma on Monday when he seemed to take a more compassionate and reasonable stand than Trump and his supporters. Keep in mind that Lankford has the highest Trump adhesion score in the Senate, 95.8%, exactly the same as the other Oklahoma senatorial lunatic, Jim Inhofe. There's no one in the Senate with a higher Trump adhesion score!

And yet yesterday, Lankford said that "It is right for there to be consequences for those who intentionally entered this country illegally. However, we as Americans do not hold children legally accountable for the actions of their parents."

That puts Lankford, who formerly represented OK-05 in the House, at odds with his successor, crackpot xenophobe Steve Russell. Russell is a standard Tea Party nut and fervently anti-immigration. He adheres to the Tea Party view that Obama’s actions in adopting DACA by executive order was unconstitutional and we need rule of law and to remove DREAMers or any immigrants "breaking the law." He certainly isn’t criticizing Señor Trumpanzee over his pending action. Russell got his head taken off the last time he held a townhall-- in Shawnee in March-- and has kept his head down to avoid incoming since then, but no one expects him to say anything that will alienate Trump core voters in OK-05. Trump won the district 53.2% to 39.8%, Trump's worst performance among Oklahoma's 5 congressional districts. He won the other 4 with over 60%-- two with over 70%! There are 3 counties within OK-05, Oklahoma County, Pottawatomie County and Seminole County. It's worth noting that on primary day Oklahoma County voters were more enthusiastic about Bernie than about Trumpanzee. Bernie took 32,368 votes while Trump scored just 22,117, coming in third behind Rubio and Cruz. In Pottawatomie County Bernie took 3,400 votes and Trump took 2,309. And in Seminole County Bernie beat Trump 1,194 to 560.

The fools at the DCCC have written OK-05 off; they shouldn't. Voters there might not be interested in the status quo claptrap that Hillary was spewing and that the DCCC prefers but they loved what Bernie campaigned on-- which is very much what Tom Guild has also been campaigning on.

Not a statement Steve Russell wants his OK-05 constituents to see

Who Thinks Subsidizing Rich Sports Team Owners Is A Good Use Of Public Funds?

I was elected freshman class president at college and the first vote I remember taking on the student council was to oppose spending student funds on moleskin-- a cotton fabric some sports team wanted because it's resistant to wind and abrasion. Let them get their own moleskins; I had Fugs, Doors, Country Joe & the Fish, Who and Otis Redding concerts in mind, not to mention lectures by Timothy Leary and Julian Bond. Conservatives on the council didn't agree with me-- not on that vote, nor on any others... not ever. But I find myself on the same team with conservatives today when it comes to sports stadium funding. I haven't changed my ideas about public money going into sports. But wasn't I surprised to see this OpEd the other day by the New Jersey and Oklahoma state directors of the Koch Brothers' Americans For Prosperity opposing public funds for sports stadiums! It's also a story about two senators, Cory Booker (D-NJ) and James Lankford (R-OK), both reliably pro-corporate... until this issue came up. The idea is that "Maybe bringing together two senators from vastly different states and from widely different ideologies-- U.S. Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, and U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat-- will help inspire a fractious Congress to work together on a bipartisan bill to cut federal subsidies for sports stadiums."

The bill would end the federal tax giveaway for municipal bonds used to fund sports stadiums. It's a practice that has been going on for decades because shrewd team owners know that local politicians are under extreme political pressure from fans to make sure their beloved local teams don't move to greener pastures unless they get a handout.

Even if we ignore for a moment that such picking of winners and losers is a flagrant foul by the government, it's also a questionable use of federal tax dollars. "The federal government is responsible for a lot of important functions, but financing sports stadiums for multi-million dollar franchises is definitely not one of them," Sen. Lankford said in a statement.

Exempting the interest on municipal bonds from federal income taxes is a legitimate tool to lower the borrowing costs for cities to pay for public projects that serve to carry out core functions of government such as roads, sewer systems, and schools. Subsidizing ballparks for billionaire owners and millionaire players, however, shouldn't be part of the equation.

The carve-out hasn't been cheap. According to the Brookings Institution, the stadium loophole has cost federal taxpayers $3.2 billion for 36 professional sports facilities since 2000.

With the federal government $20 trillion in debt, excising this kind of pointless waste would seem to be the legislative equivalent of a slam dunk. But as with so much else in the federal tax code, it pays to be well-connected.

In 1986, when major tax reform was last enacted, there was a push to do away with federal welfare for stadiums. "We thought we shut down public financing to private sports stadiums in 1986," then-Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat told the New York Times a decade later, in reference to a similar measure introduced at that time.

But the subsidy lives on, like the hope that springs eternal in the fans of a team that gets to the championship game, only to see its dreams dashed yet again. (Sorry, Cleveland.)

So, here we are again, decades and billions of dollars later, and Congress is still trying to figure out a way to end this expensive handout.

It's a matter of simple fairness, according to Sen. Booker, whose home state lost the NBA's Nets to Brooklyn, where a new stadium was built with $161 million in federal subsidies. "It's not fair to finance these expensive projects on the backs of taxpayers, especially when wealthy teams end up reaping most of the benefits." The senator is right. Taxpayer subsidies mean that there are fewer state dollars to go around to address areas of true government need.

Congress should act to remove this misguided incentivizing of federal subsidies for stadium financing. If Washington gets out of the ballpark business, taxpayers will be the big winners.

These are the 10 current members of the Senate who have taken the biggest bribes from professional sports teams since 1990:

• John McCain (R-AZ)- $583,380
• Rob Portman (R-OH)- $225,083
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)- $219,100
• Bitch McConnell (R-KY)- $174,200
• Bill Nelson (D-FL)- $167,700
• Marco Rubio (R-FL)- $135,865
• Todd Young (R-IN)- $128,900
• John Cornyn (R-TX)- $128,000
• Mike Lee (R-UT)- $109,900
• Richard Burr (R-NC)- $109,500

And here are the 10 current members of the House who have taken the biggest bribes from professional sports teams since 1990:

• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)- $143,350
• Tom Rooney (R-FL)- $107,985
• Ron DeSantis (R-FL)- $104,502
• Steve Chabot (R-OH)- $101,450
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $88,214
• Richard Hudson (R-NC)- $85,800
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)- $74,625
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $71,250
• Fred Upton (R-MI)- $69,700
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $68,900

Mostly corrupt Republicans with a sprinkling of 2 of the very worst of the corrupt conservative House Democrats, Hoyer and Wasserman Schultz. What else is new?

How Will Economic Fairness Issues Play Out In The Midterm Elections

I found the above quote this morning on the Facebook page of Jason Thigpen, the North Carolina Republican-turned-progressive Democrat running for the House seat occupied by Walter Jones. What a contrast to the talk among House Republicans this morning-- the ones who have slashed the food stamps program so that every child and every vet who is struggling to survive on food stamps gets 20 fewer meals per month-- for starters; they have even more drastic more cuts to the program they want to pass this month. The Republicans in the House aren't talking about extending unemployment insurance for workers thrown out of their jobs because of wrong-headed conservative economic policies; they're talking about extending their heartless war against the poor. James Lankford, a Boehner lackey from Oklahoma and junior member of the House leadership team, who likes to loudly and incessantly proclaim he's a "man of God," whined to Politico that unemployment benefits to keep destitute families alive through rough time doesn't really help them. “Five-and-a-half years of emergency, temporary extensions stacks up at some point and I hear and understand all the statements about it stimulating the economy and all those things. The challenge is we continue to borrow another $6.5 billion from the future,” said Lankford. “The impression that I get is times are tough now, so we’ll make it tougher on our kids to make it easier on us. I just think that’s a problem.” What a pious, phony-baloney sack of shit! House Republicans, who claim there are millions of unfilled jobs that these lazy bums could take, say they don't see this as something worthy of their time or effort and are certain the whole thing will just disappear if they do nothing (their specialty). Boehner, on the verge of crocodile tears said on Wednesday that “We’re all concerned about those who have had a difficult time trying to find a job."

This morning, Lankford's Democratic opponent, Tom Guild, told us he finds Lankford’s comments and position "despicable. It seems with him, Christian charity stops with his family, and his wealthy donors. He complains about his own salary, and that the cost of his taxpayer-paid health insurance went up this year, but he refuses to help those who are desperate and down on their luck. It seems that $285,000+ in salary and benefits, many times more than he’s ever made in his life, is just not enough for someone of his regal bearing. He talks about the deficit, while refusing to acknowledge that it has been cut in half under Democrats since 2009. He never misses a chance to miss a chance to extend charity to Americans in need. His radical let them eat cake philosophy hurts 90%+ of the folks in the fifth congressional district of Oklahoma every day. He talks about hurting children. What about the children of those who won’t eat or have a permanent place to live because their parents can’t provide for them, because of his unreasonable position on virtually every issue affecting our fellow Americans?  Whether it is cutting foods stamps, college loans, and Pell grants; or undermining Head Start for children, and programs for seniors, we can always count on Mr. Lankford’s calloused and hard hearted philosophy, that causes him to be always missing in action when ordinary Americans need a hand up." If you'd like, you can help Tom's campaign replace Lankford here.

Republicans are making a multifaceted political and policy calculation. They think unemployment insurance is a broken program, and that most voters won’t label them coldhearted for allowing the stimulus-era program to expire. Not to mention that the totality of jobless benefits won’t disappear-- just extended benefits, which originated during the depths of the economic recession.

Senior Republican aides and lawmakers also believe that attacks over failing to act on jobless benefits will pass, similar to what happened when they ignored Obama’s pleas for gun control. But there’s danger in this approach. First, the preponderance of public polling shows support for such benefits. Republicans are three weeks away from their legislative retreat in Cambridge, Md., and as of right now, they have no legislative agenda. So if the Senate clears its unemployment bill, the House-- operating in an environment bereft of other legislative issues-- could feel pressure to move one.

Obama’s timing for his jobless benefit push coincides with the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty speech. High-profile Capitol Hill Republicans like Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio are using the occasion to promote their alternative to current social safety net policies.

At this stage, House Republicans say they will not craft their own extension of jobless benefits but instead will wait to see if the Senate can pass its legislation. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he is willing to consider a package that is “paid for and if there were provisions that we could agree to that would get our economy moving again and put the American people back to work.” Boehner said Wednesday that Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough called him just one week before the December recess to request he pass an extension of the benefits… [M]ost Hill Republicans are content with turning this issue around on Obama, incessantly saying that his request for additional benefits highlights failed economic policies.

A new Quinnipiac poll released this morning indicates that the GOP decision to prosecute this war against the working poor may be a bad idea. Most Americans support increasing the minimum wage-- and by a landslide-- and also want to see unemployment benefits extended.

American voters support 71 - 27 percent raising the minimum wage. Republican support is 52 - 45 percent. Given several options:

• 33 percent of voters say increase the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour;
• 18 percent say increase it from the current $7.25 per hour to something less than $10.10;
• 18 percent say increase it to more than $10.10 per hour;
• 27 percent say don't increase the minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage will lead businesses to cut jobs, voters say 50 - 45 percent, with Republicans seeing job cuts 68 - 29 percent and Democrats saying no 65 - 29 percent. Independent voters expect job cuts 51 - 45 percent.

Voters also support 58 - 37 percent extending unemployment benefits for three months. Support is 83 - 13 percent among Democrats and 54 - 41 percent among independent voters, with Republicans opposed 54 - 42 percent.

If a candidate for Congress supports extending jobless benefits, 33 percent are more likely to vote for that candidate, with 24 percent less likely and 40 percent who say it won't affect their vote. A candidate who supports raising the minimum wage wins 41 percent "more likely" support, with 18 percent "less likely" and 39 percent saying "no difference.

It's unclear how this will play out in the midterm elections. This morning, though, Rick Weiland, the independent populist Democrat running for the open Senate seat in South Dakota issued a statement that shows he's sure South Dakota voters will decide for whom to vote with these economic fairness issues in mind.

The Washington politicians who are demanding an end to unemployment compensation need a mirror and some serious moral counseling.

The idea that people who are actively seeking employment--but who remain unemployed in what remains the worst long-term job market since the Great Depression-- should be thrown under the bus to pay for continued tax breaks for multi-millionaires is, frankly, obscene. What you see in the mirror after saying that has got to be frightening, and it should be. It is the philosophy of power and privilege over right, a philosophy of unbridled greed that is opposed by every religion known to man, and it is absolutely wrong.

Mitch McConnell is demanding “spending cuts” to pay for unemployment compensation benefits and turning a blind eye to both off-shore tax havens, huge loopholes in the federal tax code and massive federal subsidies to corporations. McConnell and his big money allies claim with a straight face that we cannot afford a few dollars for the unemployed but that we can afford to let big money players escape taxation by parking their profits overseas or falsely calling them capital gains. Those tax dodges cost taxpayers, who have to make up for the money they let the rich not pay, billions and billions of dollars. If the Congress were not in the pocket of big money it would vote tomorrow to close those loopholes and use the funds raised to pay for unemployment compensation for Americans who cannot find work, and for lower taxes on everyday Americans who are lucky enough to have a job.

I am running against big money so I can be for the people on issues like this. I will vote in favor of Federal unemployment compensation so long as our unemployment rate remains at historically high levels, and I will vote to close tax loopholes for the very rich to pay for it. That is what hard working South Dakotans deserve and it is what I believe is the right thing to do as well.

Have you had enough of the tax and truth dodging coming from big money?

You can help Rick's campaign here.

Folks Need Health Care-- Even In Deep Red Oklahoma

OK, let's get back to where we left off at the 6AM post this morning-- the warning FDR gave us about GOP intentions. Except this time let's home in on healthcare. In fact let's home in on one very red state, Oklahoma and one congressional election in that state, the one that pits right wing extremist James Lankford against progressive Democrat Tom Guild in the Oklahoma City area. This is the most difficult race Blue America has taken on for the 2014 cycle. The district has a PVI of R+12 and Guild is anything but a Republican-lite Blue Dog. He's an outspoken advocate of single-payer, universal health care and would like to see Medicare expanded for anyone who wants to buy into it. Lankford, part of Boehner's House leadership, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 40 times and would love to repeal Social Security, the minimum wage, Medicare and every other aspect of the New Deal that made America into a middle class country. Last year (and in 2008) Obama lost the district 59-41%-- easily his best showing anywhere in the state, which gave Romney a 67-33% win over the president.

The extreme right, ALEC-dominated state legislature actually made it illegal for anyone to work to implement the AffordableCare Act! And yet, Oklahoma is a state where Obamacare can have a dramatic impact on the well-being of huge numbers of people. This is from a study the White House released yesterday about what effects repealing Obamacare, which is what Lanfkord has voted to do over and over and over, would be on this one state. "Helping ordinary Americans and businesses take advantage of the benefits of the health care law is a top priority for the President and Democrats in Congress," begins the report. "The Affordable Care Act does more than just give millions of uninsured Americans access to health insurance. It helps Americans who already have insurance feel more secure in their coverage, ensuring it'll be there when they need it. This is a pocketbook issue for many middle class families. In Oklahoma, the benefits of the health care law are real, and the repeal plan pushed by Republicans in Congress would undermine or eliminate them across the board, reversing critical consumer protections and driving up costs for millions of Americans. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, in Oklahoma:

• 811,000 individuals on private insurance have gained coverage for at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram, birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012. In the first eleven months of 2013 alone, an additional 358,200 people with Medicare have received at least one preventive service at no out of pocket cost.

• The up to 1,579,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, cancer, or diabetes-- including up to 218,000 children-- will no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher prices because of their health status or history.

• Approximately 774,000 Oklahomans have gained expanded mental health and substance use disorder benefits and/or federal parity protections.

• 647,000 uninsured Oklahomans will have new health insurance options through Medicaid or private health plans in the Marketplace.

• As a result of new policies that make sure premium dollars work for the consumer, not just the insurer, in the past year insurance companies have sent rebates averaging $92 per family to approximately 273,700 consumers.

• In the first ten months of 2013, 43,800 seniors and people with disabilities have saved on average $855 on prescription medications as the health care law closes Medicare’s so-called “donut hole.”

• 49,000 young adults have gained health insurance because they can now stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26.

• Individuals no longer have to worry about having their health benefits cut off after they reach a lifetime limit on benefits, and starting in January, 1,197,000 Oklahomans will no longer have to worry about annual limits, either.

• Health centers have received $61,585,000 to provide primary care, establish new sites, and renovate existing centers to expand access to quality health care. Oklahoma has approximately 85 health center sites, which served about 148,000 individuals in 2012.

The report also points out that Oklahoma Republicans in Congress like Lankford, "instead of working to fix the law… have tried and failed to repeal it more than 40 times. Repealing the law completely would raise premiums, allow discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, force women to pay for preventive services like mammograms, and eliminate discounts seniors get on prescription drugs. It’s time for Republicans in Congress to stop refighting old political battles over health care, because the real cost of repeal will hit home for many hardworking families in Oklahoma."

As Tom Guild reminded us this morning, "Lankford has done virtually nothing in his three years in Congress.  He has cast meaningless votes approximately 45 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He has also voted twice to defeat the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which protects women from domestic violence… He did take the time to complain that his health care coverage costs more under the ACA. He didn’t mention that taxpayers pay for his and his families’ health care coverage. If you are not an extremist on social issues, or can’t afford to give the maximum donation to his campaign, it seems you don’t exist in Lankford’s world. He needs to go back to the private sector and hobnob at close quarters back home with some of his big donors. The voters in CD5 will make that a reality in November 2014."

If you'd like to help replace Lankford with Tom Guild, you can do that at the Blue America ActBlue page here.

Keith Ellison Bringing A Progressive Vision To… Oklahoma

Keith Ellison (D-MN) is widely viewed as an up-and-coming progressive leader able to articulate progressive ideas and values to ordinary voters. He may not be invited to many events sponsored by lobbyists on K Street or Wall Street, but Democrats all over the country have been inviting him to speak to local grassroots activists. Friday he was in Oklahoma City, explaining a progressive vision in a state where President Obama only received 33% of the vote last year and lost every single county. Obama did best in Oklahoma City and that's where Ellison rallied local activists at the Party headquarters.

He covered a wide range of topics from the dangers inherent in the NSA's domestic spying programs to issues of economic justice-- like the ruling elites' scheme to cut Social Security through Chained CPI. Tom Guild, a friend of Ellison's and the Blue America-endorsed congressional candidate for OK-05 (Oklahoma, Seminole and Pottawatomie counties) was at the event and, like Ellison, stands firmly against cutting Social Security or Medicare. "We must stand firm for our seniors and veterans," he told us after the Ellison meeting, "and reject the proposed cuts that adopting the chained CPI would mean versus the traditional CPI currently used." Tom's position is the progressive position in regard to Chained CPI, regardless of who the president is. Tom:

The chained CPI assumes that if the price of something goes up, people switch to something else that is cheaper in order to financially cope with the new financial reality.  The problem with this logic for seniors is that many expenses for seniors include medications and health care. The prices for these items in a senior’s budget tend to go up regardless of demand.

  It is estimated that the chained CPI would result in the loss of a full month’s income each year for seniors and veterans and others dependent on Social Security.

Seniors and veterans and all Americans deserve better. They have paid into Social Security for many years, and shouldn’t have to rely on their families or strangers for their survival.  Chained CPI is an idea that is not sound, and would visit hardship and deprivation on Americans relying on a predictable and dependable Social Security Program.

  When I’m elected to Congress I will fight for seniors, veterans, and all Americans and vigorously oppose changing for the current CPI to the chained CPI in determining cost of living adjustments for Social Security.

Tom is running against a far right extremist, James Lankford, who doesn't want so much to reduce Social Security as he does to just end the program altogether. A member of John Boehner's unpopular leadership team, Lankford, though, is a supporter of Chained CPI as a step towards wrecking and replacing Social Security. "Mr. Lankford," said Tom, "apparently thinks economic justice means that he receives more huge campaign donations from Wall Street than any other Washington Beltway politician. I believe that we need to protect seniors, veterans, the middle class, and the working poor, and make sure that we have an adequate safety net so that all Americans are able to live with dignity and maintain a reasonable standard of living."

If Tom is elected to Congress, he plans to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus and fight for the values he's campaigning on back home. If you'd like to help him make that a reality, please consider contributing to his campaign here.

 

What About In Deep Red Districts? Was The GOP Government Shutdown A Step Too Far Even In Some Of Them?

Boehner and Cantor-- who allowed the GOP's racist wing shut down the government because of their pathological fury over an African-American in the White House-- have been whining that Obama wants to "kill the Republican Party." Unfortunately, he isn't… and even if he wanted to, suicide seems a far more likely cause of the once-credible party's demise. MoveOn's district polling has shown vulnerable Republicans in districts the DCCC has never contested-- districts they always considered too far out of reach. But a competent DCCC (even more a fantasy than an Obama wanting to kill the Republican Party) would be working today towards retiring powerful GOP policymakers like Buck McKeon (R-CA), Fred Upton (R-MI), Mike Rogers (R-MI), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Ed Royce (R-CA), Paul Ryan (R-WI), John Kline (R-MN), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Scott Garrett (R-NJ)-- all of whom are electorally vulnerable because of their backing of the Tea Party's insane actions in shutting down the government. But the DCCC doesn't have candidates they're backing in any of these races yet. They would rather focus their resources and energy on hapless backbenchers like Bill Johnson (R-OH) in a ridiculous attempt to elect Steve Israel recruited conservative, anti-Choice, anti-labor, anti-gay, anti-environment crackpot, Jennifer Garrison. Someone should wake Nancy Pelosi up-- gently-- and ask her about that.

But for all the polls of swing districts showing the GOP floundering, MoveOn hasn't really tried heavily red districts yet. I mean, swing districts like WA-08 (Dave Reichert) and CA-25 (Buck McKeon) are filled with independent voters, so of course the incumbents, exposed now as extremists, are in trouble. But what about in districts like OK-05 (Oklahoma City)? The PVI is R+12 and Obama did terribly both years he ran-- 41% each time. That base, though, was, by far, his strongest showing in any of Oklahoma's congressional districts. And the area elects Democrats to local offices. Is the local congressman, wingnut extremist James Lankford, vulnerable this time around? As chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, he's a member of the GOP leadership. He was at the infamous White House meeting where his pal Pete Sessions told President Obama, "I cannot even stand to look at you." Lankford, a Baptist minister, said nothing.

Blue America-endorsed progressive, Tom Guild has been making the case that Lankford is far more vulnerable than DC pundits assume. Spelling it out that Lankford is an extremist and a xenophobe, Guild assures Oklahoma City votes that unlike Lankford he can walk and chew gum at the same time!

When a senior member of the Oklahoma congressional delegation was asked if the House would tackle immigration reform this year, he said that it was unrealistic for the House to tackle this "divisive and difficult issue", when it can barely keep the government's lights on. He added, "We're not sure we can chew gum, let alone walk and chew gum, so let's just chew gum for a while." I promise to keep the government’s lights on. If you would like to see immigration reform passed, I promise to do my part to make that happen.

…Let's explore the recent voting record of CD5 congressperson Lankford.  In January of 2013, he irresponsibly voted against the fiscal cliff deal that passed Congress. Because he was holding out for extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the practical impact of his reckless vote, would have raised federal income taxes for all Americans, regardless of income level.

…To show how disconnected from reality he is, Mr. Lankford voted multiple times to shut down the government. His side prevailed and the government was shuttered for 16 days. He threatened to vote against raising the debt ceiling to allow America to pay her bills, which would have had a devastating impact on our country. In the final act in the recent drama, he voted against the bill that reopened the government, and raised the debt ceiling, so that America would not become a deadbeat nation. Had his side prevailed,  the American and world economies would have been devastated. It would have seriously threatened our country's future.

His recklessness would have caused those who have saved money in an IRA, to lose 45-50% of their retirement savings… Lankford proved that no one’s life, liberty, or property is safe while Congress is in session.

I'd love to see if the government shutdown is impacting voters' perceptions of Republican incumbents in districts like OK-05, the way it is in Republican-held Michigan districts and California districts. Meanwhile, though, Blue America has endorsed Tom Guild and we're urging progressives across the country to help him replace James Lankford.

Republican Cowards' Appeasement Policy: Hope Yes/Vote No

Mica & Lankford: 2 ugly right-wing faces of GOP nihilism & cowardice

While unreconstructed Confederate nihilists like Louisiana's John Fleming were boasting this morning that they're ready to force another government shutdown in January and another default crisis in February, many Republicans from normal parts of America were breathing a sigh of relief after last night's Pelosi-led 285-144 vote to reopen the government and step back from the brink of default. Charlie Dent (R-PA) explained the cowardly strategy of most Republicans in this nifty aphorism floating around Capitol Hill: "Hope Yes/Vote No."

Most people recognize that for what it is: grotesque political appeasement to the Tea Party Confederates-- and it will come back to hurt Republicans who voted NO while representing districts where independent voters are needed for reelection. In the House, 16 who may have wrecked their chances for reelection by going along with the Hope Yes/Vote No strategy:

• Justin Amash (MI)
• Kerry Bentivolio (MI)
• Jeff Denham (CA)
• Sean Duffy (WI)
• Scott Garrett (NJ)
• Steve King (IA)
• John Mica (FL)
• Stevan Pearce (NM)
• Joe Pitts (PA)
• Tom Reed (NY)
• Dana Rohrabacher (CA)
• Ed Royce (CA)
• Paul Ryan (WI)
• Steve Southerland (FL)
• Mike Turner (OH)
• Tim Walberg (MI)

Problem here, of course, is that the DCCC hasn't bothered finding candidates to run in many of these races or isn't backing the grassroots local candidate who is running or is putting up some less-of-two evils hack who many voters won't bother going to the polls to support.

Let's take John Mica. His central Florida district, FL-07, stretches from the suburbs just north of Orlando, like Winter Park and Altamonte Springs and then up through Longwood, Geneva, Deltona and Orange City. The district has a PVI of R+4 but Obama nearly beat McCain in 2008 (50-49%) and held Romney to 52% last year. There's a growing Hispanic community-- 20% now-- and voters are getting tired of Mica's sleazy dishonesty and cowardice. Wednesday night he voted with the minority of Congress to send the country into default and keep the government shut down. That isn't what central Florida residents wanted to see. The DCCC isn't supporting Mica's progressive and independent-minded Democratic opponent, Nick Ruiz. Blue America is. This morning, Nick wasn't feeling all that charitable towards Mica and said flat out that he "has no business being in representative government. He doesn't want government, clearly evinced by his repeated votes to shut it down. Rep. Mica doesn't want to cooperate and represent the district and the nation. What Mr. Mica wants is total control of the lives and circumstances of the district and the nation. There's a word for this, but it isn't 'representation.' It's megalomania."

Another Blue America-endorsed candidate, Tom Guild, is in a much tougher district. Oklahoma has been a conservative Republican bastion for decades. And Tom is a progressive Democrat, not a Blue Dog or New Dem type. The DCCC is ignoring his race but Oklahoma City may not be as set against change as many Inside the Beltway assume it is. After the vote last night, Tom drew a clear distinction between where he stands and how his Tea Party-oriented opponent, Jim Lankford, voted:

The good news is that the our long national nightmare is temporarily over. The government will reopen, and the country won't default, at least until February. However, radical Rep. James Lankford recklessly voted against reopening the government, and irresponsibly voted against the bill that kept the country from defaulting on our obligations. Once again, he proved that he is totally disconnected from reality. He had already cost us 900,000 jobs, and $24 billion in economic activity by his penchant for repeating failed policies and approaches. He proves Sen. Manchin's view that the biggest threat to the American economy is the American Congress, particularly the radical and completely out of touch GOP House.

If we wait for action from the DCCC, we'll never get rid of barnacles like Lankford or Mica. If you'd like to help Nick Ruiz and Tom Guild bring their cases to the voters, you can do so at this link.


UPDATE: Not Waiting For The DCCC

Grassroots progressive, Leslie Endean-Singh, the Democrat running against GOP right-wing extremist Stevan Pearce, told us this morning that last night her opponent "affirmed his reckless and selfish policies that continue to hurt Southern New Mexico families. He voted to continue a government shutdown that was costing the US economy over $1.5 billion per day and voted to let the United States default on its national debt, all the while keeping our national parks closed and postponing crucial border guard training here in New Mexico. It's time for new leadership in Southern New Mexico! While Steve Pearce is focused on shutting down the federal government, I am focused on shutting down Steve Pearce."

And on the other side of the country, Shaughnessy Naughton, the grassroots candidate opposing Mike Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania's Bucks County, exposed the strategy of Republicans like Fitzpatrick who helped cause and prolong the shutdown but then voted against continuing it last night.

“Mike Fitzpatrick stood around doing nothing effective or proactive for sixteen days. During that time, the U.S. economy lost 100,000 jobs and, according to Standard and Poor’s, we cut about 0.6 percent off of our gross domestic product. That’s equivalent to $24 billion in lost productivity.

“I’m sure Congressman Fitzpatrick would like to be welcomed home a hero, but I refuse to applaud someone for putting out a fire he started.

“The shutdown was a malicious, self-destructive act designed to undermine a law that was passed by Congress, signed by the president, and approved by the Supreme Court. And Congressman Fitzpatrick was complicit in its execution. He ought to be ashamed of himself. He owes the entire Eighth Congressional District an apology.

“Not once did he hold a town hall meeting or explain himself to his constituents. Not once did he take a principled stand on behalf of the people he represents. He timidly stood on the sidelines, doing what Tea Party leaders in the house told him to do, never once thinking about the impact he was having back home.

“If ever there was a reason to evict Congressman Fitzpatrick, this was it. People have had it with his brand of do-nothing politics. Leadership is needed and it’s time for him to go.”

When will Mike get to unpack his costume?

Although Fitzpatrick didn't attend his own planned fundraiser last night-- and will have to save his Stevie Nicks drag costume for a future event-- his campaign was raising money in New Hope by portraying him as a non-teabagger, even if he did vote with them every time he could while this mess unfolded. The ridiculous $250/head fundraiser featured entertainers dressed up as Cher and Lady Gaga. Joshua Morrow, Naughton’s campaign manager, said, “Everything that went on last night was fake. Entertainers in New Hope pretended to be real celebrities, and Fitzpatrick was pretending to be a real leader. It was the night of the living impersonators.”