With Laura Oatman Out Of The CA-48 Race, What Do Orange County Progressives Do Now?

Stopping Rohrabacher and Keirstead means picking between Kotick or Rouda

CA-48 is a traditionally Republican district along the coast of Orange County. It starts at Seal Beach and Leisure Would in the north and works its way south through Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to Aliso Viejo, Laguna Beach and Laguna Niguel to Three Arch Bay and the outskirts of San Juan Capistrano. Obama lost the district both times-- with 46% against McCain and 43% against Romney-- and in 2015 the PVI was R+7. The Hillary beat Trump 47.9% to 46.2% and the PVI is now a much friendlier R+4.

The incumbent congressman is a crackpot ally of Trump's and Putin's, Dana Rohrabacher, who was first elected in 1988. There are 5 Republicans besides Rohrabacher running. The race also attracted 8 Democrats. As of the December 31 FEC reporting deadline 7 candidates have either raised six figures or had six figures in their campaign war chests. New Dem and former Republican Harley Rouda had raised the most ($1,225,534) and had the biggest war chest ($833,688), followed by Rohrabacher who had raised $1,110,094 and had $713,144 on hand. Two Republicans reported big war chests as well, Scott Baugh ($545,403) and Stelian Onufrei ($139,845). There are a lot of self-funders in the race:

• Harley Rouda (D)- $730,500
• Omar Siddiqui (self-described "Reagan Democrat)- $458,498
• Michael Kotick (D)- $245,452
• Stelian Onufrei (R)- $228,000
• Hans Keirstead (D)- 220,400

Blue America looked at the race early on and endorsed the only actual progressive candidate, Laura Oatman. Rouda also seemed like a good candidate-- and someone likely to be able to beat Rohrabacher. The problems is that he's pretty much from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. He should be running as a mainstream Republican but instead joined the Wall Street owned and operated New Dems (as has Hans Keirstead.) Last week Oatman dropped out of the race, leaving no viable progressive. She decided to endorse Rouda and implore her supporters to back him, figuring that he's the best chance the Democrats-- if you want to count him as a Democrat-- to flip the district. This recent poll shows Found and Oatman as the top 2 most popular Democrats in the race:

Laura had been endorsed by DFA, Justice Democrats and Our Revolution. Her withdrawal statement calls for Democratic unity-- around Rouda:

Harley Rouda represents the best choice to flip the 48th District from red to blue. He has both a deep understanding of the issues, as well as the courage and determination needed to stand up to Dana Rohrabacher. I am hoping all local activists, the majority of whom have been split between supporting myself or Harley, can now unite into one mighty force, and we can work together to get Dana out. I am calling on all 6 other Democratic candidates to do the same; this is not about any one of us. This is about all of us.

I know Harley will be a strong and effective leader working to move us forward, from protecting our pristine coastline to fighting for Medicare for ALL, to tackling gun violence, to investing more in renewable energy like wind and solar and working to create more good-paying jobs. Orange County residents need a Congressman who will work hard for them, and after campaigning alongside him for over a year now, I am confident Harley is the right person for the job.

There are no good New Dems in Congress; not one. They are the Wall Street puppets within the Democratic Party. I've watched them for years and they never turn out any good. On too many crucial issues they wind up voting with the Republicans against the issues of working families. But if you're a lesser than two evils voters and you want to defeat Rohrabacher, Rouda is probably the way to go. I live northeast of CA-48-- and my own congressman is also a New Dem-- so I don't get to vote in CA-48. If I did, I'd probably vote for intriguing millennial, Michael Kotick who might be a progressive, but who certainly would be a more interesting member of Congress than anyone else running in the district. One thing for sure-- Keirstead and Siddiqui are the worst of the Democrats who want to take on Rohrabacher and, Keirstead is, surreptitiously so far, the DCCC candidate.

Is Dean Phillips A Good Candidate? How Will He Be If He Gets To Congress?

How would a New Dem "repair" the government? Turn it over to the banksters?

Last night one of my favorite candidates of the cycle was in town and we had dinner. He was very enthusiastic about another candidate he had just met in Minnesota, Dean Phillips, the DCCC-favored candidate to take on Republican incumbent Erik Paulsen in the suburbs west of Minneapolis (MN-03), an arc that goes from Bloomington, Edina and Eden Prairie, through Minnetonka, Plymouth and Maple Grove up to Champlin, Brooklyn Park and Coon Rapids. Obama won the district both times and Hillary beat Trump by 9 points. The district's PVI is D+1. Still, Paulsen was reelected with an even bigger margin-- 56.7% to 43%-- than the Clinton win over Trump. He ran against a weak DCCC/EMILY's List centrist candidate, Terri Bonoff. The DCCC spent $3,330,152 attacking Paulsen and Pelosi's SuperPAC threw in another $568,897. And the DCCC wants to make sure it runs another centrist (of course). There are 4 Democrats running but the DCCC isn't waiting for MN-03 DFL voters to pick one; they've already added Phillips to their Red to Blue page in an attempt to clear the field of the other, more progressive, candidates. Voters don't like when the DCCC does this, but the DCCC is incapable of learning anything. They exist in a self-referencing DC bubble and have no understanding of America at all-- which explains why they've been on an uninterrupted losing streak since Pelosi took over.

Phillips' bio says he's the grandson of Dear Abby and that he went to work in the Phillips Distilling Company warehouse and rose to be CEO... albeit without mentioning his dad owned the company. His bio also doesn't mention he's a New Dem. The graphic above is from the DCCC website and the one below is from the New Dems website.

I have to admit, I've never spoken with Phillips and he may be a lovely man. But I do know that the New Dems have very stringent vetting process and they will not endorse anyone who doesn't fit the Wall Street agenda they are all about. Along with the Blue Dogs,the New Dems are the heart and soul of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. An overwhelming number of New Dems, in fact, are also Blue Dogs, and almost every Blue Dog is a New Dem. Good members of Congress-- those fighting for ordinary working families-- are not in the New Dems. The New Dems exist to serve special interests, especially Wall Street special interests.

I met Harley Rouda, one of the candidates running to replace Putin's favorite congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, in Orange County's CA-48, a few months ago. He came over to my house and we had a great chat and he seemed like a personable guy and a decent candidate. Then the New Dems endorsed him and I started viewing him through that prism. He's probably going to win his race-- and he's decidedly better than the DCCC's first choice in that district, Hans Keirstead-- but I already know what his voting record is going to be like in Congress. The New Dems don't endorse people unless they're very sure there won't be any tendencies to be "too" progressive. It's a Wall Street-owned PAC and they don't fool around. So far Rouda, an ex-Republican, has self-funded 60% of his campaign ($730,500). That kind of attitude about buying a congressional seat should always set off alarm bells.

In CA-48, I've spent time-- online, on the phone and in person-- with Laura Oatman, the progressive in the race. My bet is that she's make a much better member of Congress, but she's being drowned out by the 2 New Dems, Harley ($1,225,534) and Hans ($855,340, of which $220,400 is self-funding). Another candidate in that race, carpetbagger Omar Siddiqui, has self-funded 80% of his campaign ($458,498) and campaigns openly as a "Reagan Democrat." Laura's campaign is more of a grassroots effort and she's raised $213,268. Perhaps she's waiting for the DCCC to bigfoot into the campaign against her, a move that could bring her more attention, the same way it did Laura Moser in Houston.

So... back to Minnesota. I don't know the 4 DFL candidates and I'd rather see who MN-03 voters decide the nominee is before wading into that one. The DCCC and New Dems sitting on the scale for Phillips, though, makes me very suspicious that he'd be a terrible member of Congress, just like almost all of the New Dems already in Congress are.

Sunday, DFA sent out an email to their members entitled "Some Democrats just never learn." It was more about Senate Democrats than the House Democrats we usually deal with here at DWT. "Donald Trump's allies in the Senate decided to move forward with the Bank Lobbyist Act, a bill that would massively deregulate the majority of big banks and make it easier for banks to use discriminatory and fraudulent practices," they wrote. "One would think that this would be a no-brainer bill for Democrats to oppose. Democratic voters are not clamoring for bank deregulation-- in fact, quite the opposite. Ten years later, many working families are still recovering from the last financial collapse caused by greedy big banks. But 16 Senate Democrats voted to help destroy key regulations against the big Wall Street banks. This is unacceptable. And it's exactly the type of behavior that could reverse the 'blue wave' Democrats are dreaming of in November. The young voters, voters of color and working families that the Democrats need to turn out this fall want to see representatives who will fight for them-- not give everything away to Wall Street."

That's the New Dem mentality they're railing against. They quoted Elizabeth Warren to illustrate what they're talking about:

"There’s Democratic and Republican support because the lobbyists have been pushing since the first day Dodd-Frank passed to weaken the regulations on these giant banks. People in this building may forget the devastating impact of the financial crisis 10 years ago, but the American people have not forgotten... the millions of people who lost their homes; the millions of people who lost their jobs; the millions of people who lost their savings, they remember and they do not want to turn lose the big banks again."

And, as DFA said-- We can't afford to keep electing Democrats who are bought and owned by Wall Street. We need progressive fighters who will push back on corporate corruption in every sector, from every level of government. If someone is a New Dem or a Blue Dog, you can be very sure they are exactly the problem DFA and Elizabeth Warren are talking about. Don't be fooled again.

It's MOTHER Nature, Not Father Nature

I was fascinated a few days ago to hear Marianne Williamson address a crowd of Laura Oatman supporters in Huntington Beach. Laura is the progressive woman running against Putin's favorite congressman, Republican Dana Rohrabacher. Marianne and Laura spoke to the crowd about the special strength and power of mothers that has evolved over millennia to ensure the longevity of the species. And if we, as a society, ever needed that power, it is now, with Trump and his self-serving enablers in power.

Yesterday, outgoing Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen told Face the Nation that her party is in trouble. "When you look at the future of the Republican Party," she said, "I think that we would be foolish to not see that we’re heading into trouble. Part of that problem is that the GOP is a predominantly male party, with few women running and with a generally hostile attitude towards women. "Far greater numbers of women are identifying themselves as being in the Democratic party," she said. "When you look ahead, what's our future going to be? Are we going to end up a marginalized party? I think that we need to look toward the future, and we need to have the policies that attract millennials, women and minorities. I don't see that... I don't see those Asian women and-- and those minority women, serving in the House GOP or in the Senate GOP... we used to be more accepting of having moderate positions, and now-- now it's getting harder."

Greed-driven, selfish, entitled patriarchs-- the Trump crowd-- aren't going to protect anyone or anything but their own wealth and status. Trump doesn't recognize the concept of a future, very much the opposite of the role that has evolved for women. From the website, Motherhood: "While there are many characteristics that make up a good mother, protecting their young is a common quality that both the human and animal mother share. The mother bear has always been the quintessential example of a mother’s love, and this is mainly because of their fierce, protective nature. It is a widely accepted belief that the most dangerous place to be is between a mother bear and her cub... seventy percent of human deaths caused by grizzly bears are related to a mother grizzly bear protecting her cubs."

Some of this year's best candidates are fierce women who talk about preserving the environment about protecting children from the NRA-coddling Republicans, from the oligarchic tendencies the GOP has adopted that will turn the majority of people into victims. Women like Lisa Brown (WA), Jenny Marshall (NC), Katie Hill (CA), Jess King (PA), Lillian Salerno (TX), Katie Porter (CA), Marie Newman (IL), Nina Ahmad (PA), Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (NM), Mary Matiela (AZ), Wendy Reed (CA), Laura Oatman (CA), Kara Eastman (NE), Marge Doyle (CA) and Alexandria Ocasio (NY) are the future of the Democratic Party... and the future of America. There are 22 women in the Senate, so 22%-- 5 Republicans and 17 Democrats. There are 84 women (19.3%) in the House-- 62 Democrats and 22 Republicans. By the way, 51% of Americans are women and 49% are men. Do we need more women in Congress? Desperately. But keep in mind, some of the very best members of Congress are women-- take Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Judy Chu (D-CA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)-- while some of the most horrible members-- even among Democrats-- are also women-- Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-DL) and Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL). And the Democrats have some amazing women running this cycle, like the aforementioned Nina Ahmad, Jenny Marshall and Lillian Salerno, right alongside some of the worst candidates you'll find on the 2018 campaign trial, from Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ), Susie Lee (New Dem-NV) and Mike Sherrill (New Dem-NJ) to Gretchen Driskell (Blue Dog-MI) and Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)... and that even before we look at neo-fascist Republican monstrosities like Diane Black (TN), Virginia Foxx (NC), Liz Cheney (WY), Vicky Hartzler (MO) and Marsha Blackburn (TN).

And you want to talk about destructive corruption? Three little words: Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

And that's not to say that women politicians can't become as jaded, vile and self-serving as men. In fact, the longer someone is in Congress, the more likely that becomes. Look at Kirsten Gillbrand for example, who is desperately trying to turn the #MeToo movement into a stepping stone for her own careerist ambitions. She's corrupt, racist and devoid of a moral core... but she knows an opportunity when she sees one. Doesn't this look like it was cribbed straight from DWT?

The Gillibrand we see today looks very different than the one we saw back in 2007, when she was on her way to becoming the unlikely winner of a House seat in a largely rural and heavily Republican district in upstate New York:

Upon winning, she became a member of the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats. She supported a balanced budget amendment and a ban on deficit spending. Her immigration platform was of a piece with the proto-Trumpism brewing during George W. Bush’s second term-- no amnesty or benefits for illegal aliens; a crackdown on sanctuary cities like New York; more agents, fencing, and tech for the border; and legislation making English America’s official language. The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group, gave her the lowest rating of any New York Democrat in Congress for her positions on gay rights issues. Her rating from the National Rifle Association, meanwhile, was a solid 100 percent.

All of that made her a controversial pick to fill the Senate seat that opened up when President Obama tapped Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state in 2009. Asked about why her views had changed, Gillibrand had an unusually straightforward answer.

“After I got appointed, I went down to Brooklyn to meet with families who had suffered from gun violence in their communities,” she said. “And you immediately experience the feeling that I couldn’t have been more wrong-- you know I only had the lens of upstate New York.”

She offered up a similar answer on immigration: “I came from a district that was 98 percent white… And I just didn’t take the time to understand why these issues mattered because it wasn’t

right in front of me. And that was my fault. It was something that I’m embarrassed about and I’m ashamed of.” As Alfonsi pointed out, to say Gillibrand “only had the lens of upstate New York” is somewhat misleading, since she had lived in New York City for a decade before returning to upstate to a run for a congressional seat. From their exchange:

Alfonsi: But you had-- lived in New York City...

Gillibrand: I know.

Alfonsi: ...for a decade.

Gillibrand: And that’s why I was embarrassed.

Alfonsi: You traveled abroad.

Gillibrand: I was wrong. What it’s about is the power of the NRA and the greed of that industry. Let’s be clear. It is not about hunters’ rights, it’s about money.

Alfonsi: Your critics will say it’s political opportunism.

Gillibrand: As is their right. They can say what they like.

Gillibrand is doing her best to air out the issues now, hoping that liberals in Iowa and New Hampshire will focus on her unblemished record in the Senate and not a handful of highly damning House votes from a decade ago. As Gillibrand herself said in the 60 Minutes interview, “if you’re wrong, just admit it and move on.”

No mention of Al Franken? Did he get a chance to apologize and move on before Gillibrand scalped him and then mercilessly ripped him to shreds and forced him out of the Senate? Or is that dirty little episode already deep down the national memory hole?

Trump Will Likely Be Remembered As A Benedict Arnold, Not As A Father Coughlin

Thursday night I was down in Huntington Beach for a house party for Laura Oatman, the progressive running against Dana Rohrabacher. It was great. Laura and Marianne Williamson tag-teamed and it was amazing. At some point a man had asked Laura if she "had the stomach" for such a tough race. You should have seen the two mama bears in action! "The stomach?"asked Marianne with either incredulity or outrage. "She has a womb!" Laura then said "And this womb produced 5 children in 5 years. Her husband looked a little embarrassed but the statement brought down the roof. Rohrabacher will need one himself before she gets finished with him-- or maybe before Mueller does.

You've probably heard by now that yesterday Mueller started laying the groundwork for the collusion case against the Trump Circus by unveiling the details of a widespread and coordinated campaign by Russians to influence the 2016 election in favor of Señor Trumpanzee, delivering on his initial mandate by the Justice Department. He indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities on charges of defrauding the U.S. government by interfering with the political process.

Prosecutors provided a remarkably detailed picture of how Russians used social media, fake rallies and secretive operatives in the U.S. to create “political intensity” by backing radical groups, opposition social movements and disaffected voters. The outreach from the Russians included direct contact with over 100 Americans.

This “information warfare” by the Russians didn’t affect the outcome of the presidential election, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told reporters. Trump and his Republican supporters have repeatedly denounced the Mueller investigation as a “witch hunt” and have denied any collusion. The indictment cites no instances of Russians coordinating directly with the Trump campaign.

Still, the accusations detail unprecedented foreign attempts to influence the outcome of a U.S. election, including the manipulation of accounts at big U.S. companies like Facebook, Twitter, PayPal and Instagram. Those companies will continue to face pressure to clamp down on fraudulent accounts or risk a government crackdown as intelligence officials have warned that Russians are already engaged in influencing the 2018 midterm elections.

The president has been briefed on the indictment, the White House said. The Russian government called the accusations absurd. Mueller’s office said that none of the defendants was in custody.

Trumpanzee immediately reacted defensively confirming-- by adamant denial-- his collusion with the Kremlin:

The Kremlin had given orders that Trump was their candidate by April 2016, if not sooner, "and began producing and purchasing ads promoting the reality-TV star to voters and 'expressly opposing Clinton,' according to the indictment.

Richard Painter, who was the chief ethics adviser in the George W. Bush administration, said the lack of any evidence of collusion in the indictment wasn’t the final word by prosecutors.

“They’re charging what they know,” he said. “The contact with the Trump campaign might be unwitting in this case, but that doesn’t mean that the collaboration issue is finished.”

The Internet Research Agency, a Russian organization, and the defendants began working in 2014 to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment. They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with “unwitting individuals” associated with the Trump campaign, it said.

An "unwitting individual," of course, describes virtual everyone who voted for Trump. A planning memo instructed its operatives to harm Clinton and bolster Trump, even going so far as to help derail Rubio and Cruz.

The group bought advertisements on U.S. social media and created numerous Twitter accounts designed to appear as if they were U.S. groups or people, according to the indictment. One fake account, @TEN_GOP account, attracted more than 100,000 online followers.

The Russians tracked the metrics of their effort in reports and budgeted for their efforts. Some traveled to the U.S. to gather intelligence for the surreptitious campaign, according to the indictment. They used stolen U.S. identities, including fake drivers licenses, and contacted news media outlets to promote their activities.

In September 2016, the group ordered one worker to “intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton” after a review found insufficient anti-Clinton activity.

The effort went well beyond social media. The Russian effort included organizing rallies for Trump and paying Americans to participate in them or perform tasks at them. One American was paid to build a cage on a flatbed truck; another was paid to portray Clinton in a prison uniform.

Rallies were promoted with Facebook ads. Paid ads included this one on Oct. 19, 2016: “Hillary is a Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is.”

...In June 2016, the defendants allegedly posed as grassroots activists using the account @March_for_Trump to contact a volunteer for the Trump campaign in New York. The volunteer agreed to provide signs for their “March for Trump” rally, according to the indictment. By August, the accused Russians were communicating with unwitting Trump campaign staff involved in local community outreach to discuss their fraudulent “Florida Goes Trump” rallies.

Two years before the election, the Russians began monitoring groups that use social media sites to influence U.S. politics and social issues, tracking the size of groups and how popular they were with their audiences, according to the indictment.

Several Russians traveled around the U.S. to gather intelligence for their operation, posing as U.S. political and social activists. They used clandestine methods to communicate and gather information, employing special cameras, “drop phones” and “evacuation scenarios” to ensure security.

The Russians set up Facebook and Instagram groups with names that targeted such issues as immigration, religion and the Black Lives Matter movement. They also controlled numerous Twitter groups that appeared to be controlled by U.S. people, such as “Tennessee GOP.”

They spent thousands of dollars a month to buy advertisements on social media groups, while carefully tracking the size of U.S. audiences they reached, according to the indictment.

All of the people and companies charged in Friday’s indictment were connected in some way to the Internet Research Agency, a company widely reported to be a front for Russian government influence campaigns on social media. The company and 12 of its current or former executives and employees were charged.

Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll farm based in St. Petersburg, was controlled by Yevgeny Progozhin, a wealthy Putin crony who is one of the 13 Russians indicted. Who would have ever imagined sane people would be asking questions like Is Trump a traitor? [Confession: it's not something I ever doubted was absolutely possible, not for one second.] As James Risen wrote for The Intercept yesterday, Trump is not a complicated character. "Quite the opposite... everything about him is so painfully obvious. He is a low-rent racist, a shameless misogynist, and an unbalanced narcissist. He is an unrelenting liar and a two-bit white identity demagogue. Lest anyone forget these things, he goes out of his way each day to remind us of them. At the end of the day, he is certain to be left in the dustbin of history, alongside Father Coughlin and Gen. Edwin Walker. (Exactly-- you don’t remember them, either.)"

Unfortunately, another word also describes him: president. The fact that such an unstable egomaniac occupies the White House is the greatest threat to the national security of the United States in modern history.

Which brings me to the only question about Donald Trump that I find really interesting: Is he a traitor?

Did he gain the presidency through collusion with Russian President Vladimir Putin?

One year after Trump took office, it is still unclear whether the president of the United States is an agent of a foreign power. Just step back and think about that for a moment.

There can be ZERO doubt that Señor T and his cronies worked with Moscow to take control of the U.S. government. But can it be proven in a court? Until then wrote Risen, we all must live with the uncertainty of not knowing whether the crook in the Oval Office "has the best interests of the United States or those of the Russian Federation at heart. Most pundits in Washington now recoil at any suggestion that the Trump-Russia story is really about treason. They all want to say it’s about something else-- what, they aren’t quite sure. They are afraid to use serious words. They are in the business of breaking down the Trump-Russia narrative into a long series of bite-sized, incremental stories in which the gravity of the overall case often gets lost. They seem to think that treason is too much of a conversation-stopper, that it interrupts the flow of cable television and Twitter. God forbid you might upset the right wing! (And the left wing, for that matter.) But if a presidential candidate or his lieutenants secretly work with a foreign government that is a longtime adversary of the United States to manipulate and then win a presidential election, that is almost a textbook definition of treason. In Article 3, Section 3, the U.S. Constitution states that 'treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

[E]vidence of the connections between Trump’s bid for the White House and Russian ambitions to manipulate the 2016 U.S. election keeps piling up.... [I]t seems increasingly likely that the Russians have pulled off the most consequential covert action operation since Germany put Lenin on a train back to Petrograd in 1917.

...There are four important tracks to follow in the Trump-Russia story. First, we must determine whether there is credible evidence for the underlying premise that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Trump win. Second, we must figure out whether Trump or people around him worked with the Russians to try to win the election. Next, we must scrutinize the evidence to understand whether Trump and his associates have sought to obstruct justice by impeding a federal investigation into whether Trump and Russia colluded. A fourth track concerns whether Republican leaders are now engaged in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice through their intense and ongoing efforts to discredit Mueller’s probe.

Fast-forward to the run-up to Russia trying to steal the midterms for the Republicans. What do you think the Russians did after the Florida militia nut gunned down 17 students in Parkland last week? Russia/NRA trolls were immediately at work, grabbing attention, provoking emotions and spreading propaganda. "In the wake of Wednesday’s Parkland, Florida school shooting, which resulted in 17 deaths, troll and bot-tracking sites reported an immediate uptick in related tweets from political propaganda bots and Russia-linked Twitter accounts... [S]ome accounts with large bot followings are already spreading misinformation about the shooter's ties to far-left group Antifa, even though the Associated Press reported that he was a member of a local white nationalist group.

Bret Schafer, a research analyst with the Alliance for Securing Democracy, says the spike in shooting-related posts from Russia-linked bots is in line with what his group observed after last year's shootings in Las Vegas and Texas. The Russia-linked bots weigh in on any attention-grabbing news event, but seize on shootings particularly. "Because of the politicized nature of them, they are perfect fodder to take an extreme position and start spreading memes that have a very distinct political position on gun control," he says.

The use of pro-gun control hashtags like #guncontrolnow, along with the spread of anti-gun control links like the Politifact article, appear at first to show the Russian strategy of promoting discord on both sides of a debate. Russian-linked Twitter accounts have attempted to spread confusion and angst on topics ranging from police violence against black people, to NFL player protests, to Al Franken’s sexual misconduct accusations. (On other topics, like special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election, the bots have worked in concert to further the Kremlin's agenda.)

But in this case, Schafer suspects the use of pro-gun control hashtags like #guncontrolnow are being used sarcastically, particularly since they're often paired with the anti-gun control links. Since the Twitter accounts Hamilton 68 tracks often target right-wing audiences, Schafer believes the trolls are using the message to attract more eyeballs. "That allows them to then push content that is more directly related to the Kremlin’s geopolitical agenda," such as the Nunes memo, he says. "I don’t think the Kremlin cares one way or another whether we enact stricter gun control laws," he adds. "It's just being used as bait, basically."

Public awareness that antagonistic bots flood the Twitter debate hasn’t stopped them from achieving their goals of ratcheting up the vitriol-- even amid a live tragedy like the Parkland shooting. The goal, after all, isn't to help one side or the other of the gun control debate win. It's to amplify the loudest voices in that fight, deepening the divisions between us.

Leave It To The DC Establishment To Screw Up Democratic Races Across The Country: Hawaii And Orange County

No reason to settle for crooked GOP-lite candidates in primaries when you have solid progressives like Laura Oatman and Kaniela Ing running

Many of the people who have ever even heard of Doug Chin just know him from the Rachel Maddow show where she celebrates anyone who hates Trump without ever giving any context. In Chin’s case she could have mentioned he was a conservative corporate lobbyist who was appointed-- not even properly vetted for or elected as-- Attorney General. That was common knowledge and Maddow’s researchers should have caught it. What was less easy to find was that he claimed there was an “oversight” after he was exposed for not reporting (hiding) money paid for lobbying for the private prison industry, which is very controversial in Hawaii. Most people who have followed Chin’s career know he kept that information private deliberately to prevent the state Senate from knowing that they were confirming a private prison lobbyist to be the Attorney General.

This has become an issue because Chin has repaid CCA, who paid him a great deal of money (over $100,000), by blocking release to the public of information on problems at the private prison. None of the money he accepted from CCA was disclosed before he was appointed and confirmed as Attorney General in January, 2015. He-- and his clients-- clearly broke state ethics rules by withholding reports of at least 4 payments until after he was confirmed. The shady lobbyist payments were the only amendments to his state filing. Last week a complaint was filed with the Hawaii State Ethics Commission.

Chin-- an opportunist and make-believe Democrat-- is now running for Congress and has said all along, quite adamantly just this week in fact, that he would not resign as Attorney General during the campaign. He seems to have changed his mind about that since the ethics complaint was filed.

Another crappy establishment candidate, this one in Orange County, California, is Hans Keirstead, even sillier to think of in Congress than Doug Chin. Hans was recruited by one faction of the clownish DCCC while another faction was recruiting Harley Rouda. Then both were recognized as conservatives by the New Dems, which endorsed them both. The DCCC was then left with 2 lousy candidates from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party running for Dana Rohrabacher’s seat. Fortunately, there’s a progressive in the race as well-- being studiously ignored by the DC Dems-- Laura Oatman. When the DCCC had their “Candidates Week” to introduce their pathetic conservative candidates to lobbyists, they sent invitations to Harley and Hans and thought no one would notice they had excluded Laura. I noticed-- but when I complained, the only answer I could get was that “everyone is invited,” typical of the DCCC as a lamer than lame excuse for sending two formal invitations and then claiming the third candidate was welcome if she found out about it and wanted to crash their little boys club.

Yes, I’ve told that story before but there’s a new aspect that I just read about. Keirstead, easily the lesser of the 2 New Dems, tried pulling the wool over CA-48 voters’ eyes by making up a cock’n’bull story that Steny Hoyer had promised him a committee chairmanship, an absurdity on it’s face, although we’ll never know what Hoyer actually told this fool. Keirstead keeps yapping like a dog about how he’s a scientist and how science needs a voice in Congress. How about we just pick honest scientists instead-- and not liars and manipulators trying to turn scientists into another lame identity group?

Democratic candidate Hans Keirstead faced a familiar question at a local party meeting [in Seal Beach] in November: What kind of committees could you sit on, and how would that benefit the district?

But his answer has caused some confusion.

The prominent cancer researcher and political newcomer said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, a top member of leadership, told him he would like to give Keirstead an “early appointment” on the influential Appropriations Committee, and that leaders wanted to make him chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee.

It turns out that wasn’t the case. [Hans was lying his ass off to the people he expected to help make him a congressman.]

Hoyer’s office denied that the whip made such assertions.

“No, neither of those statements is remotely true,” the Maryland Democrat’s spokeswoman Katie Grant said in a statement .“The idea that Mr. Hoyer would promise a candidate either a chairmanship or a seat on Appropriations is preposterous.”

…“It’s not inspiring for me to become a freshman congressman and to be pushed around and told what to vote on by my party and have no power or control,” he said in a video recording of the meeting.

He described meeting with dozens of members of Congress, including top leaders like Hoyer.

“I have been honored, I have been just humbled by the fact that they want me to chair the Science Committee, which is actually no great compliment because it’s an embarrassment,” Keirstead said.

“So in a meeting that I had with Steny Hoyer, he said, ‘We would like to put you as chairman of the Science Committee, rejigger that thing, get it, get it working and get it up to scruff. But that’s not going to do you any favors in the short term. I’d also like to give you an early appointment onto Appropriations,’” Keirstead said.

…The House Democratic Caucus relies heavily on seniority when selecting committee chairmen. The Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over research and development projects, has 16 Democrats on the panel, and most would be senior to Keirstead if he is elected.

Committee assignments are determined by the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee at the beginning of each Congress. Lawmakers can lobby for spots on desired panels, but determinations involve an array of factors including seniority, available openings, regional balance, and a lawmaker’s applicability to the committee’s issues.

The Appropriations Committee is one of the most powerful panels in Congress since it oversees government spending. It is also an exclusive committee for Democrats, meaning members on Appropriations do not serve on other panels.

Keirstead said at the November meeting that a seat on the committee would give him considerable sway over health care issues.

“I will be one of the most influential people in science, medicine and health care in this nation,” he said.

Keirstead also said the prospect of having influence, even as a first-term lawmaker, is one of the reasons he decided to run for Congress.

 Roll Call made one error in reporting. The writer reported that the Science Committee “has 16 Democrats on the panel, and most would be senior to Keirstead if he is elected.” Actually, every single one of them would be senior to Keirstead. The two most senior Democrats, chairwomen Eddie Bernie Johnson, and Zoe Lofgren, have no intention of giving up years of seniority so Hans can waltz into the chairmanship. I talked to another member (on condition of anonymity) who told me that Hans “sounds like a prima dona [with]… an inflated vision of his capacity… I wish guys like him would start on the town council or the state legislature and figure out how governing works… [and] how to work and play well with others… How do you think Johnson feels about that report in the press? If he’s even elected, I’m sure Don Beyer will teach him how to behave when EB puts him on the oversight subcommittee. He shouldn’t expect anything more relevant until he’s put in some service beyond self-service.”

And, yes, there’s an even worse candidate running in Rohrabacher’s district, another self funder from another district, Omar Siddiqui who was a Republican and now calls himself (openly) a “Reagan Democrat.” He lives in CA-39 but doesn’t want to run against Ed Royce because he likes him too much. Blue America is enthusiastic about Laura Oatman and if you’d like to help make sure that neither Hans nor Omar gets into Congress as Democrats, please consider clicking on the ActBlue California thermometer on the right and contributing what you can to Laura’s grassroots campaign. The fact that the DCCC is ignoring her efforts makes her an even more attractive candidate. Her Bernie-oriented platform is far more in line with what energized voters in Orange County are looking for than a plateful of GOP-lite garbage. Hans’ website is all about Hans-- not about Orange County voters and not about any issues at all. The guy’s a joker, a product of typical DCCC incompetence. One thing everyone can agree on-- DC has enough unethical players already without adding more sleaze bags like Doug Chin and Hans Keistead.

Here’s the truculent crackpot, caught live on CNN, who Laura Oatman will have to work to replace in November after she beats the conservative Democrats in the primary:



UPDATE: Corrupt AG Steps Down

As we predicted, ex-private prison and Wall Street lobbyist Doug Chin, Hawaii’s sleazy appointed Attorney General, quit his job just days after saying he wouldn’t. He says he quit so he could devote all his energy to his congressional race, but what really made him back away from his pledge to keep working? See above but, the short version is that he didn’t want voters to see him fighting charges that he has an ethics battle over shady dealings with private prison firm CCA and how he got confirmed. His last day is March 15.

Kiss Of Death Politics

Part of Señor Trumpanzee's absurd-- but effective-- pitch during his election campaign was about how he would be a champion for "the forgotten men and women of America." Instead he's been a champion for corporate executives, the Wall Street banksters and the wealthiest and greediest among us. And, slowly but surely, the forgotten men and women of America have begun to catch on. Among Trump's base, his one legislative accomplishment, the Tax Scam, isn't polling all that well. Only 28% of rural Americans back it and only 29% of non-college whites like it. Even among actual Trump votes, just 57% are taken in by the scam. 63% of voters say the Tax Scam was designed mostly to benefit corporations and the wealthy, compared with 22% who say it was designed to help all Americans equally.

More voters now say they trust Democrats rather than Republicans to handle the economy. Worse yet for Republicans is the new SSRS poll for CNN showing that the advantage Democrats have over Republicans in a hypothetical Congressional matchup is continuing to grow, an indication that the building 2018 midterm wave is becoming tsunami.

Among registered voters, 56% say they favor a Democrat in their congressional district, while 38% prefer a Republican. That 18-point edge is the widest Democrats have held in CNN polling on the 2018 contests, and the largest at this point in midterm election cycles dating back two decades. The finding follows several other public polls showing large double-digit leads for Democrats on similar questions.

Only Beltway goofballs like Cook are cautiously predicting Democrats will net the 24 votes needed for a House takeover. Less conservative prognosticators more in touch with electoral reality see the GOP being absolutely crushed next year, with the House Democrats winning not 2 dozen red seats but 4 or 5 dozen! Independents are largely through with the GOP, bad news for every Republican outside of the Old Confederacy. Nationally, independent voters now favor Democrats over Republicans "by a 16-point margin, 51% to 35%, similar to the 50% to 36% margin by which they favored Democrats in fall of 2005, ahead of Democrats' 2006 recapturing of the House and Senate. The Democrats hold a larger lead overall now because Republicans make up a smaller share of the electorate than they did in 2005. And those Republicans who are still in the electorate are less enthusiastic about voting next year than Democrats."

On Thursday, Politico referred to Trumpanzee, Ryan and McConnell "as anchors on Republicans’ poll numbers." Their own poll, by Morning Consult, shows the generic congressional ballot advantage for Democrats 44-34%. and with Trump's already dismal favorability ratings continuing to crater. "Democrats’ 10-point lead on the generic ballot," they note, "is their largest for the year. The party has a 15-point lead among female voters, the poll shows, and a 3-point edge among male voters. White voters are split-- 39 percent for Democrats and 38 percent for Republicans-- but Democrats have a 59-point lead among African-American voters and a 27-point lead among Hispanics."

The double digit leads all polls have begun showing, including by Republican firms, is enough to overcome gerrymandering in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and perhaps even Ohio. Polls are also predicting high turnouts instead of the low turnouts normal for midterm elections.

Laura Oatman is the progressive candidate running for the Orange County coastal seat occupied by Putin asset Dana Rohrabacher. Yesterday she told us that "This is the pattern; Trump, full of promises and gaudy baubles promising the world, be it a hotel, a golf course, or a wall. And like so many others before them, the businessmen, the bankers-- Americans have learned that Trump cannot be trusted.  That their hope for something different-- which is understandable-- was misplaced.  Regardless, I won’t need Trump’s kisses to Dana, nor Putin’s bot factories behind Dana’s pages, to energize the voters of CA-48 and bring positive change to this district."

Sam Jammal, the progressive candidate running for the northeast Orange County seat occupied by Trump rubber-stamp Ed Royce is already clobbering Royce with his willingness to put Trump's whims ahead of his own constituents' needs. "Voters in our community," he reminded us, "resoundingly rejected Donald Trump last year and polls show they reject him today in even larger margins. It amazes me that Ed Royce is willing to fight for Trump's priorities instead of his own constituents. There won't be a day where we don't tie Ed to the Trump agenda. He is a 97% vote for Trump in a district that went for Hillary by nearly 9%. Our community won't stand for this, especially now that Trump took away net neutrality and Royce voted for a tax reform bill that undermines homeowners, seniors and young people in our district just so his donors could get a tax cut."

And this is a position of Democratic congressional candidates not just in blue California, but even in red Texas. Rick Treviño is the progressive candidate taking on Will Hurd in South Texas. "For months now," he said, "Will Hurd has been doing his best to distance himself from Trump. I'm sorry buddy, that stink don't come off. I can smell that vote from here. The GOP and Hurd enabled Trump and they must atone for the damage they've unleashed on our society." Jason Westin is running in a west Houston seat that's ready to flip. "Here in the Texas 7th district," he told us, "Donald Trump was the first Republican to lose in decades, so we'd love to invite him to campaign with John Culberson. Our district voted for Mitt Romney by more than 20% over President Obama, but things changed with Mr. Trump and his circus tricks. Our district is highly educated and the 'distract and divide' strategy Mr. Trump used fell flat, and that was before we saw his performance as President. The PPP polling done recently showed in TX-07 that Mr. Trump had a 37% approval rating, but amazingly John Culberson was only at 31%. I'm not sure how anyone could be less popular than Mr. Trump, but John Culberson has found a way. John Culberson has the second highest 'Trump Score' rating in the House per FiveThirtyEight, so he's clearly trying to get Mr. Trump's support. That sounds wonderful to us."

We've been talking for months about the Trump "kiss of death." Analysis of polls is now confirming this. "Trump is the most polarizing national politician. Just under a third of voters, 32 percent, say an endorsement from Trump would make them more likely to support a congressional candidate. But more voters, 38 percent, say a Trump endorsement would make them less likely to vote for that candidate. There’s also an enthusiasm gap: The percentage of voters who say a Trump endorsement would make them much less likely to vote for that candidate, 32 percent, is equal to the combined percentage who say Trump’s endorsement would make them much or somewhat more likely to support that person." Democratic candidates are mocking Trump on Twitter and Facebook, begging him to come to their districts to campaign for the Republican incumbents who are viewed as Trump and Ryan rubber-stamps.

The two least popular figures, according to the poll, loom large on the Senate battlefield: former White House adviser Stephen Bannon and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Only 17 percent of voters say a Bannon endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, while 39 percent say his backing would make them less likely to support the candidate.

McConnell’s numbers aren’t much better: Just 18 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate he endorsed, while twice as many, 36 percent, would be less likely.

The Bannon-vs.-McConnell proxy battles are most likely to play out in GOP Senate primaries, but the Politico/Morning Consult poll is inconclusive on which man is more valuable nationally to a Republican audience. Three in 10 GOP voters say a McConnell endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, but 23 percent say it would make them less likely. The numbers are similar for Bannon, the controversial Breitbart executive: 29 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by him, while 25 percent would be less likely.

Endorsements from most major political figures could hurt candidates more that they help them.

Democrats, meanwhile, hope to turn House Speaker Paul Ryan into a bogeyman for GOP congressional candidates. Ryan (R-Wis.) is a stronger surrogate than McConnell, but the percentage of voters who say his support would make them less likely to vote for a candidate (36 percent) is still greater than those it would make more likely (25 percent).

Ryan And Trump Passed Their Tax Bill-- Everyone Is Pissed, Except The Billionaire Class

A rising tide is supposed to lift ALL ships, not just the yachts.
-Laura Oatman, Orange County Democrat taking on Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)

Even as opposition to the GOP Tax Scam continued to grow, Ryan was determined to get it over with on Tuesday. In February, when polling began on the proposed massive giveaway to the rich, approval was at 44% and disapproval was at 53%. It's pretty much been straight downhill since then and the December numbers shows 35% approve and 59% disapprove, numbers that are fairly in synch with Trump's own job approval trends. The poll shows that 66% of Americans understand that the Tax Scam benefits the wealthy most and only 27% of respondents said there was more benefit to the middle class. 930,000 constituents called their members of Congress to urge them not to vote for the thing.

The bill passed the House 227-203. Pelosi held every Democrat-- including the Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the party-- in unity against it. Ryan and McCarthy lost only a dozen Republicans-- Peter King, Elisse Stefanik, John Faso, Lee Zeldin and Dan Donovan from New York, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chris Smith, Frank LoBiondo and Leonard Lance from New Jersey, Darrell Issa and Dana Rohrabacher from California (all from high local tax states) plus Walter Jones (NC). No big surprises, though the vote leaves huge targets on the backs of Tom Reed, John Katko and Chris Collins in New York, Tom MacArthur in New Jersey and a load of California Republicans but especially Ed Royce, Steve Knight, Mimi Walters, Jeff Denham, David Valadao, Paul Cook, Tom McClintock and Devin Nunes.

Please remember that during the campaign, Trump, who most of the country now realizes is an inveterate liar, promised he would raise taxes on the wealthy, get rid of loop-holes and not personally benefit from the tax bill. In other words, three more Trump lies. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center points out that within the decade 80% of all the benefits from the bill will have gone to the top 1%. And most of the 99% of Americans get stiffed. If you're a multimillionaire or billionaire you'll be able to leave your heirs $22 million tax-free instead of $11 million. Americans For Tax Fairness summarized the 13 biggest problems with the Tax Scam:

• Gives 83% of the tax cuts to the richest 1% by 2027.
• Raises taxes on 92 million middle-class families by 2027 to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.
• Mandates automatic Medicare cuts of at least $25 billion in 2018 and $400 billion over 10 years.
• Increases health care premiums and leaves 13 million families without health coverage, to raise revenue for tax breaks that mostly benefit the wealthy and corporations.
• Provides a corporate tax rate cut of $1.4 trillion and makes those cuts permanent, but makes tax cuts for individuals and families temporary.
• Adds $1.5 to $2.2 trillion to the national debt, jeopardizing critical services.
• Prioritizes the wealthiest taxpayers over working families with children. The GOP chose not to fully adjust changes in the Child Tax Credit so that some 24 million children in working families could fully benefit.
• Prioritizes wealthy business owners and real estate developers like Donald Trump. They get a net $265 billion tax cut from a new 20% deduction for “pass-through” business income combined with a tightening of rules on losses.
• Kills American jobs by encouraging outsourcing and profit shifting. The plan creates a territorial tax system, which exempts foreign profits from U.S. taxes.
• Hands a $400 billion tax cut to offshore tax dodgers
• Limits the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), hurting the middle class. This is one of the reasons that nearly 8 million families will see tax increases in 2018.
• Lets many wealthy heirs avoid paying the estate tax. The estate tax is substantially weakened, losing $83 billion and allowing very rich families to inherit wealth tax-free.
• Enriches President Trump and his family.

Paul Ryan is leaving Congress, but he asked his conference to walk the plank for this-- dozens suspecting that they will be looking for new jobs in 2019-- for this destructive, accursed bill. Immediately after the vote, Ro Khanna (D-CA) called it "This horrible Republican tax bill," asserting that it "increases deficits by $1.5 trillion over ten years that favors corporations and the wealthiest Americans, while doing nothing for the middle class. 53% of taxpayers will pay more tax in 2027 than they do today. Compare that to the top 1% who will receive 83% of the gains in 2027, with the top 0.1% getting 60% of those benefits. This is flawed policy that will increase income inequality in our nation even further. In my state of California, not to mention the rest of the country, families will be forced to pay taxes twice on much of their income by scaling back their ability to write off state and local taxes... I am disappointed that the tax bill demonstrates Republicans think it’s better to serve the interests of the very wealthy than everyday people." Pramila Jayapal, who represents Seattle certainly agreed: "The GOP tax scam bill is an all-out war on any idea of opportunity in this country. It’s a massive tax break for the ultra-wealthy on the backs of middle class families. It’s outrageous that Republicans in the House voted to pass this love letter to their largest donors and corporations. Despite overwhelming opposition from the American people, this tax scam dismantles the Affordable Care Act, throwing 13 million people off their health care. It eliminates most of the State and Local Tax deduction, short-changing communities and resulting in as much as $152 billion in cuts to education funding over the next decade. It runs up the deficit anywhere from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, triggering cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Despite what Republicans say, the fact of the matter is that 80 percent of all tax benefits in this bill go to the top one percent. With this heist, Republicans have branded themselves as the party of billionaires and giant corporations-- they are robbing the American people and showing zero remorse."

Plenty of progressive candidates for Congress were on the same page. California was especially targeted by Trump and the GOP and candidates here were most incensed. Sam Jammal (CA-38) is running for the Orange County seat held by Ryan rubber stamp Ed Royce. He's not sot shy about taking on Royce:

Today is a serious blow to the America I grew up in. I entered the campaign with the firm belief that - while we have our differences in how to get there-- whether you are a Republican or Democrat, you cared about the future and making sure we maintain who we are as Americans in a changing economy.  This Trump tax reform vote clearly shows a very different set of values from Congressional Republicans and Ed Royce.

While politics for too long has prioritized millionaires and the largest corporations, we have never seen such a bold step to rewrite how our economy works and handcuff what our government can do.  This is a once in a generation bill that is an attack on who we are and paints a very different picture of who we will be.  Trump's tax reform will add trillions to our federal deficit while making permanent a tax restructuring that will make it much more difficult to pay for things like national security, health care and education in the future.


There is a laundry list of terrible policies in Trump's tax reform specific to our district.  They include the cap on the state and local tax deduction, which punishes California for investing in our state; changes to the mortgage interest deduction that will lower property values and harm homeowners in the 39th district; the elimination of the deduction to recover from losses in a wildfire or earthquake; and the elimination of the individual mandate for health care, which will result in 13 million people losing their insurance and significant market destabilization.  Cooler heads did prevail on language affecting grad students and the student loan deduction, but this bill robs the next generation by driving a hole in future budgets.

Having worked as a Chief of Staff in the House and Counsel in the Senate, I know how hard it is to change a law once it’s passed.  We may be stuck with this horrible bill for the foreseeable future and Republicans must be held accountable.  Ed Royce failed the 39th district by voting for this bill.  He had an opportunity to stand up and oppose, but, instead, did what he has done all year - vote with Donald Trump.  Ed is actively voting against our community and we will replace him next year.

Consumer advocate and congressional candidate Katie Porter (CA-45) released an equally powerful statement after her Republican opponent, Mimi Walters,voted to raise taxes on her own constituents. "I am furious," said Porter, "that my opponent just voted to raise taxes on middle-class families in Orange County. This bill will be a shock to middle-class families’ pocketbooks.These devastating tax changes will tilt our entire system even more towards the top 1% at a time when multinational corporations are parking record profits offshore, a handful of top-tier billionaires are getting richer and richer, and when the middle class is getting squeezed. Not to mention, this bill puts health insurance for 13 million people in jeopardy and sets the stage for significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Our families deserve a congresswoman who will stand up for them, not special interests."



Obviously, it isn't just in California where congressional candidates are already using the bill in their campaigns. Dan Canon is trying to replace Trey Hollingsworth in a red Indiana district. It’s incredible," he said, "that Representative Hollingsworth [the incumbent representative of IN-09] voted for this bill after a year of hand-wringing over deficit spending-- he even voted against hurricane relief supposedly because of ‘fiscal responsibility’-- and now this? This is a transparent sellout to big-dollar donors and giant corporations on the backs of working families. If Trey ever showed up to speak with his constituents he’d see what I see everyday; ordinary Hoosiers are struggling. We won’t be silent while he uses us to line the pockets of the 1%."

Looks like Congress flunked FDR's test... badly