Donald J. Trump Welshes On His Bets

Illinois Senator Mark Kirk is remembered by many for falsely claiming to be an Iraq War vet. Although he was in the Navy Reserves during the Iraq War, he never left the U.S. and his claims to be a war vet were patently false-- and are still false, as he does it again this year. Lying to the public about something like that used to be a major no-no. But is it any longer? Donald J. Trump lies every time he opens his mouth. He lies about small things and he lies about big things. PolitiFact has checked 305 assertions from Trump, all of them substantive and consequential. Only 10 of them were found to be true. Let that sink in for a moment. He's running even with Hillary Clinton for the presidency. 4% of his checked statements were found to be true. 10. True enough, another 29 statements were found "mostly true" and 37 more were found to be "half true," which is a nicer way of saying "half false." Of the 305 statement checks, 39 (15%), were judged to be true or mostly true. 229 were found to be lies. 70% of his statements were lies. No figure in American politics lies as frequently as Donald J. Trump. It's how he's run his entire life. It's what he is and what's he's always been all about.

At this point, unless proven otherwise, it would be a good bet to assume that whatever Trump says is false. The odds of you winning are gargantuan. And, speaking of bets... would it surprise you to know that Trump welshes on them? There's a lot going on in the media right now about how Trump has been using his so-called "charitable" foundation for personal and even political expenses.  I don't think average Trump fans care-- or even understand why that's important. This is a guy who-- along with his shady family and crooked associates-- almost half the voters seem comfortable with entrusting with the treasury? The guy who raids his fake charity? The guy who won't make his tax returns public and then lies about the reasons? Tuesday, at a rally in North Carolina, Trump was bragging to the audience of drooling imbeciles and racists that one of his modus operandi is to use other people's money. "It’s called OPM. I do that all the time in business. It’s called other people’s money. There’s nothing like doing things with other people’s money because it takes the risk-- you get a good chunk of it and it takes the risk." The audience cheered. He's grotesque; they're irredeemable morons. They're sending Trump an unprecedented number-- for a Republican-- of small contributions... and he's been using that money to pay his own companies and his family members outrageous, large amounts-- $500,000 last month alone. Leave it to Trump-- and that reprehensible crew of vultures around him-- to figure out a scheme to turn a political campaign into a commercial profit center!

But the Daily News video embedded at the top of the page is there for a different reason-- a related aspect of Trump's character. The guy welshes on his bets. Can you abide that? You know, recently someone asked me what I thought the weakest link is for would-be California governor Gavin Newsom. I don't like the idea of him getting into power because he's a corporate Dem and an untrustworthy, slick political opportunist. But the way I suggested to make people understand would be to talk about something Everyman (i.e., a typical voter) could personally relate to. In Newsom's case, its easy: he had an affair with his best friend's wife. What kind of a guy does that to his own wife, his best friend and the wife of his best friend? What does that say about Newsom's character, even leaving politics aside? Is he fit for public office? Could you really ever trust the guy?

And for Trump... well, there's so much that seems to slide right off his back. The desperadoes and morons-- two separate demographics-- who back him aren't hearing any of the messaging about him. They didn't hear it from Republican sources during the primaries and they're not hearing it from Hillary and her allies now. But why not try something pretty simple and basic that no one likes: the man welshes on his bets. He offered a million dollars to this schnook if he could hit an unlikely hole-in-one at a Trump-owned golf course. And the guy did. He hit a hole-in-one and there was a ton of press for the Westchester golf course Trump was trying to drum up some publicity for. Mission accomplished, right? Then Trump refused to pay. He wormed out of it because he didn't want to cough up the dough. What kind of a person is that?

The golfer took him to court and sued him and they wound up settling for $158,000, just under 16% of what Trump owed. And even then, he didn't pay it but used OPM-- other peoples' money (people who had donated to his fake charity) to pay the obligation. No one likes someone who welshes on his bets, not even many of the deplorables who look the other way on all the constant lies.

But, speaking of lies... this week's Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, which I'd bet the deplorables don't watch, got into that in a typically hard-hitting and very entertaining segment:




And Jimmy Kimmel? Just as entertaining when it comes to the poor, ignorant schnooks who have the IQ needed to pull on some clothes in the morning, but lack the brainpower it takes to recognize what Trump is and how dangerous he is to them and their families-- if they even care about themselves and their families. Most Trump supporters don't. Don't believe me? Watch:

A Quick Senate Scorecard

Chuck Schumer, your next Democratic Senate Minority Leader (source)

by Gaius Publius

I want to offer a quick Senate scorecard for the upcoming election, not just races to watch and their current status, but the effect of the races on the "final score" — control of the Senate until the wipeout in 2018 puts the Republicans firmly in control.

To do this, I want to organize the races the way basketball or football analysts look at your favorite college team's upcoming season — games grouped by Should Be Easy, Tough Call, On the Bubble, Would Take a Miracle. For this exercise, we'll ignore the baked-in results in places like California (Democratic and will stay that way), and list the races to watch by these categories:

• Washouts — four contests (IL, WI, OH, FL)
• No Change — one contest (CO)
• Possible Flips — three contests (NH, PA, IN)
• Toss Ups — three contests (NV, NC, MO)
• and one Wild Card race — Alaska

We will look briefly at these 12 races. Others may disagree, but it looks to me like these are the ones to watch.

For reference, the state of the Senate today is:

• Republicans: 54 seats
• Democrats: 44 seats
• Independents: 2 seats (caucus with Democrats)

No independent is up for reelection this cycle. Democrats need a net pickup of +4 to tie in the Senate (50-50) and +5 to take it outright (ignoring for now the "60 vote rule" that makes sure no progressive legislation gets passed). Here are races in each group, with the likeliest outcomes by group in parentheses.

Washouts (+2 D)

The "washout" states are those where one party has conceded the race by withdrawing money. All four seats are held by Republicans. Two of the Democrats have washed out, as have two of the Republicans. These are:

Illinois, currently Republican
Winner should be Tammy Duckworth (D)

Wisconsin, currently Republican
Winner should be Russ Feingold (D)

Ohio, currently Republican
Winner should be Rob Portman (R)

Florida, currently Republican
Winner should be Marco Rubio (R)

Net result: +2 Democrats.

From Electoral-Vote.com:

Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy in Florida, incumbent Republican Mark Kirk in Illinois, Democratic challenger Ted Strickland in Ohio, and incumbent Republican Ron Johnson in Wisconsin are doing badly enough that their parties either have already cut off the money (the two Republicans), or are close to doing so (the two Democrats).

I think most would call these races closed. (Note: Chuck Schumer actively interfered with progressive challengers in Florida and Ohio. The +2 Democrats could easily be +4 Democrats in this category, absent that interference.)

No Change

This category could be larger (I had the New Hampshire race here at first), but let's play it safe.

Colorado, currently Democratic
Winner should be Michael Bennet (D)

The Hill on Bennet:

Once viewed as one of the only ripe opportunities for Republicans, Bennet appears poised to sail to reelection. Republicans aren’t coming to the aid of Darryl Glenn, a county commissioner who trumpeted his conservative bona fides during the primary. But he’ll need to look beyond his base in a state that Obama carried twice and also has a large Latino population.

Michael Bennet is this guy, by the way, from 2014: "Shorter Republicans: "We forgive Michael Bennet for trying to win the Senate." Shorter Sen. Bennet: "Glad we're still friends.""

Possible Flips (+2 D, Maybe)

These are fairly close races where the Democrat could flip a Republican seat. I have three of these:

New Hampshire, currently Republican
Leader is Kelly Ayotte (R)

Pennsylvania, currently Republican
Leader is McGinty (D)

Indiana, was Republican, now open
Leader is Bayh (D)

If the current leader wins each seat: +2 Democrats, but this is iffy.

In New Hampshire, Ayotte is surging at the moment (+8 in the latest Marist poll), but she's coming from behind. Hassan could take it, but I'm not confident.

The Hill on the Pennsylvania race:

The presidential race appears to be trickling into Toomey’s reelection. Political observers in the state say he’s running a strong campaign, but his dip in the polls is largely thanks to the top of the ticket.

Toomey continues to withhold his support from Trump. But his opponent, Katie McGinty, a little-known former gubernatorial chief of staff, has been helped by Clinton’s consistent lead over Trump in the Keystone State. McGinty has maintained a lead since mid-July, though one survey has Toomey up 7 points.

RealClearPolitics has this race a wash, but I think Toomey has the edge. In Indiana, Bayh is only up by single digits, but has never trailed.

(Note: Chuck Schumer actively interfered with non-Democratic establishment Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary, who might easily have beaten Toomey. If Schumer-chosen candidate McGinty fails to win, it will be because of Schumer.)

Too Close To Call (A Wash)

There are three races here — Nevada, North Carolina, Missouri — and Republicans are defending two of the three seats. (Nevada is an open seat, but was Democratic.)

Nevada, was Democratic, now open
Joe Heck (R) has a slight lead over Catherine Cortez Masto (D)

North Carolina, currently Republican
Richard Burr (R) has a low single-digit lead over Deborah Ross (D)

Missouri, currently Republican
Roy Blunt leads Jason Kander (D), but not by much

Republicans flip one seat if all three leaders win. Most likely positive case for the Democrats is no change (two wins and one loss). If Democrats win out: +2 Democrats.

Subtotal (+2 D or +4 D)

If you're counting the total to this point, Democrats are up +2 among the Washout races, then it's a wash until the Too Close To Call races, where there's either no change (more likely) or they go up +2 (by winning them all).

In other words, our best case gives the Democrats +4 seats, and our middle case gives them +2 seats. That's not enough to take the Senate.

(Note again, that Schumer's interference in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania have reduced these totals. Instead of "+2 Democrats or +4 Democrats" so far, the call would have been " +4 or +6" — putting full control of the Senate within reach.)

Wild Card Race: Alaska

Alaska is a Republican seat at the moment, with Lisa Murkowski defending it. A pro-Sanders Democrat is in position to win the seat — and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants him to lose (!).

Howie has written about the Alaska race here:

[T]he populist Democratic Party in the state-- which gave Bernie a 81.6% to 18.4% landslide over Hillary and massive victories in every single electoral district (numbers that beat Trump too)-- also nominated Ray Metcalfe, a former Anchorage state Rep who was one of the state's original Bernie for President organizers. Although he won the party nomination, 15,198 to 10,074, Metcalfe is not a Schumer kind of candidate....

The DSCC (and Alaska's grotesquely corrupt Democratic Party establishment) are worried that-- with teabagger and Trumpist Joe Miller in the race as a Libertarian and tearing Murkowski apart from the right-- Metcalfe could actually win. ... That's how Schumer's reptilian mind works. So he's encouraging a proven corruptionist buddy of his, Mark Begich, to mount a last minute write-in campaign to draw votes away from Metcalfe and throw the election to Murkowski!

More from Electoral-vote.com (my emphasis)

Alaska looks like it's going to become a free-for-all. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is running for reelection, trying to keep a seat that she last won as a write-in candidate after being primaried by tea partier Joe Miller. She could end up facing four viable opponents: Ray Metcalfe (the Democratic nominee), Margaret Stock (an independent with a very impressive resume), Miller (who's back, as the recently-chosen nominee of the Libertarian Party), and possibly former Democratic senator Mark Begich (who may run—wait for it—as a write-in candidate). 30% of the vote could very well win this thing.

Schumer has succeeded in sabotaging every race he has tried to sabotage, so I'll give Murkowski and Schumer the win.

Alaska, currently Republican
Lisa Murkowski (R) has the edge in a five-person race

Net change (if Schumer succeeds): None.

Your Most Likely 2017 Senate

The most likely 2017 Senate, the high point of the bell-shaped curve, if all current likelihoods hold, appears to be this:

• Republican: 52 or 50 seats
• Democrats: 46 or 48 seats
• Independents: 2 seats (caucus with Democrats)

By sabotaging the Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and possibly Alaska races, Schumer (a) may well have handed Republicans control of the Senate, but (b) will have assured his own personal, hand-picked control of the Democratic minority that remains. In Schumer's world, that must count has a win-win. I can't imagine any other motivation for this ... what, debacle? betrayal?

Anyway, here's a scorecard to follow as these races evolve. For the Democrats to reach 50 seats, watch the Too Close To Call races, plus Alaska.

GP

How Many Republican Congressional Careers Can Trumpy The Clown Kill By November?

I don't expect we'll see many ads as blatantly anti-Trump from Republican incumbents as the one above from Mark Kirk's campaign. I suppose he's gambling that any Trump die-hards who are so outraged by it that they won't vote for him, will be more than made up for by Illinois' independents. I don't think Trump has responded yet. Maybe no one has mentioned it to him or even told him Mark Kirk is a Republican senator.

Trump knows Rubio, though. And it must infuriate him that Rubio is being negative about him again-- even if he's finally stopped making fun of Trump's deformed penis. Hillary is favored to win in Florida-- and win big [Quinnpiac found Hillary ahead 47-39%]-- and, instead of helping, Rubio says he won't campaign with Trump in his home state. He told CNN that he's not "looking to undermine him, but I think the differences between us on key issues are so significant that I just don't plan to campaign-- I've got to run my own race." Earlier he was encouraging Floridians to vote for him so he could stand up against either of the two unpalatable presidential candidates.



Dan Friedman speculated for Fortune readers that a big Trump loss in Florida could undo Rubio’s senate reelection bid. Rubio, he wrote, "may have briefly looked like the Republican frontrunner last winter, but today he is just one of several endangered Republican incumbents whose reelection chances will fall further as Trump’s numbers drop." Jennifer Duffy, a Senate specialist for the Cook Political Report that "if Trump gets blown out in Florida, it will be a whole lot harder for Rubio to win. And like his colleagues, he will be answering for everything Trump says and does."

Trump’s big win in Rubio’s home state of Florida in March forced the Republican senator out of the presidential contest. Now that Rubio has reversed his oft-repeated claim that he would not seek a second Senate term, a big Trump loss may undo Rubio’s second 2016 campaign.

The incumbent Republicans trying hardest to work out strategies that offend the least number of Trump backers while shielding themselves from Trump's toxicity are Ron Johnson in strongly anti-Trump Wisconsin, Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, Rob Portman in Ohio, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, John McCain in Arizona, Richard Burr in North Carolina, Chuck Grassley in Iowa, even Arkansas' John Boozman and Missouri's Roy Blunt.

Democratic House candidates see the opportunity Trump presidents as well. Duwayne Gregory, the Long Island progressive head of the Suffolk County legislature is running for the South Shore seat held by Trump endorser Peter King and Gregory is making that support a key part of the election debate. Yesterday he sent out an e-mail asking Long Islanders to "Say “NO” to Donald Trump and any candidate who supports him!"

Peter King and Donald Trump sounded exactly the same last week in the wake of the tragedy in Orlando. They both made outrageous accusations, jumped to false conclusions, and continued spreading offensive rhetoric against minorities, especially Muslim-Americans. It’s clear why Peter King won’t stand up to Trump-- because he agrees with him!

We deserve a representative who shares our values and won’t shy away from denouncing Trump’s bigotry. Join me in taking the pledge: I will vote against Donald Trump and any candidate who supports him!

Donald Trump is the most outrageous and bigoted presidential candidate in decades, and it’s vital that Democrats hold strong against him and any Republicans that support him this year.

Last week, Trump repeated his calls for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and even suggested Secretary Clinton and President Obama were involved with and responsible for the attack in Orlando. Republicans, including Peter King, fell in line and started echoing his baseless and offensive pronouncements.

Republicans who refuse to denounce Trump’s racism, sexism, xenophobia, and insulting behavior do not deserve to serve their community in elected office. And that includes Peter King.

State Senator Ruben Kihuen won a hard-fought primary and is now the official Democratic Party challenger to right-wing Republican Cresent Hardy in a huge Nevada district that leans Democratic. Policy-wise, he sees Hardy and Trump as two peas in a pod. Last night he told us that "Hardy can't run from Donald Trump because they agree on so many issues-- and perhaps the most shameful is their shared contempt for people with disabilities. Trump has viciously mocked a reporter for his disability, while Congressman Hardy thinks the disabled are "a drain on society." This is wildly out of step with the values of Nevadans." Help the good guys, like Duwayne and Ruben replace the bad guys... by clicking on the good guys thermometer below:

Homophobia Is A Bipartisan Disease, As We Just Saw Again-- This Time In North Carolina

I'll attribute it to bad staff work, but Friday night Rachel Maddow misled her audience into thinking the viciously anti-LGBT bill that the North Carolina legislature just passed, HB-2, was a strictly party-line vote. True, the leadership in both chambers of the legislature is Republican and true, the Republicans pushed this bill through from beginning to end. BUT, at least in the North Carolina House, the Republicans found 11 like-minded, bigoted Democrats to give them a hand.

Maddow: "The Republicans in the legislature did this all in the space of 12 hours, with such a small amount of debate, with so little transparency that the Democrats in the legislature simpy walked out in protest before the vote was even taken." Actually, Maddow gets a "Half True" on that. The Democrats in the Senate did walk out and refused to vote. The House, however, was a different story-- one that Maddow never alluded to.

"Governor Pat McCrory and Republican state legislators may be super-psyched," she offered, "about the fact that they got this done and they may be super-psyched that North Carolina cities are not allowed to prevent discrimination against gay and transgender people..." Look, I don't expect Rachel to know every single legislature in the country, but NBC has quite a large staff for this kind of thing. These are the 11 conservative Democrats who crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP for the anti-LGBT legislation:

• William Brisson, NC-22 (Bladen, Johnston, Sampson)
• Elmer Floyd, NC-43 (Cumberland)
• Charles Graham, NC-47 (Robeson)
• George Graham, NC-12 (Craven, Greene, Lenoir)
• Ken Goodman, NC-66 (Hoke, Montgomery, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland)
• Howard Hunter III, NC-5 (Bertie, Gates, Hertford, Pasquotank)
• Larry Bell, NC-21 (Duplin, Sampson, Wayne)
• Garland Pierce, NC-48 (Hoke, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland)
• Brad Salmon, NC-51 (Harnett, Lee)
• Billy Richardson, NC-44 (Cumberland)
• Michael H. Wray, NC-27 (Halifax, Northampton)

Although none of them have endorsed Bernie Sanders, at least five of them are part of the Hillary Clinton North Carolina Leadership Team:

• Charles Graham
• George Graham
• Howard Hunter III
• Garland Pierce
• Billy Richardson

What does the affinity of these legislators tell us about Hillary Clinton, whose own record on the LGBT community was pretty dreadful until it became politically safe and politically expedient to support equality. I would imagine if these conservaDems had voted to authorize discrimination against women or blacks or Jews, Hillary would reject their endorsements, loudly and proudly. The gay community should ask itself why she hasn't done so with these homophobes. She takes umbrage-- or she did before she was in a primary with an actual progressive:



HRC (Human Rights Campaign, not Hillary Rodman Clinton), some cocktail-swilling establishment types in DC who make a living by purporting to represent the LGBT community, have given her cover with an undeserved and shameful endorsement. And how offended Bill and Hill were when gays on the frontline against bigotry pointed out that HRC is just another tool of the DC establishment.

HRC gave me a leadership equality award in 1997 and if you've been around DWT for a while, you may recall that I smashed it up with an ax when they endorsed Joe Lieberman. Last the time, I noted that their fancy new 8-story building symbolized their institutional self-perpetuating role inside the DC insider game and that it was clear that what HRC values is access to power. Friday, Michelangelo Signorile, a far more admired and trusted voice in the gay community than anyone involved with HRC on any level, spoke out of their latest outrage against the interests of the people they claim to support as they decided to help the GOP retain control of the U.S. Senate. Illinois incumbent Republican, Mark Kirk, a typical frightened, little DC anti-gay closet case, has a 78% score on the HRC scorecard and his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, has a 100% score, but HRC endorsed Kirk over Duckworth. If Kirk retains his seat, the violently anti-gay GOP majority will retain power in the Senate.

Mark Joseph Stern at Slate acknowledged the “long game” HRC may be playing in backing GOPers who vote pro-gay, but nonetheless drew the line at allowing the terribly anti-gay GOP leadership to retain the Senate this year, observing that HRC “does not seem to grasp...simple reality.”

At The New Republic, Eric Sasson rightly pointed to HRC’s “serious diversity problem” per an internal report that leaked, and to the optics of backing a white male Republican with a meager score over a woman of color and a combat veteran who lost both of her legs in the Iraq war-- and who has a perfect score. Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed had obtained the internal report last year, which called HRC “exclusionary,” “sexist,” and “homogenous.” This endorsement certainly lent more credence to that.

The simple truth is that in 2016 in Illinois we don’t need Mark Kirk-- he needs us. Kirk is in a deep blue state and he absolutely must support full LGBT equality in order to win. His coming out for the Equality Act is not brave; it’s about his own survival. And the first vote he’ll take upon winning back his seat will be a cowardly one to make the anti-gay McConnell (with an HRC score of 0) the Senate Majority Leader again.

There’s no question that the Democrats’ path to taking back the Senate very much includes defeating Kirk, who is in the bluest state among those where GOP senators are embattled. So HRC’s action does raise questions about how committed the group really is to seeing the Democrats take back the Senate, and if it perhaps has conflicting interests. Daily Kos’s David Nir surmised that HRC’s Kirk endorsement is all about keeping “donations flowing from corporations and wealthy gay Republicans,” and he may be on to something.

One only has to look at the website where Chad Griffin posted his response to get a feel for HRC’s aims. Rather than posting the response on its own website or on a progressive or LGBT site (or on Medium, where Griffin later posted a response to the North Carolina debacle), Griffin wrote his defense of the Kirk endorsement on the Independent Journal Review, which was founded by former Republican Party staffers Alex Skatell and Phil Musser, and has been described by GOP consultant Alex Castellanos as a cross of “RedState with BuzzFeed.” The New York Times described it as having “a steady stream of articles critical of President Obama and other Democrats.”

Skatell, now 30, started the first Facebook page for the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) when he was 22. One major donor to the RGA is the GOP New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer-- who also happens to be a major donor to HRC. Singer’s foundation and the Daniel S. Loeb Foundation committed $3 million to the group, incurring criticism because Singer makes a lot of his money from a “vulture fund“ that sues poverty-stricken countries for their debt.

Singer has a son who is gay and worked on the push for marriage equality in New York, credited with helping persuade four Republicans to vote with Democrats to pass the bill. But Singer has his priorities: He bankrolled the campaigns of some of the most anti-gay GOP Senate candidates who won in 2014, like Joni Ernst of Iowa and Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia, and he became a key fundraiser for the presidential campaign and super PACS of anti-gay Marco Rubio, who promised to overturn the Obergefell ruling. In 2016, Singer’s firm, Elliott Management, is the third largest contributor to the RGA, which is working this year to re-elect none other than Pat McCrory, the North Carolina governor who this week signed the most anti-LGBT law we’ve seen.

Singer also has been among those leading the anti-Trump effort among Republicans, which doesn’t look very promising right now. Looking at the possibility of Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination, it’s no secret that GOP leaders have focused on putting all of their efforts on retaining the Senate. Surely Paul Singer will be critical in that effort, bringing hard and steady pressure to bear wherever it is necessary. It’s not a surprise, then, that the American Unity Fund, which Singer founded, has been tweeting and retweeting support of HRC for its endorsement of Mark Kirk, in what seems like an attempt to counter the many LGBT people who are expressing their anger and to whom HRC believes it is not answerable.

If HRC is not answerable to LGBT people, however-- and its president, Griffin, rarely even gives interviews to LGBT media, while speaking often in the larger media-- exactly to whom and what is it answerable, and what are its true priorities? One thing is clear: HRC doesn’t speak for the LGBT community, and the sooner that politicians and those in the media grasp that, the smarter they will be.

When Their Careers Are On The Line, Conservatives Vote With Progressives On The Environment

It's always funny-- or sad, depending on your perspective-- to see how conservatives back away from their principles eagerness to serve their corporate masters when their careers are in jeopardy. The Florida Senate race, for example, has Partrick Murphy suddenly calling himself a "champion of the middle class" and an "environmentalist," while his record paints an entirely different picture. He's even tending to vote more frequently with Democrats in Congress than he ever has before. His lifetime ProgressivePunch crucial vote score (50.95) has shot up because this year his score is, miraculously, 62.07, still graded an "F," but not as terrible as usual. He's now just the 11th worst Democrat in the House instead of the 4th worst. Primaries can be refreshing, although no guarantee-- to put it mildly-- that he won't revert back to his anti-working family/anti-environmental ways if he wins the Democratic nomination. (Murphy's political calculus yesterday, though, was to revert to his real nature and vote with the Republicans and the Republican wing of the Democratic Party against the fleeing Syrian immigrants. That's Murphy!) Remember, this "environmentalist," not only voted for drilling off the Florida beaches, but also voted 6 times to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, including going along with the Republicans to remove President Obama from the decision-making process, something not even the only worse Democrat in the state, Blue Dog Gwen Graham, could force herself to do. You can support Alan Grayson's grassroots campaign to bring actual progressive values to that Florida Senate seat Murphy is trying for here.

And speaking of slimy politicians like Murphy who change their stripes on the environment before hotly contested elections, the Natural Resources Defense Council's Action Fund brought to our attention that the tight-wing anti-environment extremists' latest effort to debilitate the effectiveness of the EPA to protect ordinary families from the greed of predatory corporations was hampered by electoral considerations back home. Although the 3 worst right-wing Democrats in the Senate-- Joe Manchin (WV), Joe Donnelly (IN) and Heidi Heitkamp (ND) joined their Republican allies to vote for S.J, Res. 23, 3 Republicans abandoned the GOP effort-- Mark Kirk (IL), Kelly Ayotte (NH) and Susan Collins (ME). Kirk and Kelly are both seriously vulnerable in their reelection bids next year and have tended to try to vote more frequently with the Democrats and they voted to keep recently published EPA rules limiting carbon pollution intact. Kirk, widely considered the most vulnerable Republican up next year, came as more of a surprise than Ayotte.

Ayotte announced her intention to support the Clean Power Plan last month, saying she made the decision to "address climate change through clean energy solutions that will protect our environment," but green groups including NRDC were unsure how Kirk would vote up until the moment he gave a "thumbs down" gesture on the floor of the Senate tonight.

With polling showing strong support among the American electorate (and GOP primary voters) for both the Clean Power Plan specifically and, more generally, concrete political solutions to addressing climate change, it’s no surprise that vulnerable Republicans are siding with a majority of voters. Running on clean energy solutions to climate change has become smart politics.

• Strong majorities say, "it’s important to them that GOP candidates have a clean energy plan." (72% in NH, 68% in SC).
• Nearly three quarters of GOP primary voters want increased use of renewable energies like wind and solar, while primary voters in both states want decreased use of coal.
• Majorities in both states believe in climate change.
• Three quarters of GOP primary voters in both NH and SC support their state submitting a plan to comply with the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

Neither Lindsey Graham, considering the results in his home state, nor serial slacker Marco Rubio bothered to show up for the vote Tuesday. Graham may have been hiding from South Carolina voters and running around TV stations with fellow warmonger John McCain screeching about attacking Syria, but Rubio was sucking up to some of the right-wing billionaires who are financing his uninspired presidential bid. This morning's new NBC poll, shows Cruz's more rabid dog approach resonates better than Rubio's messaging with Republican primary voters. One Democratic senator on the subcommittee Rubio supposedly chairs that deals with Global Warming told us that "we're better off when he doesn't show up. All he ever does is vote the way his Big Money campaign donors want him to vote-- and that's never good for the environment."

Billionaire Vulture Paul Singer Has Been Bribing Rubio To Help His Corrupt Business For Quite Some Time

Sunday started off with an explanation of the connection between Marco Rubio and vulture investor Paul Singer, who is now trying-- along with several other slimy billionaires-- to buy Rubio the white House. (Don't worry... Ted Cruz has his own equally horrid billionaires trying to buy the presidency for him.) Everyone more or less assumed that Singer was willing to invest heavily in Rubio because of their shared virulent Zionism and because of Rubio's consistent pledges to drastically lower taxes on billionaires, coupled with his perceived electability. But then Jonathan Marshall, writing for ConsortiumNews reported a key element most reporters have missed, not that the Singer's embrace signals an establishment shift away from Jeb, but that "Rubio earned that affection by advancing Singer’s high-stakes financial fight with Argentina."

Marshall points out Rubio's "political support for Singer’s efforts to drain more than $1.5 billion dollars from Argentina in payments on old bonds that lost most of their value after the country defaulted in 2001." In the Sunday discussion of Singer's corruption, we mentioned how he bribed GOP congressman Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm with $38,000 to get him to use his congressional office to extort Argentina. Grimm is in prison for other (unrelated) corrupt practices but he isn't the only Republican who helped Singer with his disgraceful vulture operation against Argentina.

...Bloomberg noted, “Singer has repeatedly been labeled a ‘vulture investor’ by the emerging-market countries whose bonds he has bought and by development organizations such as Oxfam International that back forgiveness of poor countries’ debt.” The Guardian described the debt vulture model this way: “Vulture funds operate by buying up a country’s debt when it is in a state of chaos. When the country has stabilized, vulture funds return to demand millions of dollars in interest repayments and fees on the original debt. … It has been 16 years since most of the world began writing off the debts of the world’s poorest countries, but the vulture funds, a club of between 26 and 35 speculators, have ignored the debt concerts by pop stars such as Bono and pleas from the likes of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to give the countries a break and a chance to get back on their feet.”

It now looks like Singer is repaying Rubio for his willingness to fight his anti-Argentine battles and drag the U.S. Senate into it despite warnings from the State Department not to.

Singer’s Elliott Management bought that debt several years ago for less than $50 million, and then successfully sued in U.S. court to demand full recovery of the face amount-- in the face of opposition from the Obama administration, most other bondholders, and, above all, Argentina’s government, led by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

Singer, who is famous for his bare-knuckles tactics against foreign governments, has gone after Kirchner’s government on all fronts. Most strategically, he supported the highly questionable claims by an Argentine prosecutor that the Kirchner government tried to cover up the involvement of the Iranian government in the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people.

The issue was perfect for a smear campaign: targeting alleged Iranian terrorism and government anti-Semitism, Singer could undercut the legitimacy of the one entity standing between him and huge profits on his speculative bond purchases.

Singer’s Elliot Management is a major backer of American Task Force Argentina, which advocates for full repayment of the Argentine bonds and has spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress. It also spends big bucks to blacken Argentina’s reputation.

As Huffington Post reported in 2013, the group “has launched a broad attack on Argentina in its PR campaign. … Politico ad, paid for by ATFA, slammed the country as a safe haven for narcotics traffickers. Another ATFA ad accuses Argentine President Cristina Kirchner of making a ‘pact with the Devil,’ pointing to a legal memo between her country and Iran involving Argentina’s effort to prosecute Iranian defendants in a terrorism case.”

As one of its lobbyists told Huffington Post, “We do whatever we can to get our government and media’s attention focused on what a bad actor Argentina is.”

An investigation by Charles Davis for Inter Press Service showed that employees of Singer’s Elliott Management contributed more than $95,000 to Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, who wrote a letter denouncing President Kirchner’s agreement with Iran to investigate the 1994 bombing.

Rep. Michael Grimm, R-NY, who received $38,000 from Elliott Management employees, co-sponsored legislation demanding that Argentina’s bondholders receive full compensation, and called for an investigation of Argentina’s ties with Iran. Other recipients of Singer’s largesse-- including AIPAC, The Israel Project and the American Enterprise Institute-- also hammered the Kirchner government, virtually accusing it of anti-Semitism.

Last year, another member of Congress got in on the act: Sen. Marco Rubio. While grilling President Obama’s nominee as U.S. ambassador to Argentina, Rubio complained that Buenos Aires “doesn’t pay bondholders, doesn’t work with our security operations. . . .  These aren’t the actions of an ally.”

Adding a dig at President Kirchner, he added, “We have this trend in Latin America of people who get elected but then don’t govern democratically. Argentina is an example of this.” His speech triggered an angry response from Kirchner’s Foreign Minister Hector Timerman-- an Argentine Jew-- calling Rubio an “extremist.”

This May, Rubio introduced a resolution in the Senate suggesting that Kirchner conspired to “cover up Iranian involvement in the 1994 terrorist bombing.” Rubio declared that the issues in the case “extend well beyond Argentina and involve the international community, and more importantly, U.S. national security.”

As Eli Clifton noted, “It turns out that Singer’s hedge fund, Elliott Management, was Rubio’s second largest source of campaign contributions between 2009 and 2014, providing the presidential hopeful with $122,620, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.” Let's not forget that Singer gave Rubio $117,000 the same day Congress passed Dodd-Frank-- which Rubio voted to repeal 4 times.

When Kirchner herself had the temerity this spring to link Singer to various neoconservative attacks on her policies, citing a “global modus operandi” to coerce foreign states, the reliably neoconservative editorial page of the Washington Post published an editorial reply titled, “Argentina’s President Resorts to Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories.”

To which Jim Lobe and Charles Davis, citing a long list of Singer connections to Kirchner’s critics, replied, “follow the money.” That advice, made famous in the movie version of Watergate’s Deep Throat, remains the best guide to understanding billionaire funding of candidates in the 2016 election.

And believe me, this isn't going to be a topic brought up by any moderators in the next Republican debate... nor the one after that.

You Don't Get A Second Chance To Make A First Impression-- And Tom Cotton Is Stuck

Tom Cotton now claims he was just joking around

Anyone who followed Cotton's single term in the House or his campaigns for the House and, last year, for the Senate already had a good idea about what they were dealing with: a manipulative extremist who will say or do anything to advance his childish far right-wing agenda. And he comes wrapped up in a Harvard education with a fancy magna cum laude bow, making it easy to assume he might know what he's talking about. He doesn't-- as he proved with that cockamamie letter to the Iranian mullahs last week. He made common cause with the radical extremists within Iran to scuttle the nuclear treaty being hammered out by the legitimate government in Tehran with the Obama Administration.

What's amazing it that Cotton was able to persuade 46 of his Republican colleagues-- though, ominously, not Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Corker (R-TN)-- to suspend reason and take a walk down Sedition Lane with him. The 46 of them signed the letter, which Cotton and some of his embarrassed colleagues' staffers are now hinting was "just a joke." No one finds it funny-- and Cotton certainly didn't defend it as a joke when it first caused an explosion among Democrats and the national media.

I suspect more than a few of the co-signers wish they had just told Cotton that freshman senators are supposed to be quiet and pay attention during their first year in the Senate. Tuesday we saw how Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candidate, former Admiral Joe Sestak, clobbered Republican incumbent Pat Toomey for signing this misanthropic letter. "[F]or Sen. Toomey to sign a letter to a foreign leader," said Sestak, "urging that leader to ignore the institution of the American Presidency is inexcusable, embarrassing, and shows a lack of experience and understanding about America’s standing in the world, led first and foremost by the U.S. President." Sestak's missive got more devastating as it went on:

When Sen. Toomey was a Congressman, he fundamentally misunderstood the proper use of our military in the world when he voted to send us into the Iraq War. Today, Sen. Toomey is again wrong in voicing directly to an adversarial leader his opposition to an ongoing process of American diplomacy, by Toomey’s signing of a letter to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who has called for “Death to America."

That Sen. Corker, the Republican Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, did not sign the letter underscores the recklessness of Sen. Toomey’s political actions – that he would tell a leader who wishes us ill to ignore our President’s endeavor. Signing the letter only serves to disrupt a possible effort to bring about a peaceful resolution to the nuclear weapons issue with Iran.

And if the nuclear talks fail, Toomey offers no other option except to go directly to war. Then, once again, we will have a representative who will have pushed our nation into war and-- with no skin of his own in the game-- will once again walk away from the men and women he sent into battle by voting against 12 Department of Veterans Affairs' appropriations bills after his vote for the war in Iraq.

Cotton won't have to face Arkansas voters for 5 years, but several of the suckers he persuaded to sign his joke letter, like Toomey, are up for reelection in 2016. Others who could be in trouble are Ron Johnson (R-WI), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Rob Portman (R-OH), Richard Burr (R-NC) and, probably most vulnerble of all, Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Yesterday the Chicago Sun-Times pointed out how 4 prospective congressmembers are looking at what a big mistake Kirk made by signing the letter. "That Illinois Democrat Reps. Robin Kelly, Tammy Duckworth, Bill Foster and Cheri Bustos hit Kirk on the letter shows that the race is on-- as each one is contemplating a Democratic primary bid... Kelly said in a statement that Kirk, in signing the letter, 'failed to display the party independence and policy thoughtfulness he’d promised when he said he’d work across the aisle on important matters like our national security.' ”

In a statement, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called the letter a “political stunt” and “a cynical effort by Republican Senators to undermine sensitive international negotiations.”

After Kelly sent out her statement, I asked the other potential Senate candidates for their thoughts. Duckworth and Bustos did not use Kirk’s name.

Duckworth said in an email, “Those who signed this letter have set a dangerous precedent that impedes a President’s ability to conduct foreign policy and negotiate on issues of great importance to our nation.”

Bustos’ spokesman said in an email that she is “extremely disappointed in this political maneuver that she views as not only counterproductive to critical negotiations . . . but reinforces the mixed-up priorities of the letter’s signers.”

In an emailed statement, Foster cited former Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, R-Mich., who famously said we must stop “partisan politics at the water’s edge.” Foster wrote: “Republican Senators, including Mark Kirk, have forgotten that message today in their irresponsible desire to continue partisan attacks against the President.”

Besides Corker, there were a few Republican senators who realized Cotton's approach was insane and who refused to go along. Susan Collins (R-ME): "It did not seem to me to be appropriate for us to be writing the ayatollah at this critical time during the negotiations, and frankly, I doubt very much that the ayatollah would be moved by an explanation of our constitutional system." Jeff Flake (R-AZ), clearly disgusted, said the letter was neither "helpful" nor "productive": "These are tough enough negotiations as it stands. And introducing this kind of letter, I didn’t think would be helpful." The other Republicans who were smart enough to avoid Cotton's blandishments were Dan Coats (R-IN), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Thad Cochran (R-MS). 

And John McCain, who did sign the silly letter, is now having second thoughts. On Fox News he told Greta van Susteren: "What that letter did was tell the Iranians that whatever deal they make, the Congress of the United States will play a role... Maybe that wasn’t the best way to do that, but I think the Iranians should know that the Congress of the United States has to play a role in whether an agreement of this magnitude... It’s also symptomatic between the total lack of trust that exists now between we Republicans and the president. This has established a poisoned environment here which sometimes causes us to react maybe in not the most effective fashion."

UPDATE: Tom Cotton Now Suffering a Severe Stature Deficit

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is an extremely right-wing newspaper. But even they saw the folly of Tom Cotton's grab for the national spotlight this week!

So, yes, Arkansas, it's not crazy to feel like a stepping stone. While most junior senators less than 100 days into their first terms would devote themselves to figuring out how to best serve the state that put him in office, that's small potatoes for Cotton. It's hard to get on national newscasts based on Arkansas issues, so why not try to scuttle U.S. negotiations focused on keeping an antagonistic Middle East nation from developing a nuclear weapon?

…Of course, Cotton's real enemy is the man who helped him get elected: President Obama. We're not fans of the president, but Cotton's perspective has to be viewed through the lens of his fixation on Obama being the cause of many of the nation's problems. It's overstepping for a junior, freshman senator to so blatantly engage in foreign policy sabotage against the administration as a part of his constant campaign for higher office. Cotton is playing to his base, the right-wing conservatives so eager for his political ambitions to succeed, but his actions in this case did not serve the nation.

… If this letter is an example of Cotton's leadership in Washington, then he's still got a lot to learn.

Can Mark Kirk Fight Off A Primary From Far Right Lunatic Joe Walsh?

Of all the Senate seats the Republicans have to defend in 2016, Illinois is probably the one they dread most. Mark Kirk is a weak candidate with an undistinguished, uninspiring record in a blue-leaning state. Although there are no party registration statistics available, recent elections gave the Democrats 40 seats in the Illinois state Senate to the GOP's 19 and 71 in the state House to the GOP's 47. Even after the Republican wave election last year, lllinois's congressional delegation consisted of 10 Democrats and 7 Republicans (of which 3 of the latter are considered extremely vulnerable in a presidential election year). In 2010, when Kirk won the seat, he beat a very weak Democrat, Alexi Giannoulias, 1,778,698 (48%) to 1,719,478 (46%). Obama beat McCain 3,419,348 (62%) to 2,031,179 (37%) and beat Romney 3,019,512 (58%) to 2,135,216 (41%). Illinois is expected to go very strongly for native daughter Hillary Clinton.

But things could get even worse for Illinois Republicans. Kirk is, essentially, a wishy-washy moderate. People don't hate him. And the Republican base doesn't love him. And he could lose a primary battle to one of Illinois's most extreme right, crazy politicians, former Congressman Joe Walsh. Walsh, now a WIND Hate Talk Radio host, served for one tumultuous term, amassed a bizarre extremist record and was maneuvered out of his seat by the GOP in favor of Randy Hultgren and forced to run against Tammy Duckworth, who beat him decisively in the open seat 54.7- 45.3%. He can't win a statewide general election in Illinois, but he could possibly beat a mainstream conservative like Kirk in a GOP primary, which, he says, is what he plans to do. He says he'll decide by early April. He's already insinuating Kirk isn't physically up to the job because he had a stroke in 2012 and now uses a wheelchair and a cane.

“I think that myself and any Republican voter in this state has questions about Sen. Kirk’s health, similar to if he were running a business and we’d want to know that he’s in condition to run that business,” Walsh said.

“...I think it’s up to him to provide whatever medical information he needs to provide to show that he’s capable of doing this job, that’s all.”

...While conservatives have their issues with Kirk-- a national security hawk and a social moderate who is willing more than most of his GOP colleagues to at times cross the aisle-- so far, until Walsh, pragmatism has trumped philosophical divides when it comes to Kirk.

That’s because Kirk’s moderate reputation helps him in general elections in Illinois.

The conservative movement is not monolithic. Walsh comes from the Tea Party wing. David McIntosh, the president of a major conservative group, the Club for Growth, told me they are not active in trying to dump Kirk.

They have other fish to fry.

In any case, “To my knowledge, nobody from Illinois has come to us,” McIntosh said when I asked him about Kirk a few weeks ago at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

I asked Walsh why he wanted to run against Kirk.

“Mark Kirk’s a liberal Republican and I’m a conservative Republican. We’ve always gotten along and the Republican party’s a big tent and all that, and I think last year was a watershed moment when Mark Kirk put his arms around Dick Durbin and refused to help Jim Oberweis, a fellow Republican, beat Durbin,” Walsh said.

What Walsh is talking about: Kirk said in March 2014 that he wanted to “preserve” his relationship with Sen. Durbin, D-Ill., and not engage in a “partisan jihad” against him because the two got along and worked well together. Taking a pounding from conservatives, Kirk reversed himself and said he would help defeat Durbin.

Kirk did end up helping Oberweis but did very little.

But it was enough that Durbin will not have to honor the nonaggression pact Kirk offered-- and took back-- in 2014.

Conservative Democratic congressmembers Tammy Duckworth, Cheri Bustos and Bill Foster all think they can beat Kirk and are all looking at the race. Walsh, of course, would be much easier-- and much less expensive-- to beat. The fear is that this whole thing is just a publicity stunt to help Walsh boost his radio ratings.

Illinois New Dem Bill Foster Doesn't Beat His Wife-- So What Kind of Senator Would He Be?

Illinois Democrats can do a lot better

Illinois is one of the most Democratic-leaning states with a vulnerable Republican seantor-- Mark Kirk-- up for reelection in 2016. Local fave Hillary Clinton is likely to sweep the state comparable to how Obama did in 2008, when he thumped McCain 3,419,348 (62%) to 2,031,179 (37%). Kirk himself was elected in the 2010 midterm, low voter turnout, with just 48% of the vote against a weak Democrat who got 46%. But so far, Illinois Democrats have come up with an even weaker cast of characters to take Kirk on than Alexi Giannoulias. Beltway media seems determined to refer to conservative congressional hacks Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog) and Bill Foster (New Dem) as front-runners. Both have awful voting records that won't inspire grassroots Democrats to even bothering to vote. And if Tammy Duckworth decides to run, she's probably the instant fave. She's neither a Blue Dog nor a New Dem but her voting record is just about as bad a Foster's and Bustos'. These are the 3 ProgressivePunch lifetime crucial vote scores:

• Tammy Duckworth- 64.91
• Bill Foster- 55.25
• Cheri Bustos- 43.72

Of course, instead of covering the race as though policies, vision and records were in any way relevant, Beltway media has its own sick perspective on how to look at candidates. Let's take Bill Foster. Foster has a very mediocre voting record, a lifetime ProgressivePunch crucial vote score of 55.25, even worse than reactionary Blue Dog Dan Lipinski's. In this new session he's already voted with the Republicans-- twice-- to deregulate dangerous Wall Street practices that put taxpayers on the hook for bankster shenanigans. But an article in one of the Beltway trade papers prefers to focus on his personal life when talking about the Senate run.

Three-term Rep. Bill Foster, who won easily in November, and his ex-wife Ann, say there is no truth to allegations in their 1996 divorce that the congressman abused her, the Chicago-Sun Times reported on Friday.

...The court document shows that Ann Foster asked her husband to move out of their house because “the Defendant has pushed, shoved, and caused physical abuse and emotional harm of the Plaintiff, thereby putting her in fear for not only herself but also for the parties (sic) minor children."

But Ann Foster said she did not read the filing before signing and she told the judge there was never any abuse and the judge allowed her husband to remain in the house.

She said that the divorce filing has generated round-the-clock calls from reporters during Bill Foster's election campaigns, including robo calls asking voters if they are aware of Foster's history as a “wife-abuser.”

“Ever since Bill decided to go into politics, every single campaign season since 2008, there are a number of months when I am plagued by constant phone calls," Ann Foster said.

Not a whisper about Foster's stand on any policies or anything of any importance to a voter interested in knowing what he or she would be voting for.

Desperate Drumbeat For War Against Iran Intensifies As Netanyahu Faces Electoral Defeat In Israel

Although the latest polling from Israel-- all the latest polling from Israel show Israeli's have grown disenchanted with Netanyahu's far right Likud Party and are on the verge of handing over the government to the center-left Zionist Camp, run by Isaac Herzog Labor Party and Tzipi Livni's more centrist Hatnua. Still, many Israel-firsters in the U.S. Senate are rushing to shove Obama's delicate negotiations with Iran under the bus with more sanctions designed to enrage Iran's hardliners and scuttle the talks. Likud puppets Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Melendez (D-NJ) are leading the charge to engineer a war with Iran, while Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte and John McCain are the cheering squad.

Friday, Senate Banking Chair Richard Shelby (R-AL) said their bill is one of the first things the Banking Committee will take up-- probably Tuesday-- and a vote could come as soon as next Thursday. President Obama-- and Tony Blair-- have asked the senatorial Likudniks to hold off until the negotiations have ruin their natural course.

With enough warmonger, AIPAC-oriented Democrats joining virtually all the Republicans, there's little doubt that the bill can pass, despite Obama's requests that they hold their fire. "Why is it," he asked, "we would have to take actions that might jeopardize the possibility of getting a deal over the next 60 or 90 days? What is it precisely that is going to be accomplished?"

Last month Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, and Becky Bond, political director of CREDO Political Action, penned an OpEd for DC trade paper The Hill, Iran: Will Senate Democrats stand for diplomacy--or with Republican war hawks?". It's rare for Beltway types to ever read that the Republicans aren't up to the worst shit in the world by themselves and that conservative Democrats are their biggest enablers-- after the grotesque Zionist briber-meisters like Sheldon Adelson (R) and Haim Saban (D).

On November 24, 2014, negotiators in Vienna announced the extension of talks aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program. They now have until July 2015 to broker a deal and they're back at it this week. Predictably, a pack of Republican senators and neoconservative commentators pounced on the announcement, demanding everything from a new round of sanctions to airstrikes within Iran. Many of these folks-- like Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.)-- are the same cast of characters who led us into a disastrous war in Iraq in 2003.

Eager to undermine President Obama’s agenda, even at the cost of starting a war, Republicans are ramping up pressure on Senate Democrats in an effort to cobble together a veto-proof majority opposed to continued diplomatic efforts. Unfortunately, a small group of deeply misguided Democrats, like Sens. Robert Menendez (N.J.), Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), and Mark Warner (Va.), are poised to join Republicans in recklessly pushing the U.S. closer to another major Middle East war—and advancing the agenda of hard-liners in Iran.

It’s certainly tempting to direct all of our outrage at Republicans, who appear to be motivated more by a desire to deny Obama a major foreign policy victory than by an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, if Congress prevents Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry from brokering a deal with Iran, it will be first and foremost the fault of a handful of pro-war Senate Democrats who break ranks and vote with the GOP. 

This is because-- although Republicans will take over the Senate next year-- Democrats still hold most of the cards when it comes to Iran. To circumvent  Obama’s veto, any poison pill legislation intended to sabotage diplomacy (such as additional sanctions) will require a substantial number of Democratic votes.

Fortunately, the American people are solidly on the side of diplomacy. They’ve shown that they will speak out loudly in favor of Obama’s negotiations with Iran. In the past, we’ve seen fiercely determined progressive activists—including millions of MoveOn and CREDO members—successfully push Democrats to hold the line in Congress.

On the merits, Democrats have no excuse to deny the president their support. Since negotiations began, Iran’s nuclear stockpile has been sharply reduced. Iran has agreed to an internationally monitored cap on the enrichment of uranium. The frequency of international inspections of Iranian nuclear sites has increased, and sites that were previously off-limits are now subject to international inspections on short notice. And finally, Iran has said it will modify a nuclear reactor under construction to significantly reduce its production of weapons-grade material.

Ironically, Republicans' response to November’s extension of talks is almost perfectly mirrored by the response of hard-liners in Iran, who, like hard-liners in the U.S., oppose a diplomatic deal.

Farshad Farahat, the human rights activist and star of the Academy Award winning film Argo, makes a similar observation: “The fact of the matter is that the more you know about the politics of Iran, the clearer it becomes that senators like Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mark Kirk (R-IL),  who are leading efforts to oppose the negotiations, are doing the bidding of those who oppose freedom in Iran.”

Democrats’ next move should be clear: Stand with Obama and the global community to lock in a lasting and peaceful diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. All the proposed alternatives would undermine diplomacy and risk a return to a path of aggressive confrontation and eventual war. Democrats who choose the latter path should expect to be held fully accountable by the wider progressive community for what could become the most foolish, dangerous, and costly foreign policy decision of this decade.

Will Illinois Democrats Blow The Race Against Sitting Duck Mark Kirk By Nominating Someone From The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party?

Mark Kirk, who lies about military decorations he never got, wants to teach North Korea a lesson-- with a campaign fundraiser

In theory, Mark Kirk has one of the most vulnerable Republican-held seats coming up in 2016. Illinois has tended to elect Democrats to the U.S. Senate. Since Paul Douglas defeated GOP incumbent Charles Brooks in 1948, only one Republican, anti-war liberal Chuck Percy, held that seat, currently held by Dick Durbin, who won reelection last month 1,850,862 (53.1%) to 1,503,942 (43.1%).

The other Senate seat was won by the legendary Everett Dirksen in 1950 until he died in office on September 7, 1969. Republican Gov. Richard Ogilvie appointed Ralph Smith, also a Republican, to the seat 10 days after Dirksen died and scheduled a special election 2 months later. Adlai Stevenson crushed him 58% to 42% and held the seat until 1981 when he retired and the seat was won by conservative Democrat Alan Dixon who was successfully primaried in 1992 by Carol Moseley Braun after he joined the GOP in confirming right-wing sex predator Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Six years later Peter Fitzgerald became the first Republican in two decades to hold an Illinois Senate seat by beating Braun, although very narrowly and with only 50.35% of the vote. He was widely considered to have no chance at reelection and retired after one term, replaced by Barack Obama. When Obama left the seat to become president, grotesquely corrupt Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich sold the seat to Roland Burris (January 12, 2009). Burris' short tenure was plagued with calls for him to resign, not just by Republicans but by Democrats like Governor Pat Quinn and U.S. Senator Dick Durbin. He was officially admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee and there was no chance he could run again-- he only raised $845 forces campaign and withdrew. Democrats replaced him with state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, who was steeped in the stench of corruption from his involvement with predatory banksters and political mobster Tony Rezko. Because of the corruption the mediocre Republican candidate, Mark Kirk, managed to beat him 1,778,698 (48.0%) to 1,719,478 (46.4%), a Green candidate polling 117,914 (3.2%), enough to deny Giannoulias and the transactional corrupt Machine Democrats the seat. And that's how we come to have Republican Mark Kirk in office now.

Kirk should be relatively easy to defeat-- but he won't be because Democrats are hurtling towards nominating an opponent from the thoroughly corrupt Republican wing of the Democratic Party, either reactionary Blue Dog Cheri Bustos, corporate shill and New Dem Bill Foster or conservative-leaning Tammy Duckworth. How bad are the 3 Democrats posturing about running against Kirk? Below are their Progressive Punch lifetime crucial vote scores; in way of comparison Jan Schakowsky's score is 96.59 and Danny Davis' is 93.00.

• Duckworth- 65.20
• Foster- 55.30
• Bustos- 44.49

All three run Republican-lite campaigns and none are even remotely fit to represent Democratic Party values and vision in any kind of a campaign anywhere. Bustos has the single worst voting record of any Illinois Democratic congressmember, so expect her to be the DCCC's first choice. It would be pretty amazing-- and unexpected-- if DSCC chair Jon Tester tried recruiting Jan Schakowsky instead.

On the other hand, Kirk is really a vile, slithery creature and his desperate attempts to raise money off SONY's tragi-comedy with Kim Jong-un and The Interview is probably offending plenty of Illinois voters who can't be terribly thrilled with his record of accomplishing nothing on their behalf. He says Sony, which is after all, run from Tokyo, not from Washington or even Los Angeles, shouldn't have pulled the movie from theaters, forgetting, perhaps, that it was the theaters that said they wouldn't show the film. He's scrambling to be THE FIRST IN THE NATION to hold a "big fundraiser" for himself showing the movie to donors-- and to teach North Korea a lesson. He took to the twitter machine and did an intreview with WBEZ-FM (91.5) trying to turn the Korea thing into part of his reelection campaign.

Kirk, in the radio interview, said he wanted to show the North Koreans that "you cannot edit what we want to see and do in the United States under the First Amendment."

The senator's spokeswoman did not respond to Tribune requests for comment.

It was unclear how Kirk planned to get a copy of the film. There has been widespread speculation that pirated copies of the film ultimately will be available even if Sony does not release it.

Peter DiCola, an associate professor of law at Northwestern University, said typically film studios own the copyright to films and then grant licenses to theaters for public performances.

Ordinarily, a campaign event would constitute a public performance, DiCola said, but because Kirk has invoked the First Amendment, the lawmaker could argue that he doesn't need a license to show the film because of the fair-use doctrine.

The fair-use doctrine may allow for the dissemination of a copyrighted work without a license if the use is deemed to be in the public interest, DiCola said. "Fair use is meant to be the safety valve for free speech concerns," he said.

DiCola said he thought that in today's world of file sharing, the movie is likely to be leaked, especially since it has been publicly screened in Los Angeles.

"Somebody at Sony or someone at the (Los Angeles) theater is going to agree with the politics of making the movie available to the public," he said.

Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, suggested in a tweet Wednesday that Sony should distribute The Interview online globally for free and that viewers be asked for a voluntary $5 contribution to fight Ebola.