A Fox Guarding the Henhouse: 'Pocan, Norcross Announce Labor Caucus'

 

-by Jersey Jim

If it seemed strange that outgoing chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Mark Pocan promoted transactional machine Dem Donald Norcross, the younger brother of South Jersey machine boss George Norcross, to be the CPC’s Vice Chair and Liaison to Labor in the 116th Congress, how much stranger yet is his newly announced choice of Norcross to be the co-founder of a Labor Caucus?

WASHINGTON - Congressmen Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Donald Norcross (D-NJ) are announcing the creation of the Labor Caucus, intended to advance the needs of the labor movement, combat the issues facing working families, and connect legislators directly with unions and union leaders. The new caucus will be organized by union members of Congress—Representatives Pocan and Norcross are both decades-long union members in the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), respectively.

“President-Elect Joe Biden’s new administration gives the Democratic Party the opportunity to reprioritize working families at the center of our legislative agenda,” said Congressman Pocan. “Under Donald Trump, we’ve seen the erosion of labor rights, rise in union-busting, and the prioritization of corporate profits over working people’s livelihoods and safety. In the 117th Congress, we must reaffirm our dedication to strengthening unions and helping works by urgently passing legislation like the PRO Act and the Raise the Wage Act. It’s time for working people to have a voice in Congress again.”

“Labor has shaped my life, taking me from the construction site to Congress,” said Congressman Norcross. “While the Trump Administration has tried to diminish labor rights, President-Elect Joe Biden’s incoming Administration understands the dignity of work and that workers’ rights are human rights. Every American worker should have the opportunity to earn a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, and working families deserve a bigger voice in Congress. I look forward to working together with our brothers and sisters in Labor to pass legislation for American workers and their futures.”

“It is absolutely imperative that we return this country back into the hands of working people and the Labor Caucus will do just that,” said Shane Larson, Senior Director for Government Affairs and Policy at the Communications Workers of America. “Congressman Pocan and Norcross are card-carrying union members and we are proud to support their efforts to prioritize workers’ rights and the labor movement in Congress. The Democratic Party has long been the party of unions and working families, and the Labor Caucus will ensure that legacy endures in every Congress to come.”

The New Jersey CWA was less supportive of Norcross in 2011. In fact, neither the CWA nor the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) endorsed Norcross, then a state senator, or any of the other South Jersey DINOs connected with the Norcross machine, for reelection after they had joined with their Republican colleagues in the legislature and Chris Christie to gut pensions and benefits packages for public employees.

The rift in New Jersey labor wasn’t only between public and private employee unions; it was a division between the building trades unions and the rest of labor, as I explained in this 2011 DWT post.

This dubious alliance with Norcross tells us a lot about the purportedly progressive Pocan. With friends like him, avowed enemies of the progressive movement are superfluous.

Markey vs Kennedy-- If You're A Progressive Voter, There Should Be No Hesitation

JFK, 1960 on Kings Highway in front of Dubrow's

Progressive Power Hour? Was there one for AOC or Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar when their reelections were challenged by big money reactionaries in the last couple of months? There may have been... but I never heard about them. But I did hear about tomorrow's Power Hour on behalf of Joe Kennedy's campaign to displace the far more progressive-- and effective-- Ed Markey in the Senate. This came as an e-mail over the weekend:

We're excited to share the updated panel for Wednesday's progressive power hour! This Wednesday, progressive leaders Mark Pocan, Raúl Grijalva, and Linda Sánchez will co-host a progressive power hour with Joe!

They’ll be talking about what’s at stake in this primary election, and what makes Joe the right leader to usher in the change Massachusetts needs. The discussion will also include ways you can get involved in these critical final weeks, and how to cast your ballot, whether it’s by mail or in person.

...Join us Wednesday night to hear from these progressive powerhouses about the change Joe will bring to the Senate, and about how you can get involved!

The national and the Massachusetts progressive grassroots has come out very strongly for Ed Markey-- and not just Blue America-- Our Revolution, Sunrise Movement, Peace Action, Progressive Massachusetts, MoveOn, PDA, Indivisible, the Working Families Party... So has Massachusetts' other senator, Elizabeth Warren, as well as AOC, Zephyr Teachout, Ady Barkan, and Cory Booker. Younger, issue oriented Democrats overwhelmingly want to see Markey, who is far more progressive than Kennedy, reelected. Older, fuzzily romantic Democrats seem excited about JKIII, although few seem to be able to explain why. Maybe Pocan, Grijalva and Sánchez will be able to tomorrow at their Power Hour. Alienating the progressive movement's grassroots does need to be explained, especially if Pocan is really serious about making a U.S. Senate run in 2022, something Chuck Schumer has already been making jokes about behind closed doors. He's going to be looking for allies-- allies who are very likely going to remember him stabbing Ed Markey in the back this year.





Meanwhile, some of the absolute worst Democrats in Congress are being touted by Kennedy as his supporters, Kyrsten Sinema, the closest thing to a right-wing Republican (and psychopath) among Senate Dems, coke freak New Dem, Pete Aguilar-- as well as plenty of other corrupt corporate New Dems, Blue Dogs and bought-and-paid for conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, like Juan Vargas (CA), Filomen Vela (TX), Gil Cisneros (CA), Derek Kilmer (WA), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Annie Kuster (NH), Conor Lamb (PA), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Colin Allred (TX), Ellisa Slotkin (MI), Angie Craig (MN)... odd there's no one from Massachusetts on the list. They're all either staying neutral or backing Markey. Oh, wait! He does have a high-profile Massachusetts endorsement: Republican former Governor Bill Weld.

The first big name politician I ever met was JFK-- two decades before Joe Kennedy III was born. I was 12 and my mom took me to see the charismatic somewhat conservative senator campaigning in Brooklyn, to show the Democratic establishment that he was popular in liberal bases. He was. But a police horse stepped on my foot in the tumult and I was brought inside Dubrow's where only local party big wigs were allowed. The soon-to-be-president came over and rubbed my foot and wished me well. That was nice. By the time he was assassinated I was no longer a fan. But when his brother, Robert Kennedy-- Robert Kennedy III's grandfather who was assassinated before he was born-- ran for New York senator I got a job at his campaign headquarters as an elevator operator. I wasn't a big fan of his either, although he seemed to gradually move away from his McCarthyite past and embrace progressive positions. The other brother, Teddy, was the most progressive of the trio. Never met the guy. And I never was a big fan of political dynasties.

Over the weekend, Politico published a piece by Stephanie Murray-- Markey throws shade at Kennedy family in Senate primary brawl-- that is still probably somewhat shocking for a Massachusetts Democrat to contemplate. "In an ever more contentious battle between a septuagenarian senator and the scion of one of the nation’s best-known dynasties," wrote Murray, "Markey is calling out specific Kennedy family members by name, needling the wealth and privilege that attaches to the family name, and even drawing from the Kennedy myth in his bid to fend off his youthful challenger. At one time, that approach might have been a career-killer in Massachusetts Democratic politics. Yet Markey has employed it successfully to help narrow a double-digit polling gap with the primary just over two weeks away."

When a Boston Globe columnist drove by Markey's modest house in June to see if he was there or out of state, the Malden Democrat happened to be standing in the driveway.

"Welcome to the compound!" he quipped, a sly reference to the famous Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port.

Markey often invokes his own father, who was a milk truck driver, to draw a contrast between his own working class roots and his opponent's upbringing. The senator recently posted a black-and-white childhood photo with his parents and two brothers.

"I'm the son of a milkman and a hardworking mother. I was a commuter student who paid my way through college selling ice cream. Where I come from, no one expects to become a U.S. senator," Markey captioned the photo on Instagram.

Markey has made subtle references to the Kennedy family throughout the summer, but has ramped up his messaging in recent days. The most pointed hit came at the end of a campaign video unveiled Thursday, where he drew on a famous line from the inauguration speech of his challenger’s great uncle, President John F. Kennedy.





..."He's taking the elephant in the room and just going right at it. He's using the most identifiable characteristic of Joe Kennedy, which is his name, and trying to use it against him. It's an interesting campaign tactic and one I wouldn't have anticipated," said Steve Koczela, president of the MassINC polling group. "It puts Kennedy more on the spot to explain why he's running, and that's something he's struggled with throughout the campaign."

Markey is betting that much of the Kennedy mystique has worn off, 11 years after Ted Kennedy-- who held the state’s other Senate seat for nearly a half-century-- passed away. So far, the strategy appears to be working, particularly among younger voters who have responded to his support for the Green New Deal and his endorsement from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Koczela pointed to a MassINC poll from October 2019, which showed 70 percent of voters under age 30 had no opinion or had never heard of Markey. But a UMass Amherst poll released last week found Markey now leading that group over Kennedy with 71 percent of support.

...In their most recent debate, Markey took some of his toughest shots against Kennedy, seeking to use Kennedy's powerful family against him. Kennedy's father, former Rep. Joe Kennedy II, may put his $2.8 million in leftover campaign funds into a pro-Kennedy super PAC as a last minute boost for his son's Senate bid, and Markey sought to shame him for it.

"I'm sure your father's watching right now. Tell your father right now that you don't want money to go into a super PAC that runs negative ads," Markey said in the debate. "Just tell your twin brother and tell your father you don't want any money."

In a matter of minutes, the senator's campaign turned the debate spat into a viral video. "Free advice for Joe Kennedy. Don't rely on the old man's money," Markey captioned the video, which begins with a shot of Kennedy standing on a yacht and is set to the Hall and Oates song "Rich Girl."

Bernie And Biden Are Getting Significantly Different Types Of Endorsements

If I were Status Quo Joe, I'd be embarrassed to admit I was endorsed by California New Dem Ami Bera, a member of Congress so toxic that the California Democratic Party decided to not back him for reelection. After all, caught in an illegal campaign finance scheme, he let his elderly father take the rap and go to prison in his place! In fact, when you go through the list of members who've endorsed Biden, most are embarrassing-- Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. But who else would endorse Biden?

Some of the worst Democrats in the House are on Biden's endorsement list-- like Oregon Blue Dog Kurt Schrader and Massachusetts New Dem Stephen Lynch. Of the 33, fully 28 have earned "F" ratings from Progressive Punch.

See that video up top? That was a Bernie endorsement yesterday-- from Make the Road, one of the nation's largest progressive grassroots immigrant-led organizations and works on issues of workers' rights, immigrant and civil rights, environmental and housing justice, educational justice, and on justice for transgender, gender nonconforming, intersex and queer people. I wonder how many more votes that is worth than all the conservative members of Congress opposing universal healthcare that Biden has scooped up.

And as far as members of Congress, while Biden's list is filled with people like former Republican Charlie Crist (FL), now a Blue Dog and-- in 2020-- a closet case, who's more part of the problems facing the country than a solution to anything, Bernie has attracted real activist members of Congress: Ro Khanna, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, people who mean something and stand for something and have an impact on the lives of voters. Biden's latest endorser was Staten Island Blue Dog Max Rose, who had just voted-- along with the GOP and 7 other anti-peace conservative Democrats-- against the War Powers Resolution. Or was Republican former congressman Ray LaHood of Illinois Biden's latest? His son Darren, the current congressman, is the Illinois Trump campaign co-chair but apparently Ray finds Biden closer to the Reagan conservatism he worships than the crazy fascist Trump. Bernie's endorsement today? Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.





I asked a couple of the candidates on our Bernie Congress page, which you can see by tapping on the thermometer on the right. Heidi Sloan is running or Congress (TX-25) against a reactionary Trump ally, Roger Williams and her own campaign is virtually a Bernie organizing exercise. She told me today that she "endorsed Bernie Sanders because he and I share a vision for what our society could be, a consistency and a commitment to the issues we prioritize, and a common understanding of how we beat the power of organized money. Bernie is the only candidate who has spent his entire life organizing, standing with marginalized communities against oppression, and going after the right enemies. I trust Bernie to withstand the pressure of big business when he's fighting for Medicare for All because he has never equivocated on our demands for universal healthcare. I trust Bernie to hold firm in his commitment to LGBTQIA+ rights, to public education, to housing as a human right and so many other things-- but more than anything I trust him to never lose sight of the movement. Bernie uniquely understands that it is not enough for him to get elected-- we must build a movement of regular, working class people by organizing them into the fights that affect our lives, because it is only with that collective power of the working class that we can create real change. Bernie showed me how we could win here in Texas, and I've followed his example as a role model every day of our campaign."

Shahid Buttar is the progressive running for the San Francisco seat from which Pelosi is blocking virtually the entire post-2000 progressive agenda. That's right-- it isn't just MoscowMitch in the Senate. Pelosi will never allow legislation like Medicare-for-All or the Green New Deal to get to the floor of the House. Hopefully Shahid will take care if that this year.

“Bernie Sanders, he told me today, "is unlike any politician on the national stage, particularly in the sense that he has always put the movement before his career. He inspired me to run for Congress because he demonstrated that a vision for federal policy placing people before profit is already the object of a growing national consensus, and also because he demonstrated how to run a political campaign in a way that builds social movements, instead of sapping energy from them. I’m excited to go to Washington next year, either to escalate the struggle to keep fascism from consolidating, or alternatively to support Bernie in crafting and securing a policy agenda to meet the needs of the future.”

Eva Putzova is the progressive Democrat running for an Arizona House seat in a swing district represented by "ex"-Republican legislator Tom O'Halleran, currently a Blue Dog. O'Halleran will never be a Bernie supporter. Eva very much is. She told me this morning that "In 2016, I was Bernie's delegate at the DNC in Philadelphia because he presented an ambitious vision for this country rooted in justice, generosity, and inclusiveness. He spent the last four years further mobilizing communities, building partnerships, and inspiring young and old. He fundamentally transformed political dialog, made progressive positions wildly popular, and defined the conversations in today's presidential election cycle. His leadership is transformative, inspiring, and courageous. Bernie is a true statesman with great integrity, heart, and moral compass and I will be so proud to call him my president."

Robin Wilt, the progressive candidate for Congress in Monroe County, N.Y. (Rochester), sometimes calls herself a Berniecrat. "For me, as the mother of three Black sons," she told me, "the choice to endorse Bernie was the only moral option in a time when the state of affairs is so dire for our frontline communities. Bernie is the only candidate for President who has demonstrated the willingness to unwaveringly support the policies that will center the needs of marginalized communities, and not just resist the retrograde and unjust policies of the current administration, but articulate a way forward with a bold vision that includes all of us."

No one need me to interpret these numbers, right?

Kim Williams, a Central Valley progressive who worked as a diplomat in the Obama administration and is today running for a congressional seat held by a reactionary Blue Dog, Jim Costa, told us that "Bernie is resonating with so many because he makes us feel seen and heard. He shows up in places others pass over and speaks directly to the pain and struggles of millions of Americans. He has the political courage to make the hard calls and the lonely votes, and he stands firm in his position when other candidates are walking policies back. He doesn’t make political calculations or sacrifice the interests of the majority because it might upset the powers that be or because the media will block him out. He simply speaks his truth and he clearly speaks ours. This is why so many progressives endorse Bernie and why so many Americans need him to win."

Shaniyat Chowdhury, a super-progressive from southeast Queens running for a congressional seat held by super-corrupt New Dem Greg Meeks told us this morning that he had "endorsed Bernie because he is the only candidate who has a movement behind him. Some of his biggest supporters and donors are retail workers and teachers. That speaks volumes to his character and values as someone who grew up working class and has continued to fight for the very same people today. We cannot trust politicians, but we sure can trust Bernie to fight for all of us and not just the wealthy few."

Is EITHER National Political Party Worth Saving?

On CNN yesterday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that "The Republican party has got to get a grip on itself. Republican leaders and members of the Congress… are holding back because they’re terrified of what will happen [to] any one of them if they speak out." Trump appears to be overseeing the disintegration of the GOP. But before you start cheering, at least understand that the other party controlled by corporate interests, the Democratic Party, has been gradually shifting right to fill the ideologically conservative void. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has been an utter failure and has allowed the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- to increasingly take control. Mark Pocan, once a timid centrist in the Wisconsin legislature, has managed to put himself at the head of the CPC where he has offered to shelter New Dems from the activist grassroots by allowing them to pay dues and claim they are "progressives." Yes, progressives who are also New Dems, often voting with the New Dems against progressive priorities. Right now all these so-called "progressives" below are New Dems. (Their ProgressivePunch ratings are included)

• Don Beyer (VA)- C
• Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE)- F
• Brendan Boyle (PA)- F
• André Carson (IN)- C
• Veronica Escobar (TX)- A
• Gil Cisneros (CA)- F
• Angie Craig (MN)- F
• Madeleine Dean (PA)- B
• Brenda Lawrence (MI)- B
• Katie Hill (CA)- F
• Stephen Horsford (NV)- F
• Debbie Mucarsell-Powell (FL)- C
• Donald Norcross (NJ)- F
• Darren Soto (FL)- D
• Lori Trahan (MA)- A

Last cycle, Pocan actually went down to Orlando to campaign in the LGBTQ community for reactionary New Dem Darren Soto against Alan Grayson, of whom Pocan has always been jealous.

Russ Cirincione is the progressive candidate running against a former-progressive in New Jersey's Middlesex and Monmouth counties (NJ-06). "What does it mean to be Progressive?" he asked. "Progressives are loyal to the people they represent," he responded to his own question. "The first standard is simple-- progressives put the people they represent first. Progressives have an ethical standard of loyalty-- to be loyal to the people, we must reject all lobbyist money and corporate PAC money. No one can serve two masters, it’s either the money or the People. I choose to represent the People and have pledged to never take a dime of corporate PAC money, because I'm a true progressive. The standard of loyalty to the People is one that Frank Pallone cannot meet any longer. In last year’s campaign cycle he took over $1,000,000 from the health insurance and pharma lobbies. They contributed nearly 40% of all the funds for his campaign re-election, and quite literally paid for a seat in the House of Representatives. They got one of the top three Democrats on their team who now chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee. And, not surprisingly, Pallone has actively prevented the Medicare for All Act of 2019 from being called for a vote, which has stalled in his committee since February 2019."

"Pallone will never support Medicare for All, Single Payer," Cirincione continued. "He’s been paid not to. He’s even afraid of the very people who have donated to his campaigns. At a recent event this year, he said that he was worried about attack ads calling him a socialist from the very industries whom financed his campaign in 2018. It’s time for a champion in the House that will be loyal to the People, reject big money, and stand up to the powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industry by demanding Medicare for All." Yep, Frank Pallone-- another proud member of the CPC-- making sure no progressive legislation gets to the floor of Congress until he's watered it down into uselessness, if even then. Notice that the Democrats control Congress and neither Medicare-For-All nor the Green New Deal has been voted on.

Anthony Fisher reporting for Business Insider yesterday, wrote that NeverTrump Republicans are trying to decide if the GOP is worth saving. The GOP grassroots approve of Trump-- and immensely so (90% in some polls). Trump's 3 primary opponents-- former governor Bill Weld (MA), former Rep. Joe Walsh (IL) and former governor and congressman Mark Sanford (SC)-- all agree with most Americans that Trump is unfit for office. But none have gained any traction with GOP voters.

The three GOP challengers also say Trump has betrayed the party's long-held principles of free market capitalism, maintenance of a robust foreign policy through international alliances, and an openness to immigrants as a vital part of America.

But most of Trump supporters don't seem to care about those principles. For them, the Republican Party was merely a vessel to get their man in power, where he would unapologetically savage their enemies (the liberal elites, the media, immigrants) and enact a right-wing populist agenda. If Trump started his own new political party tomorrow, his base would almost surely follow suit.

That begs the question: What exactly are Weld, Walsh, and Sanford fighting for? ... Walsh and Sanford both come from the Tea Party, the previous surge of right-wing populism that had its biggest moments in the 2010 and 2012 congressional elections. But Walsh only served one term before pivoting to a career as a conservative radio talk show host, and Sanford lost his House seat in 2018-- in no small part because of his opposition to Trump.

The lesson was not lost on Sanford's Republican congressional colleagues, and for good reason. Trump is far more popular than they are.

As for old Republican tentpole issues like fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets and cutting deficits, no less a conservative authority than Rush Limbaugh admitted on his show this past June that "nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore. All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus for as long as it's been around."

Trump's GOP challengers each represent a certain Republican archetype that barely exists anymore. But they find common cause in decrying Trump's rhetoric-- which now defines their party more than any economic policy.

...But the question is, do any of them truly see any remaining semblance of the party they once knew and loved? Do they believe the GOP will return to its former self once Trump leaves office?

Given the relative ease with which Trump took over the party in 2016, and the overwhelming and sturdy support of the his base, there's no reason to believe Republicans will reject Trump-- and the force of his personality is likely to be endemic to the conservative movement for years to come.

What the Never Trumpers also must reckon with is what comes next if Trump loses reelection in 2020. Because if anger is baked into the Trump brand, it's unlikely that such a visceral emotion simply dissolves from the Republican Party just because the boss has left the building.

That's why Republican anti-Trump dissidents would be better off forming their own party, one which represents the erstwhile Republican values that were so soundly rejected by the GOP electorate in 2016.

Really? Or just joining the Democratic Party-- which now supports many of those old "tentpole" Republican issues like fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets and cutting deficits, all cornerstones of the Blue Dogs' and News Dems' approach to governance. The progressive end of the Democratic Party-- not the phony Pocan end-- are actually what the Democratic Party is all about. Listen to Rebecca Parson, the progressive candidate running for Congress in a Washington seat held by the head of the New Dems. Do you think the Congressional Progressive Caucus is supporting her? Of course not.

Now If Pay-Go Isn't Repealed It Will Be All Yertle's Fault

You can't out-progressive Pramila Jayapal. Her vote for Pay-Go Thursday evening made me go back and reexamine my own analysis of Pay-Go. (Spoiler: however well-intentioned she was, she still got this wrong in terms of a policy that defines the Democratic Party.) Ryan Grim did some important reporting at The Intercept yesterday from which I want to draw. Like me, he has nothing but respect for Jayapal. He wrote that she "came to Congress as an organizer and has played a key role in shaping the progressive Democratic agenda on issues like immigration, said she was frustrated about how the debate was framed on social media, in newsletters, and in part by some outlets-- this one included. The conversation, she said, lacked the full context of the ways in which the CPC had defanged pay-go."

OK, that's important and we need to look at it. Jayapal felt that the campaign on the left against Pay-Go "'is so hurtful to the progressive movement because we got so much out of this.' One result, she said, has been to take the focus off the CPC’s major organizing effort to pack powerful committees full of as many progressives as possible. Khanna and Ocasio-Cortez are both angling to land some of those coveted spots, and their opposition to the rules package could make it harder for them to do so." 

Supposedly, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus will get 40% of the seats on the important committees. Sounds good, right? One little problem there. Not everyone in the Congressional Progressive Caucus is actually progressive. Jayapal's co-chair, Mark Pocan, has made membership a farce by selling ($5,000 annual dues) them to "moderate" congressmembers who need cover-- protection from progressive activists-- back in home.

Not all the freshmen who joined the caucus are like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (NY), Rashida Tlaib (MI) and Ilhan Omar (MN). Democratic leadership isn't doing progressives any favors by counting members who are also-- for example-- New Dems. The New Dems are far more strict about ideology than Pocan is and if you're not a Wall Street shill, you don't get into the New Dems. How many members of the Progressive Caucus are also self-admitted, formal members of the New Dems? First the freshmen:

• Katie Hill (CA)
• Debbie Powell (FL)
• Angie Craig (MN)
• Susan Wild (PA)
• Veronica Escobar (TX)

In the good news arena, two of them, Debbie Powell and Veronica Escobar, have signed on as #GreenNewDeal supporters (as have Jayapal and Pocan) so that's a positive indication. How many other members does the CPC share with the New Dems? First of all, one of the most corrupt politicians in New Jersey-- and that is saying something-- was just made a CPC vice-president by Pocan: Donald Norcross, who doesn't have a progressive bone in his body. That's pretty horrifying. Other New Dems who have been allowed into the CPC-- along with their ProgressivePunch scores:

• Don Beyer (VA)- D
• Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE)- F
• André Carson (IN)- C
• Val Demings (FL)- D
• Brenda Lawrence (MI)- B
• Darren Soto (FL)- F
• Adam Smith (WA)- F

So that's 13, so far. Adam Smith, the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, is a living, breathing part of the military industrial complex. Last year only 5 members of Congress (4 Republicans + Pete Visclosky) took more moolah than Smith's $229,650 from the weapons-makers. Since being elected to Congress, the merchants of war have given Smith $1,156,750. And, of course he counts as part of the 40%. So does this guy, who prevented the formation of a Select #GreenNewDeal Committee. Alas, the much ballyhooed 40% has ZERO to do with backing progressive policies, just something to do with being in the club... for whatever reason. Is that a good deal? I can't wait to see the announcements of the new committee assignments!

Jayapal says she had been in serious negotiations with Pelosi "and won significant concessions, including seats on powerful committees, the repeal of a rule that required a supermajority for tax increases, hardened rules around sexual harassment, and strengthened language around the War Powers Resolution, which will make it easier for the House to vote to put an end to U.S support for the war in Yemen." Did Pelosi reluctantly give way on those things in return for Jayapal agreeing to deliver the CPC on Pay-Go, which Pelosi had called one of the three most important things she hoped to accomplish in 2019? Just asking. After all, Pelosi had to deliver for the Peterson Institute folks she's so devoted to here-- and to the New Dems-- even going fo far as to harass Ocasio allies who might have voted against the rule that voting against this rule meant more to her than voting against her for Speaker! Think about that for a second. Former New Dem chair Ron Kind (WI) had his way on this. 

Pelosi has guaranteed that the House will hold a hearing on “Medicare for All,” Jayapal said, noting that critics who argued that pay-go will get in the way of that are wrong. Pelosi and Rep. Jim McGovern, chair of the House Rules Committee, have both said that pay-go can be waived in such circumstances. “The waiving we’ve been working on for a while with McGovern, but honestly we were trying to keep it kind of quiet, because not all of the conservative members know this, and now they’re saying, ‘Oh, you’re going to waive the rules? What do you mean?’” Jayapal said. “So sometimes I’m just like, come on people, let’s be strategic about some of this in terms of what we take on.”

The rules, waivers, and statutes involved in the legislative process can get confusing, so let’s pause for a primer. In 2007, when Pelosi first became speaker, she instituted the pay-go rule. In 2010, under pressure from Blue Dog Democrats, Pelosi made pay-go not just a rule, but a law, one that was also passed by the Democratic Senate and signed by President Barack Obama. The law allows the president to unilaterally sequester money if Congress passes a bill that isn’t paid for, but if a bill specifically bars the presidents from doing so, then the pay-go statute is rendered moot. When Republicans took over in 2011, they converted pay-go to “cut-go,” meaning that any new spending had to be matched with cuts elsewhere.

Because a statutory waiver would have been needed, regardless of the rules package, the smarter play in 2019 was to nail down a promise of rules waivers and fight on other fronts, Jayapal contended, allowing leadership to keep pay-go officially in the rules. Under a scenario after 2020, when Democrats will potentially hold the White House, changing the rule would take on more significance, she said. (On Friday, Jayapal introduced legislation-- co-sponsored by Ocasio-Cortez, Khanna, and Pocan-- to repeal the statutory pay-go rule.)

Unlike the House rule, this would have to be agreed to by Yertle the Turtle and Donald J. Trump. It's an easy, going-nowhere-effort that everybody can sign onto as a cosponsor who didn't join Ocasio, Khanna and Gabbard to actually get rid of Pay-Go on Thursday. Everyone can go home and mislead their activist constituents and claim to have voted against Pay-Go. It's an intellectually dishonest effort by someone who seems embarrassed by her role in betraying her own heartfelt and lofty principles. Co-sponsors, ironically, include Alexandria Ocasio, Ro Khanna and Tulsi Gabbard, the three outstanding members who were ready to take the consequences for bucking Pelosi. The other great heroes of the Revolution who jumped at the chance to sign on to the legislation on day one-- which, may some day live to be vetoed by President Biden-Beto-Bloomberg-- are the crème de la crème of House progressivism: Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Pelosi lieutenant Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), Jimmy Gomez (D-CA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), leadership lieutenant Mark Pocan (D-WI), still smarting over the loss of his beloved Joe Crowley, Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), José Serrano (D-NY), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Mark Takano (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ). This is going to be some Congress, right Yertle?



Let me clarify something: the Rules package itself, largely because of Jayapal, was pretty amazing and dealt with a wide range of non-Pay-Go issues-- from sexual harassment to LGBTQ equality-- and for the first time. We can be pissed off about Pay-Go and still celebrate the strategy of actually getting the rest of it done, especially how the CPC used it to finally get a guarantee for a formal Medicare-for-All debate going. One of my friends accused me of introducing too much suspicion and cynicism into the movement. My animus is in no way directed towards the progressives who followed the CPC decision to give up on killing Pay-Go-- not even towards Pocan-- but towards Pelosi, Hoyer and, most of all, the real congressional villain behind this Pay-Go debate, Ron Kind.

The Democratic Fight Over House Leadership

You read about all these Democratic candidates who say they're not going to vote for Pelosi for Speaker. It's almost de rigueur for them to say it sometime during their campaign. She laughs and says she has the votes anyway. Does she? There have been more than a few discontented right-of-center Blue Dogs and New Dems already in Congress who say she should step now, primarily ambitious malcontents from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party like Kathleen Rice from Long Island. But lately enough normal Democrats are starting to whisper about her time being up as well. I don't know if she actually has the votes anymore.

Some members have told me she's trying to broker a deal that would allow her to become Speaker again if she promises to step down after 100 days and retire-- allowing for a special election is San Francisco with her daughter Christine likely to follow in her footsteps. (caveat: I like Christine; I don't like political dynasties).

On Wednesday, a normal, garden variety Democrat and heretofore Pelosi backer, Brian Higgins (D-NY), told the Buffalo News that he will not back Pelosi for another term as Democratic leader, complaining about the lack of a clear Democratic agenda as an alternative to Señor Trumpanzee and the increasingly radicalized GOP. He claims that his opinion is widely shared but only whispered. I've found the same thing, complicated by how so many people feel like her and feels personal loyalty towards her.

Higgins cited the lack of a clear Democratic agenda as an alternative to President Trump, as well as Pelosi's lack of interest in his bills to expand Medicare and invest in infrastructure, as the key sources of his frustration.

"She's listening, but this is my conclusion: She's aloof, frenetic and misguided," Higgins said.

..."I'm giving voice to a frustration that I hear every single day," he said. "It's members. I don't want to call anybody out. But this is the conversation that is taking place."

Higgins' said his disappointment in Pelosi stems in large part from what he sees as his party's weak efforts to develop a compelling alternative agenda to that of Trump, a Republican.

"Our leadership is out of touch with what is going on not only in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan but in Cheektowaga, West Seneca, Hamburg, Orchard Park and Lancaster," he said. "Democratic voters at least and voters writ large feel politically homeless, and it's because we are not offering something affirmative to give people hope and something to invest in, in the way that we want to do things."

Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, teamed up last July to promote a Democratic agenda called "A Better Deal." The effort calls for increased federal investment in infrastructure, public housing and education, a series of political and labor reforms and an effort to reduce prescription drug prices.

Higgins stressed that he did not mean to criticize Schumer or his role in that effort, but the Buffalo congressman had harsh words for A Better Deal.

"It's thematic, it's well-intentioned, but nobody's buying it," Higgins said of the Democratic agenda. "It's Washington-speak."

Democrats would be better off, Higgins said, if they stressed two issues that he said aren't stressed strongly enough in A Better Deal: health care and infrastructure investment.

Most notably, he mentioned the bill that he introduced last year that would allow Americans from the ages of 50 to 64 to buy into Medicare, the federal health care program for Americans over age 65.

He said Pelosi and her staff have shown little interest in the bill.

"They say it does not comply with the essential benefits of the Affordable Care Act," Higgins said. "That is not true."

...Higgins argued that his Medicare expansion bill would offer health care to a particularly vulnerable population: middle-aged Americans who are coping with huge health insurance price increases because of Republican efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Every congressional district is home to approximately 14,000 such people, he said.

In addition, he said the bill would stabilize Medicare's finances, given that it would bring younger, healthier Americans into the system.

Higgins' Medicare expansion bill has 49 cosponsors, where his bill to invest $1.5 trillion in American infrastructure has none.

A Better Deal includes a proposal for a smaller, $1 trillion infrastructure plan, but Higgins said Democrats aren't doing a very good job of selling it to the public.

There's little mention of the fact that a huge infrastructure bill would create upwards of 34.5 million jobs and add 1.5 percentage points to the annual growth rate, thereby boosting the economy and cutting the federal deficit, Higgins argued.

"So infrastructure pays for itself and investment helps fund all the other Democratic priorities: education, health care and the environment," he said.

Higgins singled out Pelosi for failing to clearly articulate a Democratic agenda, and mentioned several current House members as possible alternatives to the current leader: Current Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Rep. Karen Bass of California and Rep. Joe Crowley of Queens-- a close friend of Higgins.

Karen Bass was elected Speaker of the California State Assembly in 2008, only the second woman to serve in that position. So she knows how to do it. Rated "A" by ProgressivePunch, she has one of the best voting records in Congress. Pelosi doesn't want to leave the speakership to Hoyer, which would be like leaving the speakership to K Street. The only thing worse would be leaving the speakership to Wall Street-- and that the most likely post-Pelosi Speaker: Joe Crowley, a crook, a machine hack, a Wall Street puppet and, until he decided to run for party-wide leadership, head of the Wall Street owned and operated New Dems. I can't think of anyone worse.

But he appears to have it sewn up. Most Democrats in the House are either enthusiastic about him or resigned to what he's made them all think is inevitable. What can we do? Crowley is virtually unknown in his own district where he's like an absentee landlord. He and his family live in Virginia. He has a credible primary challenge in less than 2 weeks (June 26). His opponent, Alexandria Ocasio, is more of the district than he is. And she's making a strong grassroots attempt to dislodge him. If she wins, he won't be Speaker-- and Wall Street will lose it's biggest patsy among House Democrats. Yesterday, Lee Fang, published a brilliant piece in The Intercept, How People Close The Joe Crowley Have Gotten Rich While The Queens Boss Has Risen In Congress. His rise to the speakership could be another death knell for the Democratic Party. The crooks may be tolerated-- bad enough-- but they should never be the top man.

The rise of Congressman Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., has coincided with lucrative lobbying contracts for his younger brother, John Crowley, an attorney who goes by the first name Sean, and previously specialized in wills and estate law.

Sean Crowley serves as a partner at Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, a powerhouse law firm with offices in Albany, New York City, and Washington, D.C., that advertises its ability to connect clients with congressional leadership.

Over the last decade, clients with interests before Congress have retained Sean Crowley through his lobbying firm, paying more than $4.5 million to influence and monitor government policies, according to a review of contracts by The Intercept.

Clients in recent years have included Oracle, AbbVie, NBCUniversal, Juniper Systems, New York Community Bancorp, Abbott Labs, and Elections Systems & Software.

In many cases, the interests of Sean Crowley’s clients have overlapped with his elder brother’s legislative and political work.

Earlier this year, Joe Crowley voted in favor of President Donald Trump’s effort to repeal a rule established by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau designed to prevent racial discrimination in the auto loan industry.

The legislation was heavily promoted by the National Automobile Dealers Association, the New York affiliate of which retains Sean Crowley as a lobbyist on regulatory issues, including city rules meant to curb predatory lending practices.

In 2013, Joe Crowley helped award $10 million in federal assistance to the Hunts Point Terminal Produce Cooperative, a merchants association in the Bronx that retained Sean Crowley as a lobbyist.

In 2009, both Crowley brothers worked to assist the life insurance settlement industry. A few months after President Barack Obama’s inauguration, Joe Crowley, newly empowered with his first major leadership post at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and a perch on the powerful committee dealing with tax legislation, traveled to Orlando, Florida, to address hundreds of financial representatives.

Joe Crowley, speaking to the Life Insurance Settlement Association’s annual meeting, reassured executives, and noted that Obama had made no mention of life insurance or life insurance settlements during his recent speech outlining his tax agenda, suggesting the audience might be spared from any future tax hikes.

“I think for your industry, that is a good thing,” said Crowley. “It doesn’t mean that you’re out of the woods, but it’s a good thing.”

The congressman encouraged the attendees to contact Democratic lawmakers on the Ways and Means Committee and continue to lobby to share their views.

The friendly chat coincided with a lucrative contract for Crowley’s younger brother, Sean, who was retained by the Life Insurance Settlement Association earlier that year to influence tax legislation on Capitol Hill. Sean Crowley’s lobbying firm, Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, went on to collect $140,000 on behalf of the life insurance settlement client.

The engagement with the life insurance settlement lobby also provided a lift to Joe Crowley. He was the largest recipient of Life Insurance Settlement Association political action committee donations during the 2010 election cycle.

...A report last year in the New York Post revealed that Joe Crowley has also paid nearly $70,000 in campaign funds to a company owned by Sean, called Killean Enterprises LLC. Joe Crowley claimed the money was rent for a campaign office, though the space owned by the younger Crowley brother is outside the district.

Before working as a lobbyist, Sean served as an attorney at a firm called Crowley, Crowley & Kaufman, a partnership with Scott Kaufman, the treasurer of Joe Crowley’s political action committee.

Joe Crowley has faced years of headlines charging that he engages in nepotism and unethical political patronage. As the boss of the Queens Democratic Party, he has nominated associates to the borough election commission, helped allies win election to the New York City Council, and appointed family friends to the Queens Surrogate’s Court.

The court appointments have gained increasing scrutiny after reports that associates of Joe Crowley are routinely selected as court-appointed guardians who have earned millions of dollars processing the estates of residents who pass away without establishing a will. Gerard Sweeney, an official at the Queens Democratic Party and a Crowley lieutenant, has raked in over $30 million administering estates through his position as an administration attorney at the Surrogate’s Court, which he won through his relationship with Joe Crowley.

Before becoming a lobbyist, Sean Crowley also served as a court-appointed guardian. Kaufman has continued to serve as one, earning around $550,000 from work assigned through the Surrogate’s Court. Notably, Kaufman now faces a state ethics probe for potentially violating court administration rules on compensation.

...The convergence of business and politics in the Queens Democratic machine reflects Joe Crowley’s ascent through the ranks of House Democratic leadership.

Joe Crowley has gathered power through high-level connections with well-placed political figures and business leaders. The previous lawmaker to serve in his seat, Rep. Thomas Manton, D-N.Y., another Queens Democratic Party boss, quietly selected Crowley as his successor just before the legal filing deadline in 1998, while deceiving the public and claiming he would run for re-election, a strategy that effectively prevented a competitive election.

In Congress, Joe Crowley has served as a liaison between K Street and the Democratic Party, often mobilizing opposition to bank regulations and other rules opposed by major donors to the party. In 2005, he won a low-ranking position with the DCCC, helping to serve on an outreach council to the business community. But Joe Crowley proved a prodigious fundraiser, helping to raise $5 million for the party, a capability that catapulted him to serve as vice chair of the DCCC four years later.

In 2009, he was elected as the leader of the New Democrat Coalition, a moderate [shame of Lee for referring to conservatives as "moderrates"] caucus that used its political weight to weaken financial reform. The coalition famously threatened to defeat the Dodd-Frank financial reform law unless amendments were added to provide less stringent rules on derivatives and pre-emption of stronger state-based bank regulations. As Joe Crowley and other New Democrat leaders marshaled political support for changes to the bill, the lawmakers went on a rapid fundraising spree, collecting checks from Wall Street banks that were seeking to influence the legislation.

The Office of Congressional Ethics opened an investigation into Joe Crowley’s financial reform-related fundraisers, though the House Ethics Committee, which outranks the OCE and is stacked with fellow lawmakers, later declined to continue the probe.

In the years since passage of financial reform, Joe Crowley has continued to chip away at tough rules on banks while vacuuming up Wall Street donations. In 2011, he co-authored a letter requesting that regulators withdraw and revise the fiduciary rule, a high-profile consumer safeguard designed to ensure that financial planners act only in the interests of their clients. The following year, after meeting with bank executives, Joe Crowley and other New Democrats sent a letter to regulators requesting a delay to the Volcker Rule, one of the signature restrictions on big banks, designed to prevent reckless proprietary trading.

The letters, again, coincided with a steady flow of bank and corporate contributions to Joe Crowley’s political action committees, which include a leadership PAC, a joint fundraising committee, and a personal PAC. Following the 2016 election, Joe Crowley was elected as chair of the House Democratic Caucus, making him the fourth ranking member in leadership.

Now, the Trump administration has signaled that it is working to unravel both provisions of financial reform criticized by Joe Crowley’s letters and is making headway in relaxing other aspects of the Dodd-Frank law. That Joe Crowley previously targeted the same financial regulations that are now in the crosshairs of Trump contrasts sharply with the image the Queens Democrat has portrayed in his campaign advertising, which depict him as a bold opponent of the president.

Despite a relatively conservative voting record while representing a deeply Democratic district-- Crowley not only has been a consistent friend to the banking lobby, but voted for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and a controversial bill in 2005 to limit consumer bankruptcy protections-- he is currently maneuvering to become the next speaker of the House.

Last month, members of the New Democrat caucus provided strong support for a Republican-led bill to increase the bank threshold for systemic risk assessments, raising the size at which regulators provide additional scrutiny from $50 billion to $250 billion in bank assets.

Facing pressure from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive challenging Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary on June 26, the Queens Democratic Party chief abandoned his moderate pro-bank colleagues. This time, he bucked his New Democrat colleagues and voted against the bill weakening Dodd-Frank. Crowley, facing a tightening race, has begun to spend heavily on television to stave off a major upset, and has agreed to debate Ocasio-Cortez. (It will air this eveningy on NY1 in the 7:00 hour.)

As I tried explain yesterday afternoon-- here-- many Democrats in Congress who want to stay on his good side or because they are afraid of him and because freshmen and sophomores are largely unaware of what a crooked conservative Crowley is are going along with his rise. The co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, Mark Pocan, who has the 3rd best voting record in the whole Congress-- and who should be a candidate for Speaker himself-- is actually whipping for Crowley and telling naive progressives that Crowley is trustworthy and a fellow progressive! Pocan is a good man... and he should know better. I would like everyone reading this to please consider helping replace Joe Crowley and the threat he is to the Democratic Party and to the country-- one Trump is already too much-- by contributing to Alexandria Ocasio's campaign. And you can do that by tapping on the Blue America 2018 congressional campaign thermometer on the right and giving what you can.

Why Using Identity Politics As A Filter Is A Road To Nowhere

Last cycle, the two biggest self-funders looking to buy House seats were David Trone in Maryland, who spent a phenomenal $13,414,225 of his own and took 35,400 votes (27.1%) in his primary, and Randy Perkins in Florida who spent $10,127,029 of his own and then lost to a Republican, by over 10 points 53.6% to 43.1%. The only million dollar Democratic self-funder who won in 2016 was Vicente Gonzalez, a real sleaze from south Texas, who spent $1,850,000 of his own dough. Although he's a real conservative piece of crap who joined the Blue Dogs as soon as he got into Congress, he knew which lever to pull to get an endorsement from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. You can't trust anyone in DC these days.

And the CPC did it again this week, although there's no indication any money changed hands on this one. Just some shitty identity politics. Two Orange County candidates were up for endorsement-- strong progressive Katie Porter and shifty New Dem Dave Min. Porter was strongly backed by Elizabeth Warren, who sent out a letter just before the CPC vote Thursday:

Progressive ideas are good for working people across this country AND progressive ideas win!

That's why Democrats need to nominate candidates who believe in policies like Medicare For All, expanding Social Security benefits, debt-free college, higher wages for workers, and strong consumer protections.

Katie Porter is one of the boldest and most progressive candidates for Congress in 2018. I've known Katie and worked with her for years, and I'll tell you this: she's tough as nails. When she gets into a fight to help out families who have been cheated, she doesn't give up.

Katie is running for Congress in Orange County, California in one of the most flippable districts in the nation... A new poll shows Katie defeating Republican incumbent Mimi Walters if the general election were held today. In fact, the numbers aren't even close.

That's because Katie is fighting for working families, and she is running a grassroots campaign. And while Republicans in Congress are doing their darnedest to rig our economy and our political system even more for folks at the top, people get that they're the ones paying the price.

During the recent tax fight, Katie's Republican opponent voted for more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways to giant corporations. But here's what really is a show-stopper: she also voted to eliminate a provision of the tax code that would help her own constituents who were hit by recent wildfires. When people say the system has been bought by big donors, this is what they are talking about.

After she was my student almost 20 years ago, Katie became an expert in the complex law of bankruptcy.

We worked together for years studying why millions of American families were in so much financial trouble. She became a law professor herself out in California. And in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris appointed her to be California's top consumer watchdog-- fighting to hold the big banks accountable and help Californians who lost their homes.

About a year ago, I had breakfast with Katie. We were all still reeling from the election. After talking about her kids, Katie said, "This is terrible. The banks, they're gonna let them go at it again. They'll roll back the regulations on pollution, poison our children." And then she said, "Elizabeth, I'm thinking about running for office." And I said exactly one thing in return, "If you run, I will be there every step of the way."

I've seen Katie's commitment and grit up close and personal. Sending Katie to Congress in this winnable district would put us one seat closer to taking back the House in 2018 and give us another incredible strong ally.

Sounds good, right? So where does the problem come in? In the House, Mark Takano is a progressive voter. But, as with too many people, identity politics is more important to him than progressive, values-based politics. He knew his New Dem Dave Min could never be endorsed but he organized around race to keep the vote from Porter, potentially jeopardizing the ability of the Democrats winning the seat. One of the congressmembers he organized-- one I respect too much to name-- claimed that when she sees two candidates vying for endorsement, who are both progressive, she always goes with the person of color. That's her right. She could have just as easily said that when she sees two candidates who are both progressive, she always goes with the woman. But the fact of the matter is that in this particular case, one candidate is a real progressive and the other is a corporate New Dem who is as forthright and honest as... Donald Trump. He'll say whatever it takes to persuade whoever is listening to him. The worst of the worst. And he succeeded-- in great part because of Takano-- in blocking Katie Porter from getting the CPC endorsement. That has help prompt us to move Katie Porter from just our California Act Blue page to a full fledged endorsement on our congressional page (which you can see by tapping of the thermometer on the right.) Please help us send the DC Dems a little message by contributing to Katie's campaign today.

This week the political director of a group I admire very much was trying to get me to endorse a candidate in Texas. I said the candidate hadn't persuaded me she will be a progressive if she wins the seat. "But she's a lesbian," was the response. That's horrifying. Indentifying as a lesbian doesn't say anything to me about how someone will prioritize Climate Change, banning assault weapons, holding Wall Street banksters accountable or dealing with economic inequity. Look at Krysten Sinema (AZ). She's the single most right-wing Democrat in the House-- and head of the Blue Dogs to boot-- and she identifies as a lesbian. Or look at Sean Patrick Maloney-- a happily married gay man with a wonderful family-- but the most right-wing New Dem in Congress, completely in Wall Street's pocket. (Obviously, another married gay man, Mark Pocan from Wisconsin, is what the political director would have liked me to see when I considered the quality of the Texas candidate. Mark has the best voting record in Congress. He should be the model for every Democrat, regardless of sexual identity, race, religion, gender, country of origin or whatever identity group anyone wants to look use as a filter.)

Long Before Trump Took Over The Party, The FlimFlam Man Was Turning The GOP Into The FlimFlam Party

Juan Williams betrays himself with his extreme Beltway perspective by asserting in a Hill OpEd Monday, that "Ryan has squandered his stellar reputation as a smart, conservative visionary" by turning himself into a Trump enabler. Yes, Ryan is a Trump enabler. No, Ryan has never had a stellar reputation as a smart, conservative visionary, except among Beltway imbeciles who bought into the carefully propagated narrative paid for by the corporate money men behind Ryan from when they thought this particular well-spoken empty suit could carry their austerity message. Krugman caught on early and warned everyone. Juan Williams, apparently, wasn't paying attention when Krugman explained what a flam-flam man is. Williams sounds like he just woke up from a decades long sleep to discover that "By excusing President Trump’s bad behavior, [Ryan] has made it clear his only priorities are that Trump put conservatives on the Supreme Court and sign tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the rich and corporations." It's been over a decade that that was clear to everyone Outside the Beltway who pays even a little attention. But that wasn't the end of Williams waking up saga:

And what happened to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)?

McConnell once took pride in defying Trump by having his Republican majority pass a law last year to punish Russia by imposing sanctions on countries buying military equipment from that nation. The penalties were intended to penalize Russia for interfering in the 2016 election and stop its ongoing meddling in American politics.

But McConnell had little to say when the Trump administration said in late January that it would not impose Congress’s sanctions.

Ryan, Corker and McConnell are leading GOP lights who have ceded their party’s moral center in service to protecting Trump.

Until Trump came along, the party stood for cutting federal spending. It was the pro-immigration party. And after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Republicans backed the secret surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act to protect against spies and terrorists.

Now it is a different party.

Currently, congressional Republicans make excuses for refusing to put checks and balances on the excesses of Trump’s executive branch.

Today’s GOP offers political cover for a man with no history in the party as he denigrates, degrades, and destroys vital American institutions, including law enforcement, the free press and the GOP.

Ryan is the biggest disappointment.

Even if you disagree with him, Ryan has a history of standing up for what he thinks is right.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, a fearless Ryan said Trump, then the leading candidate for the GOP nomination, was wrong to attack an Indiana judge because the judge had Mexican ancestry. Ryan pulled no punches in calling out Trump for making “the textbook definition of a racist statement.”

Now Ryan is looking the other way on far more damaging Trump behavior.

He ignored pleadings from the Justice Department and the FBI to stop the release of a classified memo-- written by Republicans-- that purportedly showed wrongdoing by law enforcement in obtaining a warrant to conduct surveillance of a known friend to Russian intelligence, the Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Ryan said the memo had nothing to do with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign. It was about misconduct by some agents, he said.

But once it was out, Trump tweeted that the memo “totally vindicates” him, even though it said nothing about collusion or obstruction of justice, the focus of Mueller’s work.

When Ryan was asked about this, he mumbled and walked away from reporters.

He had no explanation for allowing his credibility to be used by Trump.

Fox News host Sean Hannity, a Trump supporter, said on the basis of the memo that the Mueller probe ought to be disbanded-- and that charges brought against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn should be dropped.

Ryan opened the door to this nonsense.

“I have been a consistent defender of his good intentions,” conservative columnist Michael Gerson wrote of Ryan recently in the Washington Post. “But after the 17th time saying he ‘knows better,’ it dawns that he may not. By his recent actions, the Speaker has provided political cover for a weakening of the constitutional order. He has been used as a tool while loudly insisting he is not a tool.”

“I believe Ryan to be a good person,” Gerson continued. “But the greatest source of cynicism is not the existence of corrupt people in politics; it is good people who lose their way.”

It has been said that corruption is worst when it happens to the best.

The GOP used to be one of the two great American political parties. It gave the country some of the best statesmen of the last hundred years: Jacob Javits, Everett Dirksen, Edward Brooke, Howard Baker, Bob Dole and John McCain.

But in the age of Trump, there are no more GOP profiles in courage-- only profiles in cowardice.

It’s time for all Republicans to speak out against Trump’s corruption. If not, their party will be forever damaged by the time this Trump horror show fades to black.

Williams forgot to mention Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. I'm not so sure about Dole and McCain, but Jacob Javits served in the Senate from 1957 to 1980 and was succeeded by Al D'Amato, Dirksen from 1951 to 1968, Ed Brooke from 1967 to 1978 and-- if you want to count him-- Howard Baker from 1967 to 1984. Ryan was a physical fitness trainer with the brain of a parrot, an empty cup who was happy to be filled with anything that reminded him of the only two books he apparently read when he was a teenager, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.



I wanted to ask a couple of congressmembers who have worked with Ryan. I've noticed that there aren't any Democrats-- excluding perhaps a couple of Blue Dogs from time to time-- who share the Beltway perspective Juan Williams was propagating again. "The fundamental problem with Paul Ryan," Alan Grayson told me this morning, "has nothing to do with his unrequited love for Donald Trump, or his shallow knee-jerk libertarianism. It has to do with core responsibility as Speaker of the House. He has perpetuated Boehner’s policy of keeping the House on lock-down. The House is passing nothing but right-wing 'message' bills, with no Democratic input, that have no chance of passing the Senate.  Say whatever you want about Pelosi, but her Obamacare bill contained more than 100 GOP amendments, and everything was decided on the merits. Ryan, in contrast, is perfectly willing to do absolutely nothing to address the needs of ordinary Americans, or even to fund the government in a timely manner, as the House of Representatives hurtles toward complete irrelevance."

Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan, the co-chair of the Congressional Caucus, has the district right next door to Ryan's. He's been following Ryan before most of us knew who he was. This morning, he told me that "Since being elected to Congress in 1998, Speaker Ryan has spent the last 20 years fighting for the same misguided policies. And while he has long championed legislation for corporations and the wealthy, rather than the American middle class, his rise to the Speaker of the House, coupled with President Trump’s election, has further shown his true colors. Rather than stand up to the President and act as a check on the Executive Branch, Speaker Ryan acts like a junior member of the White House staff. This should come as no surprise, as Speaker Ryan has always failed to take the moral stance on issues, and tax cuts for GOP donors must come at any cost."

Ro Khanna is serving in the House now. He told me that when he was in high school a number of his friends were "drawn to the simple black and white view of the Ayn Rand novels Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Then they went to college and developed some intellectual humility. They realized that Rand is terrible literature. They realized that life is more complex, that human beings aren’t cardboard cutouts, and that worst of all, Rand is a B list thinker who wrote novels based on a cliff notes version of Neitzsche’s philosophy of the Superman." He continued along those lines:

Paul Ryan never had that evolution in thinking. So we have running our nation's economy policy-- let there be no doubt that Trump has outsourced policy to Ryan-- someone who is stuck in a high school intellectual framework.

Is it any wonder that he would push through a tax plan that will exacerbate income inequality when economists know that the biggest impediment to economic growth is inequality as it restricts consumer demand. In a world on automation, where we know that the rich will do well, our biggest task a a country is to have sufficient consumer spending given job loss and displacement. Totally oblivious to facts, totally oblivious to the software revolution we are living in, Ryan has passed policies that are based on an outdated Randian framework and will hurt the economic growth of the U.S. It just doesn’t hurt working people. Rand’s free market absolutism is undermining the very policies that made America an economic superpower-- namely support for a strong middle class that would buy things and fuel growth!