Squeaker In Kansas-- In Wichita... Koch World Headquarters

Over the weekend, Wyoming Democrats elected a Berniecrat, Joe Barbuto, party chair over 2 establishment types who were Clinton super delegates despite Bernie having won Wyoming's caucuses 55.7% to 44.3%. The corrupted system awarded Hillary 11 delegates to Bernie's 7. It was one little piece of how the Democratic establishment stole the nomination for their fatally flawed candidate, resulting in the catastrophe sitting in the Oval Office now.

As you've probably read, a new survey from Morning Consult this week, shows that Bernie is the most popular senator in the country-- with his Vermont constituents and with Americans in general. I don't know any congressional candidates asking for in-district help from Hillary. All of them are asking for help from Bernie though-- and that includes candidates who supported Hillary in the primary!

James Thompson, the KS-04 Democratic candidate, who beat a relatively conservative party establishment type to win the nomination, is a Berniecrat and Bernie backed him as well. Now, keep in mind, last year Trump lost the district to Ted Cruz in the primary and then went on to beat Hillary in November, 60.2% to 33.0%. Cruz was in the district campaigning for Republican Ron Estes. Both Trump and Pence recorded robocalls for him. And Ryan sent money-- lots of it.

Trump isn't popular in KS-04. Trump's agenda isn't popular either. The Republican Governor, Sam Brownback, is even less popular-- so unpopular that Thompson featured Brownback's endorsement of Estes on his own website's front page. Estes probably should have won by at least 20 points. Instead, the final count was 63,505 (52.5%) to 55,310 (45.7%), stunning for the Democrat, who got virtually no help from the official Democratic Party-- except for a nice good luck tweet from DNC chair Tom Perez-- including not from the Kansas state Democratic Party, the leaders of which probably need to get what the Wyoming Democratic Party heads got last weekend.

The DCCC and DNC have put all their eggs in the GA-06 basket-- one week from yesterday. The Republicans were down around 20 points in KS-4 from November. If something like that happens in Georgia... all the millions of dollars Ryan is pouring into Dekalb, Fulton and Cobb counties isn't going to do them very much good. After the voters were in last night, Ryan Grim put it like this: "For Democrats, this battle wasn't in vain. The close margin means that if you're a House or Senate Republican and you won your last election by 20 points or less, you're starting to think a bit differently about your own politics. And that means the every-man-for-himself attitude is much likelier to prevail in Congress, which means it's going to be very hard for Trump to get his agenda through. To see it in action, consider this: Ron Estes, the guy who just won, said during the campaign he was against TumpCare."

Even if you're tired reading David Nir parroting the DCCC's lame-- and wrong-headed-- excuses for not engaging in KS-04, Markos at Nir's website still made a totally worthwhile point this morning, one that all progressive activists really should keep in mind going forward this year and, of course, into 2018. Markos:

What does it mean when an almost-30-point Trump district ends up remaining Republican by single-digit numbers? It means that few-- if any-- Republicans are safe, anywhere. How scary is it for the GOP? Take a gander: Trump won--

• 36 House seats by 5 points or less
• 66 seats by 10 points or less
• 98 seats by 15 points or less
• 123 seats by 20 points or less
• 151 seats by 25 points or less, and
• 159 seats by 27 points or less, which was his margin of victory in KS-04

...[And W]hy wait until 2018 to take out some Republicans when we have two big special elections coming up within the next month and change? The first is in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District... Then we have Montana’s special election, where local folk hero Rob Quist is making Republicans sweat so hard, they’re trying to change the laws to make it harder for people to vote.

Despite Trump's childish and simpleminded tweet claiming victory, in this morning's NY Times Nate Cohn noted that "the Kansas result is not a great sign for the Republicans, and it’s hard to dismiss... The small and imperfect lesson of Tuesday’s special election in Kansas is that the Republicans might be in quite a bit of trouble. Mr. Estes’s seven-point victory is extremely poor for this district, whether under politically neutral circumstances or an environment deeply unfavorable to the president’s party. Mr. Estes would still be considered a 20-plus-point favorite in the district even with Mr. Trump’s approval rating around 40 percent... These Republican struggles are to be expected; the party has full control of government and its president is unpopular. These are the circumstances that often end in a so-called wave election, like the ones that swept Democrats into power in 2006 and out of the House in 2010. We might well be heading for another. At a minimum, the Kansas result is fully consistent with that possibility."

Will Hillary's Choice Of Kaine As Running Mate Push Progressive Voters Towards Jill Stein?

Do you agree with Trump about anything? Even when he gets something right-- TPP for example-- his objections are not credible and invariably for all the wrong reasons. Well, he's wrong about Hillary too-- no matter what he says... and he's said everything! In terms of the election, all anyone really has to know is that however bad she is-- even after filtering out all the GOP/Hate Talk Radio slander and nonsense-- she is in all ways and on any day the far, far lesser evil than he is on his best day. There are some pros and some cons about a Hillary Clinton presidency. The only case to be made for a Trump presidency is apocalyptic... if that's your cup of tea.

She just selected Tim Kaine as her running mate-- this seems like too big a decision for any one person, especially when we're talking about people like Trump, but her too-- which has been a foregone conclusion all week. There was never a moment I thought it would be someone any better than she is. In my mind it would always be someone catering to the worst aspects of the wing of the Democratic Party that has more in common with Eisenhower Republicans than with Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Democrats-- the Clinton wing. I was surprised yesterday when Markos wrote at Daily Kos, of late very much a mouthpiece for that wing of the party, that Hillary would lose ground with the base by picking a corporate centrist. He singled out Vilsack and Kaine; I' would have included Cory Booker and Julian Castro. Markos wrote than neither Kaine, who he deems particularly crappy, nor Vilsack is "palatable." Palatable to who? To the base? The base is as low-info as the Republican base... two-digit IQ morons who have saddled us with two miserable candidates the country seems to hate. The base can be persuaded. Or does he mean the activists and progressives who once, quite some time ago, alas, animated his then-revolutionary website? They want impossible dreams like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown or Bernie. That's never been in the cards, Hillary has less in common with them than she does with Susan Collins or Rob Portman.

999

The perfect compromise between a candidate springing from her own Republican-lite instincts and those of the progressive wing of the party, would have been Labor Secretary Tom Perez. He's not Elizabeth Warren and he's not Bernie but you don't have to twist the meaning of the word "Democrat" to get that he is one. Tim Kaine should never be president for a wide array of reasons, starting with his fealty to Wall Street, to fracking and to the kinds of trade agreements just about everyone in America short of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell (and Tim Kaine) now understands have been catastrophic. He has all of Clinton's policy flaws-- and more-- and none of her hard to discount saving graces. Kaine may well negate all the positive feelings Democrats who watched Trump's Hate Fest this week have allowed themselves to harbor about her. Markos seemed to be optimistic that Hillary was still going to "make the right call." I hoped he was right and that I was wrong. It's happened before. But not this time.

Jodi Jacobson at Rewire seemed as concerned and disturbed about the prospect of the Clinton's giving the slot to Kaine as we are. "The selection of Kaine," she wrote, "would be the first signal that Clinton intends to seek progressive votes but ignore progressive values and goals, likely at her peril, and ours."

Standing up for progressive principles is not so hard, if you actually believe in them. Senator Elizabeth Warren is a progressive who actually gets shit done, like the creation against all odds in 2011 of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, perhaps the single most important progressive achievement of the past 20 years. Among other things, the CFPB  shields consumers from the excesses of mortgage lenders, student loan servicers, and credit card companies that have caused so much economic chaos in the past decade. So unless you are more interested in protecting the status quo than addressing the root causes of the many problems we now face, a progressive politician would want a strong progressive running mate.

By choosing Tim Kaine as her vice president, Clinton will signal that she values progressives in name and vote only.

As Zach Carter wrote in the Huffington Post, Kaine is setting himself up as a figure willing to do battle with the progressive wing of the party. Kaine is in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement largely negotiated in secret and by corporate lobbyists. Both Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose voters Clinton needs to win over, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren oppose the TPP because, in Warren’s words, it “would tilt the playing field even more in favor of a big multinational corporations and against working families.”

The progressive agenda includes strong emphasis on effective systems of governance and oversight of banks and financial institutions-- the actors responsible, as a result of deregulation, for the major financial crises of the past 16 years, costing the United States trillions of dollars and gutting the financial security of many middle-class and low-income people.

...[A]s governor of Virginia, Kaine supported restrictions on abortion, such as Virginia’s parental consent law and a so-called informed consent law, which in 2008 he claimed gave “women information about a whole series of things, the health consequences, et cetera, and information about adoption.” In truth, the information such laws mandate giving out is often “irrelevant or misleading,” according to the the Guttmacher Institute. In other words, like many others who let ideology rather than public health guide their policy decisions, Kaine put in place policies that are not supported by the evidence and make it more difficult for women to gain access to abortion, steps he has not denounced. This is unacceptable. The very last thing we need is another person in the White House who further stigmatizes abortion, though it must be said Clinton herself seems chronically unable to speak about abortion without euphemism.

While there are many other reasons a Kaine pick would signal a less-than-secure and values-driven Clinton presidency, the fact also stands that he is a white male insider at a time when the rising electorate is decidedly not white and quite clearly looking for strong leadership and meaningful change. Kaine is not the change we seek.

Of course for those perfectly comfortable with going along with the lesser of two evils scenario that the two Beltway political parties insist defines democracy now... well Tim Kaine  is, arguably, far better than that walking freak show from Indiana (no, not Evan Bayh, the one... with the white hair... Mike Pence). As horrified as I was by the Cleveland Hate Fest and Trump's rantings and ravings-- and the overwhelming evil he and his horrid family-- sorry Chris Matthews-- represent, I will never vote based on who the lesser of two evils is. And if my resolve was weakening while I watched the GOP's deranged convention speakers and their hate-filled, ugly white audience, it just took a little focus back on Hillary-- and her announcement of Kaine half an hour ago-- to re-strengthen that resolve once again.

Markos Moulitsas: It’s Time for Sanders to Drop Out

It's as though one day the whole town assembled in the square, and all the nobles and officials took the stage and threw off their masks. What a sight for the people — masks rising high into the air like a flock of birds rising from a tree (source; click to enlarge).

by Gaius Publius

Just passing this on. Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos and a Clinton supporter, sounds like he wants Sanders to leave the race now (note the text of the URL; my emphasis below):

Bernie Sanders went further this primary season than some might have imagined at the outset, but despite his significant accomplishments, his race to the White House is over. Democrats will head into November with Hillary Clinton as their standard-bearer to face off against Donald Trump (assuming he survives an attempted coup by his party’s establishment).

In short, there is no plausible route for Sanders to overcome the advantage Clinton enjoyed of 319 pledged delegates before Tuesday’s contests. Since the former first lady leads the pledged delegate race 58 percent to 42 percent, with roughly half of the delegates to take the nomination already allocated, Sanders would have to win nearly 60 percent of delegates in the remaining states just to tie her.

That’s just not going to happen. ...

(By the way, that March 15 Clinton lead has recently been adjusted downward, to 315. Today it's below 300. Sanders could easily knock it down by 100 delegates or more from its March 15 high going into New York. In other words, going into New York the lead could easily be less than 200, depending on the outcome of four caucus states, with lots of game after that still to be played.)

But back to Moulitsas. Aside from the fact that the rest of the map favors Sanders, that momentum shifts can sometimes be dramatic — which is why people play the whole game, not just the first half — and that Sanders wins even in "Clinton states" when you look at election-day voting results only (that is, after the "who is this guy?" early votes are subtracted out) ... despite all this, Moulitsas would like Sanders to leave. Yet he never tells us why, so we're left to wonder.

One consequence of Sanders quitting now, of course, would be to artificially swell Clinton's delegate total coming into the convention (making a nice story for the press and also reinforcing the "progressives can't win" narrative). Another would be to let her team "pivot to Trump" and also adjust her sales pitch to "moderate voters" now, instead of continuing to sell to left-leaning (and reform-minded) Sanders voters. A third would be to "disappear" the split in support for the Democratic Party, which has widened into a chasm. (Note that I said "disappear" the chasm, not close it.)

Still, we're left to guess his reason for wanting Sanders to quit, and I won't speculate. Moulitsas does issue a warning, however. It's at the end, and it starts like this:

Sanders is obviously free to stay in the race so long as his supporters keep funding his efforts. But no one should get angry when the rest of the party...

Can you finish that sentence? Stop and take a guess.

[Sanders can stay in the race, but] no one should get angry when the rest of the party ... what?

What would you imagine that warning is? Sanders supporters shouldn't get "angry" when ... what? I'll save you the click. It's not what you think. It's "...starts focusing on the Trump threat." In other words, no one should get "angry" when the Party ignores Sanders.

You're right to be confused by that. I was too. I think it would be a gift to the Sanders campaign if he were ignored by the Clinton campaign. Was that sentence, for a fleeting second, about to end differently? I guess we'll never know what the rest of it wanted to be, after the words "no one should get angry when..." were typed.

Would Pivoting to Trump Now Be a Winning Strategy for Clinton?

Would focusing on Trump now, before the primary is over, and pivoting today from more progressive policies ... would that be a solid primary-contest strategy? Would that even be a good strategy in the general election? I'm not sure Sanders supporters would welcome it. But if that's the Clinton plan, I guess we'll get to watch it play out in real time.

This is turning into quite the party-insiders vs. party-reformers battle isn't it. Nice to know who's standing where. I just hope that if those insiders do manage to swing the nomination to the insider candidate, they don't "get angry" themselves, but accept responsibility for the result they chose for themselves. Again, just passing this on.

Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president.

• Time to contribute?
• Time to phone-bank for Bernie?
• Time to make sure all of your friends come out to vote?

Seems so to me. And thanks!

GP
  

I Never Used The F-Word On This Blog... Until Reading Nick Kristof's Anti-Bernie Crap Today

Elizabeth Warren has been talking a lot lately about Bernie's issues, not because they are Bernie's issues-- they're her issues too-- but because they are the issues the voters of Massachusetts elected her to talk about. And if she sounds like she's denigrating the Clinton campaign by continuing to attack Wall Street abuses and the rigged economy and by continuing to attack the inherent unfairness in the TPP and taking to the Senate floor to declare, "Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run this country like some private club," well... if the shoe fits... But she hasn't endorsed Bernie and I doubt she will. She's the only Democratic woman senator who hasn't endorsed Clinton though. And the worst of the right-of-center Clinton shills-- the Claire McCaskills, Kirsten Gillibrands, Debbie Stabenows and Jeanne Shaheens-- have been pressuring her to get on board the women's train for Hillary. I imagine the shills at EMILY's List are doing the same. Warren didn't run for the Senate because she was a woman; she ran because she has a progressive vision for how to make our country a better place, a progressive vision which is far, far, far more in synch with Bernie's than with the reflexive timidity (at least on policy) and conservatism of Hillary, Claire McCaskill, Kirsten Gillibrand, Debbie Stabenow and Jeanne Shaheen. Progressives don't admire and respect Warren because she's a woman; they respect her because of what she stands for. Otherwise she's just be some wretched careerist hack like McCaskill or Gillibrand. Or what Pelosi has turned into in her dotage.

In 2013, right after election day, E.J. Dionne looked at the results and wrote America Shifts Left, not as a celebration of the ugly and failed identity group politics that dominates the worst elements of the Democratic Party but as elebration of the election of politicians who stand for progressive values and principles.

Much earlier, in their seminal 2006 book on grassroots politics Crashing the Gate Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong eviscerated many notions of old school Democratic Party politics, narrow identity politics being one especially ugly component. Writing last year about how EMILY's List has devolved into an organization that primarily helps wealthy conservative women-- who are (mostly, but not always, soon we'll be introducing the newest anti-Choice EMILY's List endorsee) pro-Choice-- target progressive men, I noted that when the book first came out I didn't fully appreciated that point-- "about how the single-minded, single interest groups that make up the Democratic coalition are a force for dysfunction. EMILY's List, far more than any other group, is the poster child for that destructive attitude that has been, in recent years, so harmful to the progressive movement." They are the organization you can LEAST count on to "examine the content of his or her character," let alone his or her stands on issues, when looking at candidates.

In his NYTimes column yesterday, Nick Kristof posed 2 questions to the spirit of Bernie' campaign that you would expect to see from the epitome of establishment news and opinion:

• Can you translate your bold vision into reality? ... I’m skeptical. I’m for Medicare for All, but it won’t happen.

• Can you get elected? Or would your nomination make a President Cruz more likely?

When voters are polled today about how they would vote in a general election, Sanders does pretty well. For example, he beats Ted Cruz in the RealClearPolitics average, while Clinton loses to Cruz. But at this stage that’s almost meaningless: Republicans are blasting Clinton while ignoring Sanders. If he were the nominee, he would be savaged.

One particularly sobering item for Sanders supporters: A Gallup poll last year asking voters what kind of person they would be unwilling to consider voting for. Six percent of Americans say they wouldn’t vote for a Catholic, and 7 percent wouldn’t support a black or a Jew. Some 24 percent wouldn’t vote for a gay candidate, and more than a third would refuse to vote for a Muslim or an atheist.

However, the most objectionable kind of person by far was a socialist. Fifty percent of Americans said they would be unwilling to consider voting for a socialist.

First off, Nick Kristof, ladies and gentlemen, has decreed that although some of his best friends are single payer, "it won’t happen." Is that so, Nicky? What would have you said between 1773 and 1776 when the progressives were arguing for the Declaration of Independence? That King George was our friend, as so many establishment conservatives did? Would you have denounced Thomas Paine as a lunatic and a dreamer and banned Common Sense from your household? Would you have scoffed at Richard Henry Lee's resolution by insisting that declaring independence was "premature," as so many establishment conservatives did? Would you have backed the conservative delegations from Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland and New York in threatening to withdraw from the Continental Congress? Would you have said it was impossible for the struggling little colonies to fight off the world's mightiest army? How about in the battle for emancipation of the salves? Too hard? Impossible? Women's suffrage? Public education? How absurd and pie-in-the-sky was that? The anti-Trust laws? Food safety inspections? The abolition of child labor? Rural electrification? Land grant colleges? National parks? The weekend? The minimum wage? Social Security? Civil rights and voting rights for minorities? Clean air and water and consumer safety? Medicare? All of those things were foot against-- long and hard-- by conservatives and the establishment declared them all "impossible." Fuck you! As Senator Warren said, in case you weren't paying attention, "Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard, has crawled into bed with the billionaires."

Question 2: Your kind never stopped screeching that FDR was a socialist. He was elected and reelected 4 times. Every poll-- not "some polls," shows that Bernie would beat Cruz, Trumpf and Rubio," unlike Hillary. But we're supposed to ignore that data and pay attention to your establishment intuition instead? And by the way, Herr Trumpf has been the most effective destroyer of reputations of anyone in politics in recent years. He and his followers have been attacking Bernie daily... as Bernie's polling numbers continue to rise and as poll after poll after poll shows that he's the only candidate from either party with a positive favorability rating from voters. More Americans hate Jeb, Trumpf, Rubio, Cruz and Hillary than like them. But more Americans-- though not establishment whores like yourself-- like Bernie than dislike him. Why don't you go live in England and pledge fealty to the royal family?

You can contribute to the Make Nick Kristof Cry Fund here. And then he can celebrate Medicare For All single payer healthcare some day.

Chicago Can Still Replace Rahm Emanuel With A Mayor Who Cares About People

Last spring and summer there was a hopeful stir as polling showed several candidates could beat Rahm Emanuel's bid for reelection. For various reasons, none of them decided to make the run. But as of last month, another candidate has stepped up to the plate, Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia. Chicago Teachers Union and other progressive groups have already endorsed him. A classic battle between reformers and good government independents and the corrupt transactional Machine is shaping up.

As state senator, Garcia represented a majority Latino district on the Southwest side with no shortage of social problems, including crime, school overcrowding and lack of access to healthcare. The same is true of the overlapping, heavily Latino 7th District he oversees as Cook County commissioner, where his job is ensuring that residents have access to county services.

Garcia supported legislation in both roles that tackled housing, healthcare and education inequities, among other areas. Most well-known was his championing, as commissioner, a successful 2011 ordinance to require Cook County’s sheriff to decline requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain immigrants, unless the federal government would pay the detention costs.

During his time as commissioner, Garcia was also one of the sponsors of a county bill to safeguard holders of public housing vouchers from discrimination by landlords, which was signed into law in 2013.

Garcia spoke to In These Times by phone earlier this week. His proudest achievement, he says, was his work balancing Cook County’s budget. In 2010, the county was facing a revenue shortfall of more than $480 million. In response, Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle and the board of commissioners laid out a plan to lay off more than 1,000 county workers, as well as refinance the county’s debt and go after unpaid taxes. In the end, after weeks of negotiations with local unions, the number of layoffs was reduced to 500.

“I am proud of our ability to address budget deficits,” says Garcia, who was in his first year as commissioner during the budget battle. “The budget deficit we inherited was massive, and to balance it we had to lay off 500 people. That was probably the most painful decision we had to make.”

There are 5 candidates running now and it seems unlikely Rahm will get the 50% he needs to avoid a runoff-- despite the millions and millions of dollars he's raking in from enemies of working families. Emanuel has a job performance rating that is underwater with every group in the city. The first number is the percentage of Chicagoans who rate his job performance excellent or good. The second number represents Chicagoans who rate it fair or poor:

• Men- 37-61%
• Women- 31-64%
• Black- 32-62%
• White- 37- 62%
• Hispanic- 33-61%
• Democrats- 36-60%
• Independents- 27-67%
• Republicans- 27-71%

The poll was conducted by Lake Research, the most accurate firm in the business. They found that in a three-way race including Emanuel, Garcia and Alderman Bob Fioretti, Emanuel would take 33% of the vote, Garcia 18% and Fioretti 13%. In a head-to-head between Garcia and Emanuel, Emanuel led with 36% to Garcia's 31%. Undecided was huge-- 30%.

On Friday Daily Kos became the first national group to endorse Garcia. Markos:

[Emanuel] was virulently anti-immigration when running the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and was essentially the reason the issue didn't move forward during Obama's first term when he served as the president's chief of staff. He once said that liberals were "fucking retarded" for wanting to push the president to the left. He was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's biggest ally in bailing out the banks with zero reciprocity for taxpayers.

About the best thing that could be said about Rahm's mayoralship was that it got him the fuck away from D.C., and good riddance. But that still leaves the little problem of that asshole screwing up Chicago, and that's not fair to our nation's third largest city where the mayor has closed 50 public schools while focusing his efforts on the downtown business core while ignoring its vibrant neighborhoods. He truly is a mayor for the 1 percent. So how about we help boot his ass into the private sector?

...Rahm is far from the 50 percent he needs to avoid a runoff during this February primary, which is shocking given his near-universal name ID. He's sitting on $9 million, and the business community will shower him with millions more, but he's built little goodwill or core base of support during his first term. Garcia, a long-time community organizer, was a city council supporter of groundbreaking Mayor Harold Washington, later ousted by the Daley machine, the same machine now backing Rahm.

Garcia won't raise $9 million, much less whatever total Rahm ends up with by the time votes are cast. But he doesn't need to. People have either decided they want an alternative, or are open to one... Garcia's job will be to have enough money to get his message out, and to withstand the shit Rahm will throw his way.

As Markos pointed out in his endorsement, if you want a better Democratic Party, primaries are the place to fight that battle most effectively. Blue America has a brand new page for 2015 races like this one. Our first endorsed candidate: Jesus "Chuy" Garcia. Please consider making a contribution to his campaign to replace one of the worst Democrats in contemporary politics-- anywhere.

UPDATE: Can Chuy Beat Rahm's Fat Bank Account?

The Chicago Reader remarked this week that Emanuel's campaign reported the arrival of a contribution from billionaire former hedge fund manager (and charter school advocate) John D. Arnold, who lives on Lazy Lane (really) in Houston, but cares enough about the mayor's race in Chicago to put a hundred grand down on Rahm. Garcia's following among Lazy Lane billionaires is thought to be smaller."

But money doesn't always prevail, and "Chuy" Garcia is a formidable candidate. He's been an elected official at the city, county, and state levels, and been highly regarded at each.

"He's the real deal-- a true progressive and a quality human being," Gary Rivlin told me recently. Rivlin lives in New York now and is working as a reporting fellow at the Nation Institute's Investigative Fund, but he covered politics for the Reader in the 1980s, and saw the start of Garcia's political career... In 1992, Garcia became the first Mexican-American to be elected to the Illinois state senate. "He's never been a guy with a big ego, he's always willing to help other people," Cook County clerk David Orr told Linda Lutton in 1998, for a Reader story Orr, who served with Garcia on the City Council, called Garcia "one of the most outstanding elected officials in the state."

...If anyone can overcome the hurdles for a Latino mayoral candidate in Chicago, it's Garcia, Rivlin told me, "given his lifetime commitment to a multiracial coalition-- not just talking the talk, but 30 years of walking the walk."

Corporate Dems Like Schumer Aren't Done Wrecking The Democratic Party

I've never missed an election in my life-- even while living in difficult to vote places like the mountains of Afghanistan-- and I've never voted for a Republican, although before I was old enough to vote, I was a volunteer for John Lindsay, a liberal Republican-- they had them back then-- running against the conservative machine hack Abe Beame. Lindsay responded to the GOP's inexorable drift rightward by switching to the Democratic Party while he was mayor. That said, it has gotten harder and harder for me to vote for Democrats in recent years. The further Democratic candidates drift from progressive values and principles, the more I find myself voting for judges and assemblymen and leaving out congressmen (Blue Dog Adam Schiff), senators (Dianne Feinstein) governors (Gray Davis) and presidents (Barack Obama, 2012).

A week ago, in a comparison between Netroots Nation and the New Music Seminar I was grumbling about the stature accorded to conservative corporate Democrats Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. Why not invite Rahm Emanuel, Harold Ford, John Barrow or Robert Rubin? They're Democrats too. When it started the New Music Seminar was a place you could see live shows from REM, The Pixies, The Buzzcocks, My Bloody Valentine, RomeoVoid, 10,000 Maniacs, Smashing Pumpkins, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur Jr and Run DMC. Not Chuck Schumer. Oh I don't care if Chuck Schumers and Joe Bidens come to this kind of thing-- and it's none of my business anyway (and, of course, it is a business)-- but why elevate them and give them some kind of status among the cutting edge? Bleccchhh.

The Finance Sector, or what we affectionately call Wall Street, has given Schumer $20,385,339, more than any senator in history who hasn't been a presidential candidate-- and more than several who have! Like Biden who "only" took in $4,029,797. Schumer's never been a friend of progressives and never will be-- and I remember him from the 1960s at James Madison High School in Brroklyn! A day after he strutted around Netroots Nation, he was writing an OpEd for the NY Times that would make it easier for his Wall Street backers to own even more of the American political system than they already do. "Polarization and partisanship," he writes, "are a plague on American politics." He's sad that Eric Cantor was defeated by some scruffy teabagger and claims primaries poison the health of the political system. I remember when he was head of the DSCC and progressives fought him-- and beat him-- when he put some slimy Wall Street shill up for senator and we got behind populist John Tester, who beat Schumer's candidate and then beat a Wall Street-owned Republican incumbent.

Most of the response to Schumer's proposal to do away with partisan primaries has been very negative. 538: "Here’s the problem with Schumer’s argument: There isn’t much evidence to support it." Jonathan Bernstein for Bloomberg: Chuck Schumer Gets Primaries All Wrong. And California grassroots activist Paul Hogarth points out that Schumer's proposal would just duplicate California's dysfunction.

[I]t was Schumer’s defense of California’s top-two primary that revealed how clueless he is about my home state, and how getting rid of party primaries will only make things worse.

California was racked by polarization until voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that adopted a “top-two” primary system.

Oy vey. Yes, it’s true that California’s government was dysfunctional before 2010, but that did not change because we passed the “top-two primary.” It was ending the two-thirds rule for passing a budget in 2010 that finally brought some sanity, and an increasingly blue legislature in 2012 changed things for the better.

But the “top-two” primary also created a whole new host of problems that has led to abysmal voter turnout, Republican-vs-Republican general elections and the rise of corporate Democrats in the state legislature. Oh, and the Tea Party is still a relevant factor in the state.

So no thanks, Chuck. Please don't export the Golden State's dysfunction. Lots more below the fold, written by someone who actually lives in California...

[A]s state Democratic chairman John Burton predicted at the state party’s 2010 convention in Los Angeles, it was really more about helping big business elect more of their Democrats-- with cross-over votes from Republicans.

Four years later, Burton’s prediction has proven right-- as we have witnessed the rise of the corporate Democrat in deep-blue districts that should be electing progressive champions.

The rise of what might be called the Corporate Democrat can only be partly explained by shrinking GOP delegations in Sacramento. It is also the product of redistricting and effects of the “top-two primary,” by which members of the same political party can win the top two primary positions and then face off in November. Since then, powerful corporations, agricultural associations and other political high rollers have been turning away from their traditional Republican partners and placing more and more of their chips on the Democratic end of the table-- specifically, on candidates like Marc Levine [of Marin County.]

Under the new rules, Silicon Valley Rep. Mike Honda may have easily bested Ro Khanna in the June 2014 primary-- but the “top-two” primary means that corporate Democrat Khanna still has a second bite at the apple, and will attempt to beat Honda with Republican votes. Under the new rules, Republicans can even cross over and pick their Democrat.

We saw this happen in June in legislative races, such as California’s 4th Assembly district—a deep blue district in wine country (Napa County and surroundings), where Democrats enjoy a 20-point registration edge. Progressive champion Mariko Yamada was elected under the old system, and is stepping down due to term limits. But her replacement in November will now be a choice between a Republican-- and an ex-Republican turned corporate Democrat.

That’s because there were 3 Democrats and 1 Republican on the June ballot, and the top two finishers regardless of party moved on to November. The Republican came in first with 26 percent of the vote, followed by Democrat Bill Dodd-- an ex-Republican Napa County Supervisor with heavy funding from the Chamber of Commerce, who benefited because Republicans could now choose which Democrat moved ahead. Progressive Democrat (and labor-backed) candidate Dan Wolk came in a close third, and a fourth Democrat in the race played spoiler.

California will still have a solidly Democratic legislature, but enough corporate Democrats elected under the top-two primary recently colluded with Republicans to kill a fracking moratorium. Expect more of these losses in Sacramento, as Democrats from even deep-blue districts side with their corporate donors.

Sometimes, the top-two primary allows for what could be winnable seats for Democrats into a November match-up between two Republicans. GOP Rep. Gary Miller of California’s 31st Congressional District (San Bernardino) dodged a bullet in 2012, when a crowded field of Democrats on the June ballot meant that he ended up facing another Republican.

Voters in that district, by the way, preferred Barack Obama over Mitt Romney-- so coat-tails could have netted the blue team an extra House seat. But there was no Democrat on the November ballot, so it was a wasted opportunity.

Miller is retiring this year, and we almost had a repeat in that district. But Democrat Pete Aguilar managed to score a second-place finish in June (by less than 400 votes), so the blue team will at least have a Democrat on the ballot and have a potential pick-up opportunity.

But in California’s 25th Congressional District, where another Republican (Buck McKeon) is retiring, what could have been a possible pick-up for Democrats is now assured GOP representation until at least 2016 (if not further) in a district that is trending blue.

No, Chuck, top-two primary does not mean higher voter turnout

While there are no guarantees, it seems likely that a top-two primary system would encourage more participation in primaries and undo tendencies toward default extremism.

Sen. Schumer alleges that a top-two primary would result in higher turnout. That's exactly what Arnold Schwarzenegger and Abel Maldonado promised back in 2010 when California voters were asked to pass it.

But unlike Schumer, they didn’t have the hindsight to know its effects. Now we know the answer.

The 2014 California Primary Election will go down as the worst ever in terms of voter turnout.

Voter turnout in June was an abysmal 18 percent, which of course turns out the most committed and comfortable voters-- who are disproportionately white, old and conservative.

In California’s race for state controller, we came dangerously close to another November run-off between two Republicans: Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, and conservative David Evans-- who spent practically no money, and benefited from a healthy Tea Party turnout.

The next day, Markos took a swing at the same proposition. "Let's be honest," he urged. "Just one party is polarized, and that's the GOP. That's their problem, not Chuck Schumer's or anyone else's. Let Reublicans fix their own shit. But even both parties were polarized, so what? Partisanship is deeply ingrained in the fabric of our nation's being. There's nothing wrong with it. It gives people without the time and inclination to research every single candidate a guidepost upon which to base their voting decisions. It gives people a flag to rally around, a cause to stir them to action. That's why parties exist. And voters should be allowed to determine the direction of their own parties. That's not a problem that needs solving, and even if it was, his solution does nothing to do so… But the biggest indictment? It kills voter participation."

Before Schwarzenegger and other corporate politicians got the dysfunctional new system passed in California, primary turnout was 30%-- pretty awful… but not as awful as it was with the new system: 18%. Schumer is tired and whatever sharpness he hever ad is long dulled by time. He shouldn't run again; he should make room for fresh new ideas in the Senate.

Turning Out The Base-- Or Turning Off The Base

The DCCC's Steve Israel doesn't give base voters a reason to turn out; he gives them reason to stay home on election day

Wednesday, Markos wrote an exceptionally well-thought-out post on Kos, Democrats' Biggest Challenge Is Getting Their Base Voters To Vote. He worries that historically the party's strongest-performing base groups-- African Americans, Latinos, Asians, young voters, and single women-- don't show up for midterms. "[T]he problem with our base turnout," he explains, "isn't necessarily in presidential years, but in the off years in between. That means not just the midterm elections, but all sorts of local and special elections scattered in between those four-year big ones... The holy grail of Democratic electoral performance is to have all those groups match white turnout in mid-term elections. African Americans are the closest to that goal, but still lag, giving Republicans a demographic advantage every election outside of presidential ones... If our people turn out, Democrats win. There are simply more of us than them, and that number is growing by the day. The problem is, our people are the least likely to turn out, and their track record in mid-term elections is woeful. That's why Republican disenfranchisement efforts are so successful-- our core groups are already predisposed to skip out on voting, it doesn't take that much of an extra push to guarantee their non-participation." You can see all the conclusive stats at the link above.

Echoing Markos, no less than Nevada's Republican Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey, who told Hate Talk Radio host Dan Mason: "We have some real opportunities in 2014. This is a great year in an off-presidential election. Seemingly no Democrat on the top of the ticket against Sandoval. No Harry Reid. Probably where we had a million voters turn out in 2012, we'll have like 700,000. A lot of minorities, a lot of younger people will not turn out in a non-presidential. It's a great year for Republicans."

The other night I was at a public forum in Hacienda Heights given by three outstanding progressive congresswomen from L.A., Lucille Royball-Allard. Judy Chu and Janice Hahn. I think I shocked them when I told them about Steve Israel's latest recruit for the DCCC, Ohio's Sarah Palin, Jennifer Garrison. Jennifer Garrison-- not to mention Israel and his strategies-- is the poster child for why so many base voters don't turn out. Israel chased a popular moderate state Senator out of the race, Lou Gentile, so he could deliver the nomination to the corrupt Garrison. He immediately put her on the DCCC Jumpstart list, signaling to big Democratic donors that she's a top priority.

But the signal to base voters is what will keep them away from the polls. Garrison is a shrill homophobic asshole who was elected to the state legislature by gay-baiting the only Republican who had voted against the anti-gay Ohio Defense of Marriage Act. Garrison sent out mailings that read, “If you believe marriage is between one man and one woman, there’s something you should know about Nancy Hollister.” The other side of the card said, “DOMA was enacted precisely to protect Ohioans from having to accept ‘marriages’ or ‘unions’ entered into in other states. Despite the value of DOMA, Nancy Hollister voted against it. Jennifer Garrison believes marriage is between one man and one woman and will fight to protect our values.” She told the Parkersburg (W.Va.) newspapers that "the big difference between Nancy and I is the gay marriage issue. I am against it. She is for it."

In 2006, as a member of Ohio's House Education Committee, Garrison helped to kill an amendment that would have required Ohio schools to protect students from bullying for their sexual orientation or gender identity.

OK, so the LGBT community isn't likely to come out and vote for her next year. What about women, the biggest component of the Democratic base? Garrison is adamantly anti-Choice and when she tried to run for Secretary of State NARAL warned its members and supporters that they had rated her a 0%.

Rep. Garrison showed just how extreme her anti-choice position is when she filled out the 2008 candidate questionnaire for Ohio Right to Life, saying she would:

• support legislation in Ohio to outlaw abortion (with only an exception to save a woman’s life),
• support legislation that would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception, and
• support state funding for so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that lie to women about the risks of abortion and never refer patients for abortion or birth control services.

Representative Garrison does not share our values.

Maybe Israel thinks they forgot? Garrison is also an NRA fave, voted against the minimum wage and is an anti-environment fanatic who counts on Big Coal to fund her political aspirations. So what part of the base is going to turn out for her? Steve Israel's part of the base: the Wall Street banksters. Not sure how many of those there are in Marietta, Cambridge, Steubenville, Jackson and the Ohio suburbs of Wheeling and Parkersburg. And do they vote in Democratic primaries? When is Nancy Pelosi going to wake up and show this clown the door?

The Failure Of Identity Politics-- And It's Not Just Wall Street Shill Cory Booker

Yesterday we noted the endorsement of Rush Holt, who is white, by African-American civil rights leader Edith Savage-Jennings. In her OpEd at the Times of Trenton, she wrote that "The decision to answer the call to service was never easy. Often, it was terrifying. I faced the very real possibility of imprisonment or violence for standing up for civil rights. But I could not abide the idea that some human beings were less equal than others. As much as I valued my safety, I valued my principles even more highly. When I look at Rush Holt, I see someone who feels equally called to service and equally committed to his principles. I am not being paid by his campaign. And I have never been paid by any campaign. I just think he is the best person to elect to the Senate." Holt is a Blue America backed candidate and I was glad that someone of Edith Savage-Jennings' stature and integrity didn't back the "Black candidate" or the woman candidate" but went for the BEST candidate.

I am a black woman who helped lead the civil rights movement. At the request of NAACP National, I arranged for Mrs. Rosa Parks to come to the Mount Zion AME Church in Trenton in January 1956 to give her first national speech after her Montgomery bus sit-in. And in 1957, I organized the first visit of Martin Luther King Jr. to Trenton at the Shiloh Baptist Church and became his fund-raiser and lifelong friend. In addition to my other work and interests, such as the National Conference of Christians and Jews, I have served in major national, state and local civil rights leadership positions.

Some people believe that my history should compel me to vote for a black candidate as New Jersey’s next U.S. senator. But if I learned anything from the civil rights movement, it is that we must look past the color of a person’s skin.

We must examine the content of his or her character. We must ask ourselves: Who has heard and answered the call to service?

...Mr. Holt has been honest, fair, hard-working and committed. He has earned the respect of all his constituents regardless of race or ethnicity. No matter who asks for his help, Rush Holt is there.

When the National Security Agency was caught spying on innocent Americans-- calling to mind the surveillance abuses of the civil rights movement, when the FBI spied on Martin Luther King Jr. and others-- Rush Holt was there. He has introduced a bill to end warrantless spying on Americans. He is respected nationally as a true progressive.

When my city of Trenton was forced to lay off much of its police force during a budget crisis, Rush Holt was there. He fought for funding from the Justice Department to help the city rehire police officers. He also helped the police department and emergency medical services buy new equipment, and he helped renovate the Trenton train station. Rep. Holt can often be seen in all the neighborhoods of Trenton, my home town, as well his entire district, hearing from the people he represents.

At every opportunity, Rep Holt has answered the call to service. In him I see a kindred, compassionate spirit-- someone I can count on to carry on the work that I have done for so many years.

Without a lot of posturing and flamboyance, Rush Holt has become an effective leader for progressive causes and, therefore, in my opinion, he is the best person to represent us in the United States Senate.

Cory Booker isn't the first-- nor will he be the last-- African-American candidate to sell his soul to Wall Street. He's just another version of corporate whores like Harold Ford, Al Wynn and Artur Davis. The most conservative Hispanic Democrat in Texas is Henry Cuellar. Where many Democrats who vote with the Republicans as much as Cuellar does, whine that their districts demand it because they're purple of even red, Cuellar's Texas district is strictly out of bounds for a Republican. The PVI is D+7 and Romney couldn't even win 40% there last year. No, Blue Dog Henry Cuellar doesn't vote like a Republican because he's a coward; he votes like a Republican because he is like a Republican.

In their seminal 2006 book on grassroots politics Crashing the Gate Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong eviscerate many notions of old school politics, narrow identity politics being one component. Writing last year about how EMILY's List has devolved into an organization that primarily helps wealthy conservative women-- who are pro-Choice-- target progressive men, I noted that when the book first came out I didn't fully appreciated that point-- "about how the single-minded, single interest groups that make up the Democratic coalition are a force for dysfunction. EMILY's List, far more than any other group, is the poster child for that destructive attitude that has been, in recent years, so harmful to the progressive movement." They are the organization you can LEAST count on to "examine the content of his or her character" when looking at candidates.

Sean Patrick Maloney-- nice family, crap voting record

Lately, the Democratic Party has elected more proud, up front gay men and women than ever before. That's wonderful, but there's a but. Unlike gay congressional pioneer Barney Frank, most of these gay candidates are not progressives. Oh, they're very progressive on LGBT issues and on Choice, but when it comes to economic justice, many of them are cut from the same cloth as reactionary Republicans from the Greed and Selfishness wing of the GOP. According to ProgressivePunch's crucial vote score, Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) is the least progressive freshman Democrat in Congress. His wretched 32.69 score is more conservative than several Republicans and much worse than many homophobic right-wing Blue Dogs. But he's proudly gay and has a lovely husband and lovely children that he uses to get progressives to donate to his campaigns. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), who tells everyone she meets that she's "bisexual," is basically just as bad. Her abysmal score is 40.62, just above conservative North Carolina Republican Walter Jones' 40.38-- though not quite as "good" as Maloney's closest congressional neighbor, conservative Republican Chris Gibson (41.35), who is facing a wealthy Maloney clone next year, Sean Eldridge. Let me point out at this moment that the BEST Progressive Punch score for any freshman this year belongs to Madison, Wisconsin progressive Mark Pocan, an upfront gay man who sees the fight for LGBT equality as a part of the universal struggle for equality and the dignity of all men and women, something that Maloney and Sinema seem-- at least in their voting records-- unable or unwilling to grasp.

EMILY's List endorses worthless conservative women. Victory Fund has even endorsed reformed homophobes who are conservative Republicans-- and expect them to back Richard Tisei against LGBT equality backer John Tierney again, like they did last year. Both organizations need to look more closely at how Edith Savage-Jennings came to her conclusions-- selflessness dedication rather than jonesing for a weekly paycheck and empire-building being one important factor. It's always a good time to watch this short video by Alan Grayson again:

I Don't Know Why Emily's List Keeps Sending Me Stuff

EMILY's List-- no friends of progressives

The GOP could just as well send me requests for donations. And I'd be as likely to give to them as I am to EMILY's List. In fact, whenever anyone sends me any news about an EMILY's List endorsement, the first thing I do is reply with this post from August 7, 2008, primary day in Tennessee. Rep. Steve Cohen, a stalwart progressive with a perfect voting record on all EMILY's List's issues-- and a sterling progressive-- had a tough primary against a candidate financed and pushed by EMILY's List, Nikki Tinker, a conservative, pro-Business anti-Semite who would probably make the idiots who contribute to EMILY's List pass out if they looked into her. But she is a her and Steve Cohen, isn't. Eventually, Tinker's anti-Semitic campaign got so outrageous and garnered so much national attention that EMILY's List unendorsed her on the day before the election-- long after early voting and absentee ballots were in, and long after their contributions had gone to help poison the minds of voters in Memphis about the "Godless Jews." In the end the EMILY's List candidate didn't get very many votes, maybe 10% of something. People in Memphis were smarter-- much smarter-- than they were back in their DC perches.

EMILY's List was once a useful and effective organization for getting progressive women into politics. They've long since descended into utter patheticness. If a candidate mentions she's been endorsed by EMILY's List, alarm bells immediately go off. That's a shame because, along with all the conservative women dedicated to making life in America harder and less bearable, they also endorse some excellent candidates. You just have to be very careful when you see the EMILY's List seal of approval. I saw it today on a list of endorsers for Michelle Lujan Grisham, who is running against progressive state Senator Eric Griego for the open congressional seat in Albuquerque. I noticed some names on that list that gave me good reason for concern. Right there with EMILY's List were some of the most reactionary members of New Mexico's state legislature, the right-wingers who are always fighting against Griego's efforts for a more just and equitable state. There they were-- John Arthur Smith, Mary Kay Papen, Tim Jennings, Donna Irwin,
Jim Trujillo, the worst dreck in New Mexico Democratic politics. But Michelle is a woman-- and Eric isn't. Forget that his record is more pro-women and pro-family than hers is... what does that have to do with anything in EMILY's List world?

I got an e-mail today from another multimillionaire dilettante and New Age "Business Dem," Stacey Lawson. EMILY's List is pushing this anti-consumer/anti-worker contributors to their business in one of the most progressive districts in the whole country, CA-2. It's a redrawn version of Lynn Woolsey's old seat and inside the new boundaries Obama would have beaten McCain 71-25%. Whichever Democrat wins the primary-- unless two Democrats win the primary, which is a distinct possibility-- will be the next congressmember from northern California. It's the single best hope in the country to elect an outside-politics, movement progressive to Congress, Norman Solomon, a lifelong advocate for peace and for working families. He's not claiming to be a "Business Democrat" any more than any Republican anywhere say they are "Labor Union Republicans." But he has the wrong plumbing for EMILY's List.

Polls show a neck and neck race between another business-friendly Democrat, Jared Huffman, and Norman. EMILY's List will now try to tip the balance against Norman with their huge war chest. The post-Nikki Tinker disaster, new head of EMILY's List, Stephanie Schriock, writes about how enthusiastic she is about endorsing Stacey. "Federal campaign finance reports show that, in the two consecutive quarters since Lawson became a candidate, she has out-raised all her opponents. Lawson has raised $455,000 since late September, turning the crowded race into essentially a two-way contest with Assemblyman Jared Huffman, who has been raising funds since December 2010."

Yes, Lawsen has lots of wealthy friends who wrote her $5,000 maxed-out checks. But, as I said, polls show it's a neck and neck race between Huffman and Norman. Inside-the-Beltway, where EMILY's List careerists go to all the parties and hobnob with all the political hacks, success is strictly measured in dollars and if a candidate can suck up to enough rich people and corporate lobbyists... well, what could be better? It's a different world back there.

I bought Markos' first book, Crashing the Gate when it has just come out. I don't think I fully appreciated then as much as I do now, one of his main points-- about how the single-minded, single interest groups that make up the Democratic coalition are a force for dysfunction. EMILY's List, far more than any other group, is the poster child for that destructive attitude that has been, in recent years, so harmful to the progressive movement.

The Blue America endorsement page is based on overall progressive stands and energy, not on anyone's race or gender or single issue position. You'll find both Eric Griego and Norman Solomon on that list-- as well as lots of worker-friendly, family-friendly, peace-friendly, consumer-friendly, environmental-friendly Democrats... no "Business-friendly" Dems or Blue Dogs though. And no EMILY's List anti-Semites.

Goring Someone Else's Ox

Yesterday, when I was trying to work, my most financially successful friend-- one of the inventors of iTunes-- called to make idle chitchat. I wonder what those people do over there! He tried getting my attention by lurching into a topic he rarely thinks about: politics. He wanted to know about Obama's meeting with the GOP leaders and how that would impact a compromise on the Bush tax cuts. His opinion is that no one making over a billion dollars a year should get to keep his or her tax break. He would even be willing, if push comes to shove, to lower the threshold to $10 million; he's a liberal.

And for the ultimate in Republican ritual hypocrisy, we can just turn to today's Wall Street Journal where we find that semi-official GOP policy is now to oppose all earmarks-- except ones in your own state. Talk about goring someone else's ox! The Journal points to the crucial work being done on ports in Georgia and South Carolina-- and the Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss, Johnny Isakson and Lindsey Graham, who are earmarking them to completion.

Earmarks were denounced by conservative activists during the recent midterm election campaigns, and Republicans in both chambers banned them last month. But several GOP senators have suggested they'll make exceptions if they see fit, including three of the four from Georgia and South Carolina.

...Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) supports the earmark ban but has vowed to earmark funds for the Charleston port if necessary. "I'm in a spot where I have to get the port deepened for economic reasons," he said.

...Georgia's Republican senators are touting their opposition to earmarks but also suggesting they'll do whatever it takes for the port. "My position has consistently been, I'm going to support reform or total elimination of earmarks," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.). "But if a project is vital to the economy and jobs of my state, I'm sent here by the people of my state to make sure their interests are looked after."

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.), who also supported the ban, said he would "continue to fight for funding for projects such as the expansion of the Savannah port that is critical to my state and to U.S. trade."

Many senators are allowing themselves such wiggle room. Other Republicans oppose the ban outright and are not committed to abstaining from earmarks at all. Democrats, who have a majority in the Senate, have not adopted a ban.

And what about anti-earmark fanatic, Jim DeMint? He's not budging, even if the port of Charleston fails and brings down the whole South Carolina economy. Take that, you damn libruls!

It's so much easier for rightists to assuage their hopped up base by screaming about "sacrilegious art," throwing Latinos and other "foreigners" to the dogs or by stomping on the heads of gay and lesbian active duty service members, than actually doing anything that will get anyone's nose bent out of joint-- at least not anyone who "counts." This week most Republican senators will vote against repealing DADT-- even the ones who claimed they were only opposed until the Pentagon issued it's report-- and against the DREAM Act, even though fully 66% of the American people support it, "including majorities of Democrats (81%), independents (60%), and even Republicans (57%)!"

But Republicans don't count on non-Cuban Hispanics, on the non-closeted LGBT community or on low income workers for their votes. So they don't really care what these communities think or do or say. For the sake of appearances-- even Republicans need to look moderate and unbigoted from time to time to help them with dizzy independents-- more than a few Republican senators claimed they just wanted to wait until the Pentagon reported on what the impact of repealing DADT would be before they voted. Now the military brass has reported and they reported that the ridiculous and outmoded law should be immediately repealed for the sake of national security. But the same freaks who opposed it-- and who would have opposed allowing African-Americans to serve in an integrated military before Harry Truman told them to get over themselves and just did it as Commander-in-Chief, are unlikely to live up to their words. Take that Maine profile in courage, Olympia Snowe, currently quaking in her boots over a teabagger primary challenge. In refusing to support repeal earlier this year this is what she said:

Moreover, as I have previously stated, given that the law implementing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has been in place for nearly 17 years, I agree that it is overdue for a thorough review. The question is, whether we should be voting on this issue before we have the benefit of the comprehensive review that President Obama’s Secretary of Defense ordered in March, to secure the input of our men and women in uniform during this time of war-- as the Joint Chiefs of Staff from all of the services have requested prior to any vote. We should all have the opportunity to review that report which is to be completed on December 1, as we reevaluate this policy and the implementation of any new changes.

I can't wait to hear her excuse for not voting for it now. And I doubt it will be a truthful, "I'm afraid of the damn teabaggers. They just elected one as governor of my idiotic state."


Here's the summary of the Pentagon's finding's that Snowe and her colleagues will have to look for excuses in to support McCain's narrow-minded, bigot-rich filibuster:

- 70% of Service members said they would be able to “work together to get the job done” with a gay servicemember in their immediate units.

- 69% said they worked in a unit with a co-worker that they believed to be homosexual.

- 92% stated that their unit’s “ability to work together,” with a gay person was “very good, “good” or “neither good nor poor.” (89% for those in Army combat arms units, 84% for those in Marine combat arms units.)

- 74% of spouses of military service-members say repeal of DADT would have no impact on their view of whether their husbands or wives should continue to serve.

- 30% overall (and 40–60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties) expressed negative views or concerns about the impact of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

And although, no one's going to accuse the current occupant of the White House of having the cajones of a Harry Truman, he popped his head out yesterday after the Pentagon report to give this statement in support of repeal:

As Commander in Chief, I have pledged to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law because it weakens our national security, diminishes our military readiness, and violates fundamental American principles of fairness and equality by preventing patriotic Americans who are gay from serving openly in our armed forces. At the same time, as Commander in Chief, I am committed to ensuring that we understand the implications of this transition, and maintain good order and discipline within our military ranks. That is why I directed the Department of Defense earlier this year to begin preparing for a transition to a new policy. 
 
Today’s report confirms that a strong majority of our military men and women and their families-- more than two thirds-- are prepared to serve alongside Americans who are openly gay and lesbian. This report also confirms that, by every measure-- from unit cohesion to recruitment and retention to family readiness-- we can transition to a new policy in a responsible manner that ensures our military strength and national security. And for the first time since this law was enacted 17 years ago today, both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly endorsed ending this policy.
 
With our nation at war and so many Americans serving on the front lines, our troops and their families deserve the certainty that can only come when an act of Congress ends this discriminatory policy once and for all. The House of Representatives has already passed the necessary legislation. Today I call on the Senate to act as soon as possible so I can sign this repeal into law this year and ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally. Our troops represent the virtues of selfless sacrifice and love of country that have enabled our freedoms. I am absolutely confident that they will adapt to this change and remain the best led, best trained, best equipped fighting force the world has ever known.

On the other hand, much more difficult for these heroes in the Senate to deal with would be a thorny topic like the billions of wasted dollars on the ethanol boondoggle. As the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, there's a broad bipartisan consensus-- eveyone from MoveOn.org to FreedomWorks-- forming around ending the taxpayer subsidies for ethanol. But some of the loudest right-wing voices for a balanced budget and for abolishing Medicare and Social Security and cutting wages on low income workers, are screaming the loudest about the subsidies. They don't want their ox gored.

The tax credit, which is due to expire Dec. 31, cost the government $4 billion in 2008 and could cost $6.75 billion a year by 2015, according to the Government Accountability Office. That has made it a target for conservatives who want to cut federal spending and handouts to private interests. On the left, ethanol’s image as a “green” fuel has taken a hit as environmentalists-- including former Vice President Al Gore-- have swung to the view that the energy benefits of using corn as fuel are marginal. Some environmentalists and hunger groups complain corn ethanol drives up the cost of food without making a real dent in global greenhouse gas emissions, claims that the ethanol industry has disputed.

As Markos pointed out at Daily Kos yesterday, " As much as the village likes to pretend otherwise, fact is, Republicans don't give a damn about the deficit. They grow them, while Democratic administrations shrink them. That's the objective and provable reality, no matter what anyone else might think."

Ethanol subsidies have had a two-track level of support-- farm state legislators of both parties support them, as well as anyone with presidential ambitions. Iowa, anyone? But even beyond the primaries, The midwest is a key electoral battleground, and ethanol is huge in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. South Dakota isn't competitive at the presidential level, but one congressional district in Nebraska is (1 EV) as well as another 68 EVs in the other states (minus a handful they'll lose in next year reapportionment).

That's quite a few senators who will fight to protect free government money to their agricultural sector. Not a single one of those states is represented in the letter calling for the abolition of those subsidies. And it's significant money. From the letter:

We are writing to make you aware that we do not support an extension of either the 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports or the 45 cent-per-gallon subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline. These provisions are fiscally irresponsible and environmentally unwise, and their extension would make our country more dependent on foreign oil. Subsidizing blending ethanol into gasoline is fiscally indefensible. If the current subsidy is extended for five years, the Federal Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn ethanol that the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard already requires them to use. We cannot afford to pay industry for following the law...

Democrats will fall along regional lines on the matter, like they always do. Wasteful spending in Iowa won't seem so wasteful to Iowa's Democratic congressional delegation. And in normal times, the same would apply to the region's Republicans.

But these aren't normal times, with the teabaggers demanding that Republicans pay more than lip service to deficit reduction. And there's no doubt that these subsidies aren't just wasteful, but they're unsound on any possible policy grounds. Subsidizing Big Oil and Big Agribusiness for environmentally unsound ethanol subsidies is madness, and has only persisted as long as it has because of Iowa's presidential clout.

And in a presidential cycle where Republicans will be tripping over themselves to curry favor with the teabaggers and with Iowans ... well, this topic should prove entertaining to say the least.