Why Aren't There More Women Of Color In Congress?

This is not-- nor will it ever be-- Joe Crowley

If you follow this blog at all, you probably know, this is a place where identity group politics gets short shrift. We believe, strongly, that the best candidate should be supported, regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. That said, there are 435 members of the House and my guess is that if the best candidate was elected, at least 217 would be women, but probably more than that. Instead, there are just 83 women in the House (19.1%)-- 61 Democrats and 22 Republicans. Of them 31 are women of color. Why so few?

[Of the 22 congressional candidates on the Blue America page, 9 are women (although we just removed one after she joined the New Dems. Around half--although our criteria is not gender, just quality.]

Mary Matiella was Assistant Secretary of the Army until 2014 when she returned home to Tucson. She's currently running for the AZ-02 open House seat and you can contribute to her campaign here. She told us this morning that "women of color, like myself, are making history by stepping up to run in non-majority-minority districts. Many of these districts, like Arizona’s second, have never seen a person of color represent them in congress. Which means they have never been fully represented. Candidates of color, like myself, must show up with a resume twice as long, work twice as hard, and will face twice as many barriers. This is why it is so important for organizations to make policy and potential -based endorsement decisions, rather than over-prioritizing the size of a candidate’s war chest during the infancy stage of a campaign. Giving candidates a level playing field to compete for organizational support will ensure that more voices are heard, more first-time candidates will succeed, and we will have more diversity of representation. I am incredibly grateful for the support of organizations like Democracy for America, Justice Democrats, and Project 100 who saw that I had the experience, vision, grassroots support, and passion to win this race, even if my pockets were not as deep as my opposition."

Earlier this month, Arena urged that political groups invest in women of color this year. Of the 9 women we've endorsed on that page, 3 are women of color. They wrote that "while all first-time candidates face an uphill battle to win elections, it is hardest for women of color. And our recent data analysis confirms the deep asymmetry in financial support for women of color candidates."

The problem starts when women decide-- to run or not to run-- for office. In 2016, just 4% of all candidates who ran for the US House were women of color. Why? On top of the already daunting barriers that any candidate faces (like public scrutiny and no guarantee that you’ll “land the job”), women of color face additional obstacles like securing institutional support and the funding needed to build winning campaigns.

Women of color also get fewer endorsements by the major players. Our analysis indicates that even many well-respected political organizations who endorse early are under-supporting minority women (although EMILY’s List and Latino Victory Fund set great examples). This may have to do with a misguided perception of viability. For example, we’ve had a surprising number of conversations with organizations to garner support for female candidates of color in which they’ve responded, “we’re just not sure that district is winnable.” At the same time, these same groups are supporting White men and women in districts with comparable electorates.

The fundraising gap facing women of color is tremendous, as data compiled by The Arena highlights. Women of color raise less in all types of financial contributions than White candidates.

In 2016, Black and Latinx female incumbents raised only a half as much as White women and roughly two-thirds as much as White men. The data for non-incumbents is incomplete, but we believe similar trends persist. Losing early fundraising traction perpetuates a vicious cycle in which candidates get fewer endorsements, raise less money and reach fewer potential supporters going forward. Of late, it seems that women of color are deemed worthy of establishment endorsements only after they raise large funds on their own or appear on the cover of major publications. That must change now, and quickly.

Why does having more women of color in public leadership matter? When more women with different life experiences and perspectives serve, we get more done. Research on state legislators indicates that the major motivation for women to run for office is to make policy change. Once in office, they take a results-oriented approach that can often overcome partisan gridlock. Women are more likely to focus on solving problems and getting things done, less on the “trappings of power,” like whose name goes on a bill.

Studies on Legislative Effectiveness in Congress shows that women have higher Legislative Effectiveness Scores than men and even higher effectiveness scores when they are a member of a minority party.

And women of color are more likely to champion the interests of everyone in their districts - not just those who look like them, or who voted for them, or who vote at all. They bring a valuable perspective to policy debates that can give voice to the voiceless. As Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) puts it, “Mine was the only voice in [the Judiciary] Committee that spoke for the importance of family unity [in debates over immigration reform]. And so I brought [that voice], …not only as a woman but also as an immigrant. And this is why it is important to have minority representation on all of these committees. Because you have different life experiences, different perspectives.”

America’s inclusion of women of color in public leadership is awful at all levels. Women of color make up 19.7% of our population and growing. But they are just 6% of federal legislators, 2% of statewide elected executives, 8% of sitting state legislators, and 8% of big city mayors. White women fare better, but are still underrepresented-- at 31% of the population and 19% of these same elected officials.

So, what do we do about it?

As individuals, we can prioritize the candidates that we donate to, volunteer for and highlight to our social networks and make sure they include many women of color. Higher Heights, Latino Victory Fund, AAPI Victory Fund, and Project 100 are just a few great resources for learning about some fantastic women of color who are running for office around the country. Your dollars can also fuel organizations working hard to find, recruit and train these women for successful races. Groups like the Collective PAC, Run for Something, Emerge America, Civic Engagement Fund, New American Leaders, Rosa PAC, and others could use your support.

We’d like to see every major committee and PAC commit to endorse at least 25% women of color for the 2018 elections. Institutional support from groups like EMILY’s List and the DCCC goes a long way in credentialing candidates in the eyes of donors. Donors who commit to fund pre-primary can have big impact in tipping victory towards a woman of color candidate. Early endorsements and funding especially matter. And for women of color, they can provide the momentum many need to build broader support networks and win elections.

For our part, The Arena is committing that at least 50% of our 2018 candidates will be women, and at least 50% of the women we support will be women of color.

Of course, all of us play a part in dispelling the false narratives that suggest women of color aren’t qualified, are only viable in majority minority districts, or that they can’t win elections. None of that is true. Just ask the elected officials who are actively proving otherwise with their leadership-- like Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, Delegate Hala Ayala, Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and many others.

Here's where we run into problems. Stephanie Murphy, an Orlando Blue Dog is a garbage member of Congress, who no one should support... regardless of gender. She has a dreadful anti-working family voting record and, while she's better than a Republican, she's sitting in a seat that could be occupied by a much better member, whether a man or a woman-- Black, white, Latino or Asian. Catherine Cortez Masto isn't as bad but she's, at best, mediocre and not what you could seriously call a good senator. This last week, for example, she helped the Republicans to tank an amendment by Bernie Sanders to end the war in Yemen, one of just a tiny handful of Democrats to cross the aisle on that... and one of only 2 Democratic women to do so, the other being Heidi Heitkamp, the Democrat with the worst voting record in the Senate.

But let's look at a very typical real life 2018 example where a woman of color, Alexandria Ocasio, is running against a white male in a district where 70% of the voters are also non-white and in a case where it would be hard not to notice that she's a far better candidate than he (Joe Crowley) is. As of the December 31 FEC reporting deadline, Ocasio had raised $59,767 and had $18,842 in her campaign account, compared to Crowley, one of Congress' most overtly corrupt members, who had raised $2,137,582 and had $1,380,724 in his campaign war chest. How is she going to beat him, regardless of the fact that she's an incredible candidate and he's a piece of shit? If you'd like to help, please consider chipping in whatever you can afford to her campaign, by clocking on the Act Blue thermometer on the right. And while you're at it, please consider other candidates of color on that list Lillian Salerno (TX), Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (NM), Kaniela Ing (HI) and DuWayne Gregory (NY).

Alexandria Ocasio said no one should be surprised "that women of color, who have historically been blocked from access to wealth and power in the US, are underrepresented in Congress. Yet from Fannie Lou Hamer to Dolores Huerta, women of color have a rich history of activism and played critical roles as some of the most prolific organizers in U.S. history. Women of color vote at higher rates, tightly organize their communities, and respond to local needs quickly. Progressive women of color should hold office at higher rates-- not simply by virtue of representation for representation's sake, but because, as in the case of Doug Jones' electoral win in Alabama, they are often the ones doing the work."

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez is running in the Albuquerque congressional district. Her eloquence speaks for itself: "As a woman of color, a Latina, a survivor, and an anti-domestic violence advocate, I believe that women of color offer a unique perspective to our political discourse that is not only necessary, but if left out, results in inadequate public policy making. There is an intersectionality that exists within the chronic problems that we, as progressives, hope to address. Issues of poverty, income disparities, housing and access to healthcare, are all most acutely felt in communities of color and ever prominently among women of color. In order to confront these challenges, inclusion and representation matter a great deal to good policy-making, and so empowering women of color and other diverse voices then becomes imperative. It's our responsibility to then breakdown the barriers to entry for women of color, mainly financial and political support often denied to them in the nascent stages of a campaign. I'm proud to say that, as a law professor, I used my role as an educator and Associate Dean of the law school to promote these principles of empowering under-represented communities. I devoted my career to empowering others and to opening doors of opportunity."

The DCCC is Petrified The Parkland Students Are Going To Find Out About Ann Kirkpatrick's Record On Guns

DCCC endorsed NRA ally Ann Kirkpatrick instead of any of the progressives in AZ-02

Arizona's second district is one of the most competitive in the country. McCain beat Obama 50-49% and Romney beat him 50-48%. But then Hillary beat Trump 49.6% to 44.7%. In 2015 the PVI was R+3. Now it's R+1. The district includes most of Tucson-- everything but the Latino neighborhoods in the west and southern parts of the city and the whole southeast corner of the state, bordering on New Mexico and Mexico. Although all of Cochise County is included in the district, virtually all of the voters live in much bluer Pima County.

Both parties' primaries for Congress this year are also very komptetibe, especially since incumbent Martha McSally decided to run for the open U.S. Seante seat. The 5 Republicans running are Lea Peterson, Danny Morales, Brandon Martin, Casey Welch and Marilyn Wiles. There are also 6 Democrats running: Matt Heinz, Ann Kirkpatrick, Billy Kovacs, Mary Matiella, Barbara Sherry, and Bruce Wheeler. (There may be 2 other candidates running as Democrats running as well, Yahya Yuksel and William Foster but no one seems to know for sure. The filing deadline is May 30for the August 28th primary.)

Saturday, the Democrats all attended the March for our Lives rallies in either Tucson, except Barbara Sherry who went to the rally in Sierra Vista, while all the Republicans shared a stage at a candidates forum in private club, the Mountain Oyster Club, charging $7.50 to get in. Reporters were banned.

As of the December 31 FEC reporting deadline, the only Republican who had raised any significant money was Peterson ($218,266). Three Democrats had raised serious money: Kirkpatrick ($749,533), Heinz ($343,119) and Matiella ($151,425).

Platform-wise, all the Democrats are in sync on most issues, although Kirkpatrick, the most conservative of the 6, opposes Medicare-for-All. She's also a flip-floppy candidate who changes her mind to please whomever she's speaking to. She went from being one of the NRA's strongest allies in Congress-- keynoting their events and earning an "A"-- to claiming she now opposes them. Many Arizonans remember that Kirkpatrick was a co-sponsor for the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act which allows those authorized to carry firearms in their home state to travel with their weapons. The DCCC has endorsed her. They always pick the most conservative candidate in contested races. Funny how their Red tie Blue page on Kirkpatrick doesn't say a word about her record as an NRA ally. Don't Democratic voters have a right to know?



There is no other Democrat running in AZ-02 who could have ever said this except Kirkpatrick:

"I am not going to allow Washington to ignore the values of Arizonans and the traditions of four generations of my family in District One, and I am proud to be pushing back against the federal government to stop our Constitutional rights from being infringed. Every time the anti-gun rights groups propose legislation that restricts our freedoms, I am going to make sure they know millions of Americans will fight them every inch of the way."

Nor this-- when she welcomed the NRA, which she referred to "one of the country’s oldest continuously operating civil liberties organizations," to Phoenix:

"As a gun owner myself, I firmly believe in the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms, and I am proud that my state is hosting the group that has protected that right for 138 years. This is a chance for Arizonans to show our nation’s leaders we will not let them take away our freedoms... People in Washington need to stop undermining the Second Amendment. That’s why I took on the Attorney General for his proposal to ban so-called 'assault weapons.' I will continue to work vigilantly to maintain and protect our Second Amendment rights against every challenge they face."

This is a truly disgusting person whose hands are dripping in the blood of school children. And Kirkpatrick is a carpetbagging careerist from the northern part of the state who has one of the most vile spam campaigns of any candidate for Congress in the whole country-- just an unrelenting shit-stream of banal, insipid and utterly insincere e-mails every single day. Yesterday, Sunday, was not exception:

I don’t have the words to describe just how grateful I am to have your support. We’re already being called one of the top 10 House races to watch by the Washington Post AND we’re one of four must-win seats for Democrats. And it’s only March!

I’ve seen all the birthday love from this past week. So many of you chipped in-- it truly warms my heart.

As we begin the second half of our campaign and march to November, I’m excited to see what we will accomplish together.

Mary Matiella and Matt Heinz are both far better candidates and either would make a better member of Congress. When we spoke with Mary recently she told us that "The DCCC is right about AZ-02 being a great pickup opportunity but they're wrong if they think an establishment/corporate Dem is the way to win. Southern Arizonans are a fiercely independent bunch and ultimately it's the voters, not the establishment who will decide who best represents their values." She followed with a statement for DWT readers about her stand on immigration reform:

I'm sick and tired of the Trump-McSally machine demonizing our immigrant communities to score political points with their most narrow-minded supporters. We are a nation of immigrants and dehumanizing communities of color in the name of border security is wrong. Militarizing our border sends the wrong message to the world and is an ineffective strategy for dealing with border security.

What I believe is simple: secure the border at the border. We need more Customs Officers at the ports of entry, rather than more agents combing the desert. Over 80% of the narcotics and violent criminals that come across our border do so through our ports of entry. And that's where we need to focus resources. Not miles away at checkpoints the narcos and the coyotes know how to avoid. And, $1.6 billion budgeted for border walls-- what a waste of money!

I believe in comprehensive immigration reform that includes protecting DREAMers, providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers, and reducing the current visa backlog. Breaking up families, racially profiling in our communities, and strong-arm tactics are morally repugnant practices that only serve to divide our community.

This issue is deeply personal to me. I am a Latina who grew up in southern Arizona. Many members of my family, including my husband were born on the other side of the line. We must do better to deal with the economic and humanitarian issues along our border.

There Are No Good Republicans-- But There Are Bad Democrats As Well As Good Democrats

Alas, there are virtually no good Republicans any longer, even if, occasionally, a Republican-- a McCain or a Walter Jones or a Justin Amash-- does something good. Electorally, it virtually never happens that a Democrat, no matter how awful is worse than a Republican. When I was growing up in New York, Republican John Lindsey was better than Democrat Abe Beame. More recently (2012) Michigan Democrats ran a vicious homophobic conservative turd, Steve Pestka, against Justin Amash. Incredibly, overall, Amash was the better candidate. What kind of Democrat matters. There are good ones and there are bad ones. Today we saw a really bad one, corrupt multimillionaire developer and Wasserman Schultz crony, Stephen Bittel, resign as chairman of the Florida Democratic Party. He's done a horrible job of course, but that isn't why he resigned. The news broke late Thursday night that 6 former Florida Democratic Party staffers and consultants accused Bittel of having "created an unprofessional workplace environment for women that includes persistent inappropriate comments, leering at young women and even inviting them on his private jet." Bittel, who is uniformly described as "creepy" by virtually everyone who has ever met him, tried getting away with a rote apology. By Friday morning, pressure mounting, he had resigned.

Thursday we talked about the DCCC interfering in competitive primaries on behalf of Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, particularly how they endorsed NRA poster-child, and all-around conservative, Ann Kirkpatrick when they are 2 better candidates in the race, Matt Heinz and Mary Matiella. I noted that "Kirkpatrick is a loser and a carpetbagger from up north who the DCCC is trying to shove down the throats of southern Arizonans. She has shown in the past that she can get swept into office in a wave election-- but her GOP voting record always guarantees she's defeated in midterms when Democrats refuse to come out and vote for her. She's an NRA poster child (literally) and an all-around conservative Democrat. The DCCC is always touting fundraising as an indication of viability but two other candidates, Matt Heinz and Mary Matiella are also raising the kind of money that proves viability. We reached Mary yesterday and she told us that 'The DCCC is right about AZ-02 being a great pickup opportunity but they're wrong if they think an establishment/corporate Dem is the way to win. Southern Arizonans are a fiercely independent bunch and ultimately it's the voters, not the establishment who will decide who best represents their values.' A week ago she said something similar, namely that 'Polls show that voters want an authentic, relatable candidate-- someone who understands them. The DCCC wants a candidate who can raise funds. This disconnect in candidate vetting disenfranchises the voter.'"

This morning Mary was thinking about things that are more important to her and more important to AZ-02 voters. She sent me this brief note to share with DWT readers:

I'm sick and tired of the Trump-McSally machine demonizing our immigrant communities to score political points with their most narrow-minded supporters. We are a nation of immigrants and dehumanizing communities of color in the name of border security is wrong. Militarizing our border sends the wrong message to the world and is an ineffective strategy for dealing with border security.

What I believe is simple: secure the border at the border. We need more Customs Officers at the ports of entry, rather than more agents combing the desert. Over 80% of the narcotics and violent criminals that come across our border do so through our ports of entry. And that's where we need to focus resources. Not miles away at checkpoints the narcos and the coyotes know how to avoid. And, $1.6 billion budgeted for border walls-- what a waste of money!

I believe in comprehensive immigration reform that includes protecting DREAMers, providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers, and reducing the current visa backlog. Breaking up families, racially profiling in our communities, and strong-arm tactics are morally repugnant practices that only serve to divide our community.

This issue is deeply personal to me. I am a Latina who grew up in southern Arizona. Many members of my family, including my husband were born on the other side of the line. We must do better to deal with the economic and humanitarian issues along our border.

Good Candidates Don't Accept DCCC Endorsements In Primaries

Worth 10 DCCC Red to Blue Endorsements

The DCCC claims to be neutral in primaries but always puts its fingers on the scale for corrupt conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, Blue Dogs and New Dems, never for progressives. The DCCC favors wealthy self-funders and "ex"-Republicans. They recruit them and back them and help them disadvantage candidates from working class backgrounds. Is the DCCC anti-union? They probably don't even realize it, but, of course they are. Let's take a look at a DCCC press release masquerading as reporting in yesterday's Roll Call: DCCC Names First 11 Candidates In 'Red To Blue' Program."

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is naming 11 candidates Wednesday to the first round of its Red to Blue program, which highlights strong Democratic recruits.

The list of 11 candidates, obtained first by Roll Call, includes recruits running in 10 competitive GOP-held seats and in one open seat Democrats are hoping to keep blue.

Washington Rep. Denny Heck, the chair of recruitment, and Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, the vice chair of recruitment, will co-chair this cycle's Red to Blue program.

Being named to Red to Blue opens doors for candidates who can tout their inclusion on the list to donors. Candidates also benefit from guidance and staff resources from the DCCC, which has been in contact with all Democratic House candidates who have been willing to collaborate and communicate with the committee this year.

The DCCC evaluates candidates’ fundraising, grassroots engagement, local support, ties to the community and campaign infrastructure when deciding who makes the cut for Red to Blue.

This cycle’s first round is earlier than last cycle’s when the first 16 candidates were named in early February of the on-year. Additional rounds of Red to Blue candidates for 2018 will be rolled out more frequently and in more targeted batches than in previous election cycles.

“The House is in play in 2018 and incredible Democratic challengers are stepping up to run across the largest offensive battlefield in a decade,” DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Luján said in a statement. The DCCC expanded its target list last week, for a total of 91 GOP-held seats.

“These candidates have their own unique experiences rooted in these districts, but what they all have in common are records of service to their communities and our country,” Luján added.

The DCCC on Wednesday is also naming certain districts to two additional lists-- Majority Makers and True Blue.

Then they named the 11 crap candidates along with how much money they ended the third quarter with. They didn't bother to mention that most of the candidate are from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, either Blue Dog or New Dem recruits-- or in several cases-- both. Another couple are EMILY's List recruits.

• New Dem Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-02)- $269,000
• Jason Crow (CO-06)- $393,000
• Abby Finkenauer (IA-01)- $169,000
• Blue Dog Brendan Kelly (IL-12)- $305,000
• Blue Dog Paul Davis (KS-02)- $344,000
• New Dem Elissa Slotkin (MI-08)- $377,000
• New Dem Angie Craig (MN-02)- wealthy self-funder
• Blue Dog Dan McCready (NC-09)- $700,000
• Susie Lee (NV-03)- multimillionaire self-funder
• Blue Dog Anthony Brindisi (NY-22)- $399,000
• Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06)- $662,000

Kirkpatrick is a loser and a carpetbagger from up north who the DCCC is trying to shove down the throats of southern Arizonans. She has shown in the past that she can get swept into office in a wave election-- but her GOP voting record always guarantees she's defeated in midterms when Democrats refuse to come out and vote for her. She's an NRA poster child (literally) and an all-around conservative Democrat. The DCCC is always touting fundraising as an indication of viability but two other candidates, Matt Heinz and Mary Matiella are also raising the kind of money that proves viability. We reached Mary yesterday and she told us that ""The DCCC is right about AZ-02 being a great pickup opportunity but they're wrong if they think an establishment/corporate Dem is the way to win. Southern Arizonans are a fiercely independent bunch and ultimately it's the voters, not the establishment who will decide who best represents their values." A week ago she said something similar, namely that "Polls show that voters want an authentic, relatable candidate-- someone who understands them. The DCCC wants a candidate who can raise funds. This disconnect in candidate vetting disenfranchises the voter."



There's a similar dynamic in Colorado's 6th district, where the progressive candidate, Levi Tillemann is also raising 6 figuresand inspiring grassroots woke Democrats while the aggressively UNWOKE DCCC is pushing a the same kind of candidate they see when they look in the mirror, someone who represents rich people.

Wealthy Vegas socialite-- the candidate of the casino magnates-- Susie Lee ran a terrible campaign against Ruben Kihuen last cycle. This time she moved to the open seat on the other side of town, having as little in common with the people there as she did in the 2016 campaign. That's when she spent around a million and a half dollars and got just 6,407 votes, coming in third against two grassroots candidates. But Pelosi just cannot resist those multimillionaire candidates. There are more multimillionaires claiming to be Democrats in Congress than ever before. who would have ever guessed that would be Nancy Pelosi's legacy!

We reached out to Jeff Erdmann, the non-multimillionaire in the Minnesota race where the DCCC is trying to tip the scales for Angie Craig, the candidate supported by Big Pharma lobbyists. "In a time where all the polls tell us that people think the Democratic party is for the ultra-rich," Jeff told us, "it’s disappointing that the DCCC would back an ultra-rich candidate who lobbied to suspend the medical device tax as the medical device company Medtronic was sending its headquarters overseas. This is especially troubling as they are backing a corporate elite in a primary against a teacher who’s lived in the district and south-eastern Minnesota his entire life and is running to lift up the community. It seems as if the Democratic leadership has yet to learn it’s lessons from 2016. We the people need to rise up and take back the party and that starts with supporting candidates that are working class."

The DCCC Doesn't Define The Democratic Party The Same Way Most Democrats Do-- And That's A Big Problem

Over the weekend Nomiki Konst highlighted an excerpt from Donna Brazile's book that explains how the political establishment advances the financial disfunction of the Democratic Party. Konst is, in effect, explaining the DCCC's shameless jihad against working class candidates while recruiting hopeless and generally wretched self-funders. She's also explaining Pelosi's dependence on members of the 1% for 100% of the advice she listens to and why she backs multimillionaire candidates over non-millionaire candidates. And, most of all she's explaining how Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, an abysmally failed executive director of the DCCC, managed to encourage mediocre congressional candidates to sit back and wait for the Hillary landslide against Trump to sweep them into office. Candidates down-ticket not working hard enough, helped tank thew hole ticket, bringing victories to Trump and keeping Ryan and McConnell in power. The DCCC is repeating the same brilliant strategy for 2018 with their horrendous recruiting of loser candidates who can only win in a tsunami.

On Friday the American Prospect published an essay by Peter Dreier destroying another pillar of DCCC recruitment, their second favorite after the need for self-funders-- the need to recruit Republican-lite candidates, especially "ex"-Republicans who are Republican-lite candidates. When Rahm Emanuel tampered with the DNA of the DCCC and left it the mess it is today, the revulsion with the New Deal policies of the party were cemented in stone. The Democrats all but completely jettisoned working families in their pursuit of Wall Street, Silicon Valley and upper middle class professionals.

Dreier's premise is that American voters prefer progressive policies, not the conservative ones the DCCC aspires to and recruits candidates to represent. "When it comes to key policy areas," he wrote, "polls show that a vast majority of Americans also depart from Trump by leaning left. That lean isn’t generally reflected in Americans’ self-designations, nor is ideological consistency a notable American trait. A new Pew survey found that about one-third of Americans hold both liberal and conservative views, depending on the specific issue. Another Pew report divides Americans into nine categories based on their political and social views, from core conservatives (13 percent) to solid liberals (16 percent). But even those on the extreme right and left ends of the spectrum share some views in common.

Since Trump’s inauguration in January, much attention has focused on how his racist rhetoric toward immigrants and Muslims, disdain for the rule of law, and hostility toward the free press have polluted the nation’s public discourse and given legitimacy to hate groups associated with the “alt-right.”

But the focus on division and bigotry can obscure other views that most Americans share, especially when it comes to such matters as economic fairness, protecting the environment, and the drift toward plutocracy. The vast majority of Americans are liberal or progressive when it comes to these matters. Even some Trump supporters, Republicans, and people who call themselves “conservatives” have liberal views on many topics.

Americans are generally upset with widening inequality, the political influence of big business, and declining living standards. Public opinion is generally favorable toward greater government activism to address these and other problems, like climate change and health care.

Most Americans worry that government has been captured by the powerful and wealthy. They want a government that serves the common good. They also want to reform government to make it more responsive and accountable.

The figures cited below come from surveys conducted by Gallup, Pew, and other reputable polling organizations on the key issues facing the nation. These are the most recent national polls on each topic. Most of them are from the past year, although a few go back further. Each poll is hyperlinked so readers can look at the original sources.

The Economy

• 82 percent of Americans think wealthy people have too much power and influence in Washington.
• 69 percent think large businesses have too much power and influence in Washington.
• 59 percent-- and 72 percent of likely voters-- think Wall Street has too much power and influence in Washington.
• 78 percent of likely voters support stronger rules and enforcement on the financial industry.
• 65 percent of Americans think our economic system “unfairly favors powerful interests.”
• 59 percent of Americans-- and 43 percent of Republicans-- think corporations make “too much profit.”

Inequality

• 82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.
• 66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.
• 72 percent of Americans say it is “extremely” or “very” important, and 23 percent say it is “somewhat important,” to reduce poverty. 59 percent of registered voters-- and 51 percent of Republicans-- favor raising the maximum amount that low-wage workers can make and still be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, from $14,820 to $18,000.

Money in Politics

• 96 percent of Americans-- including 96 percent of Republicans-- believe money in politics is to blame for the dysfunction of the U.S. political system.
• 84 percent of Americans-- including 80 percent of Republicans-- believe money has too much influence in politics.
• 78 percent of Americans say we need sweeping new laws to reduce the influence of money in politics.
• 73 percent of registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

Taxes

• 80 percent of Americans think some corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
• 78 percent think some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
• 76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.
• 60 percent of registered voters believe corporations pay too little in taxes.
• 87 percent of Americans say it is critical to preserve Social Security, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans.
• 67 percent of Americans support lifting the cap to require higher-income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages.

Minimum Wage

• 66 percent of Americans favor raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.
• 59 percent favor raising the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour. (A survey of registered voters found that 54 percent favored a $15 minimum wage.)
• 63 percent of registered voters think the minimum wage should be adjusted each year by the rate of inflation.

Workers’ Rights

• 61 percent of Americans-- including 42 percent of Republicans-- approve of labor unions.
• 74 percent of registered voters-- including 71 percent of Republicans-- support requiring employers to offer paid parental and medical leave.
• 78 percent of likely voters favor establishing a national fund that offers all workers 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave.

Health Care

• 60 percent of Americans believe “it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”
• 60 percent of registered voters favor “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.”
• 58 percent of the public favors replacing Obamacare with “a federally funded healthcare program providing insurance for all Americans.”
• 64 percent of registered voters favor their state accepting the Obamacare plan for expanding Medicaid in their state.

Education

• 63 percent of registered voters-- including 47 percent of Republicans-- of Americans favor making four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free.
• 59 percent of Americans favor free early-childhood education.

Climate Change and the Environment

• 76 percent of voters are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about climate change.
• 68 percent of voters think it is possible to protect the environment and protect jobs.
• 72 percent of voters think it is a “bad idea” to cut funding for scientific research on the environment and climate change.
• 59 percent of voters say more needs to be done to address climate change.

Gun Safety

• 84 percent of Americans support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
• 77 percent of gun owners support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.

Criminal Justice

• 57 percent of Americans believe police officers generally treat blacks and other minorities differently than they treat whites.
• 60 percent of Americans believe the recent killings of black men by police are part of a broader pattern of how police treat black Americans (compared with 39 percent who believe they are isolated incidents).

Immigration

• 68 percent of Americans-- including 48 percent of Republicans-- believe the country’s openness to people from around the world “is essential to who we are as a nation.” Just 29 percent say that “if America is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation.”
• 65 percent of Americans-- including 42 percent of Republicans-- say immigrants strengthen the country “because of their hard work and talents.” Just 26 percent say immigrants are a burden “because they take our jobs, housing and health care.”
• 64 percent of Americans think an increasing number of people from different races, ethnic groups, and nationalities makes the country a better place to live. Only 5 percent say it makes the United States a worse place to live, and 29 percent say it makes no difference.
• 76 percent of registered voters-- including 69 percent of Republicans-- support allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children (Dreamers) to stay in the country. 58 percent think Dreamers should be allowed to stay and become citizens if they meet certain requirements. Another 18 percent think they should be allowed to stay and become legal residents, but not citizens. Only 15 percent think they should be removed or deported from the country.

Abortion and Women’s Health

• 58 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
• 68 percent of Americans-- including 54 percent of Republicans-- support the requirement for private health insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control.

Same-Sex Marriage

• 62 percent of Americans-- including 70 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans-- support same-sex marriage.
• 74 percent of millennials (born after 1981) support same-sex marriage.

All this should be good news for Democrats... These survey findings should compel Democrats running for Congress and governor next year, and for president in 2020, to promote a bolder progressive policy agenda. To have credibility with voters, Democratic candidates can’t be close to Wall Street. And candidates must be able to explain how these policy ideas translate into improving voters’ lives. Democratic candidates will need to draw a sharp contrast between their views and their GOP opponents’, linking them with the unpopular Trump.

But the DCCC isn't recruiting candidates through these screens-- quite the contrary. This cycle, in fact, DCCC chair Ben Ray Lujan-- who doesn't fart without getting permission from Pelosi-- announced that the DCCC would be recruiting "some" anti-Choice candidates and working jointly with Blue Dogs and New Dems to recruit reactionaries from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. (And, yes, he hired Rahm Emanuel as a DCCC consultant.)

One of the independent-minded progressive candidates the DCCC certainly did not recruit is former Treasury Department economist Austin Frerick. He's way too much the reformer for the DCCC insiders, although he was just enthusiastically endorsed by Blue America. Yesterday he read Peter Dreier's article and told us that "Clearly, most Americans agree with our progressive platform. So we gotta ask why there hasn't been progress? It's because of these robber barons. Their economic power buys off our system. Until we tackle these barons, we can't get to the promised-land. That said, Democrats cannot run their own barons to tackle these barons. They fundamentally don't understand what $400 monthly loan payments feel like at 23 with an unpaid internship nor do they understand what it is like to work well into retirement to pay for the prescription drugs you need. In order for Democrats to reach the voters they've lost, they need to run candidates with these experiences."

Derrick Crowe is a superstar in the progressive firmament. The DCCC has some self-funding party-switcher they'd like to see as the nominee, but the people of Austin, San Antonio and the Hill Country know better. He read the Dreier piece too: "We spent all day today in the heart of Texas Hill Country," he told us yesterday, "talking to voters about progressive policies like a 15/hour minimum wage and Medicare for All.  Democrats and progressives respond to that message everywhere we go. Stating the obvious: this is a midterm, and midterms are about exciting, organizing, and turning out the base. And the proof is in the results we have already seen: today, for example, we won the Bexar County Democratic Primary Straw Poll with double the votes of our nearest competitor in this primary. Centrism crashes and burns this year. Progressive messages will be the winners.”

Mary Matiella is exactly the right candidate to turn the other Tucson district beautifully blue; that's why Raúl Grijalva endorsed her over the pathetic, sold-out DCCC carpetbagger and NRA Trojan Horse. Mary was Assistant Secretary of the Army under Obama. Last night she told us that "Polls show that voters want an authentic, relatable candidate-- someone who understands them. The DCCC wants a candidate who can raise funds.This disconnect in candidate vetting disenfranchises the voter."

Randy Bryce is running on a full, unapologetic platform of progressive issues-- and he's winning! Last night he told us that "When considering getting into the race to repeal and replace Ryan one of the issues that came to mind was how would I be able to raise the money needed to beat a person who could raise more money than God? Those who had approached me to run knew that I don't back down from a fight when it involves standing up for working people, but, to have a real chance, I needed to raise millions. Well, since jumping in my faith in others has been put in the same level as others' faith in me. I'm sticking to my commitment to ensure that everyone has access to health care. I know how debilitating it can be to face cancer while not having insurance. It's one of the main issues I fight for. We all deserve to be healthy. Everyone is welcome to help. To those who don't want to be a part of history I just ask that they don't get in our way. The campaign contributions have been coming in (average- $25/contribution with over 1.5 million after first full quarter) people see how I'm not going to budge from standing tall for strong progressive issues. Standing up for people has allowed the people to know they have a voice and that we are going to do this together."

Randy Bryce enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1983, when Paul Ryan was driving a weinermobile

Not All Trump's Malfeasance And Bungling Is Reversible: Korea

Sunday, Nick Kristof, wrote that Korea experts estimate that the chance of a war between the U.S. and North Korea are between 20 and 50%. "Yet," he wrote, "we’re complacent: Neither the public nor the financial markets appreciate how high the risk is of a war, and how devastating one could be. The Congressional Research Service last month estimated that as many as 300,000 people could die in the first few days of war-- and that’s if it remains nonnuclear. If there is a nuclear exchange, 'there easily could be a million deaths on the first day,' says Scott Sagan, an international security expert at Stanford. Sagan says the odds of war 'are certainly greater than is widely recognized by the American public.' ... Almost no expert believes that sanctions will force Kim Jong-un to give up his nuclear weapons or halt his missile program. That puts us on a collision course, for North Korea seems determined to develop a clear capacity to target the U.S. with nuclear weapons, while the White House hints that it would rather have a war than allow the North to become a nuclear threat."

“Our president has been really clear about this,” H. R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, said on Fox News. “He is not going to permit this rogue regime, Kim Jong-un, to threaten the United States with a nuclear weapon. And so he is willing to do anything necessary to prevent that from happening.”

The whispers in Washington are that “anything necessary” includes airstrikes on North Korea, such as a strike on a missile as it is being prepared for launch. When I asked North Korean officials what would happen in those circumstances, they answered unambiguously: war.

Tammy Duckworth, a former military pilot who is now a Democratic senator from Illinois, says that from what she hears, the chance is greater than 50/50 that the president will order a strike.

“I see a change in posture,” she told me. “I am extremely worried that we’ve moved beyond ‘Let’s prevent war’ to ‘It’s acceptable to do a first strike.’”

Duckworth and other Senate Democrats have introduced legislation that would prevent the president from making a pre-emptive strike on North Korea without congressional approval, barring an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, has said that Trump told him he’d choose a war with North Korea over allowing it to continue on its course.

“There is a military option: to destroy North Korea’s program and North Korea itself,” Graham told the Today show, relaying a conversation with Trump. “If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here-- and he’s told me that to my face.”

Graham said that if North Korea continues to test intercontinental ballistic missiles, a war is “inevitable.”

This may be a bluff, but, if not, war is coming, for almost every expert believes that North Korea will continue its testing.

Arizona congressional candidate Mary Matiella (AZ-02) was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Army by President Obama, the Pentagon civilian equivalent of a Brigadier General. This morning, she told me that "another war is unthinkable. A war with North Korea will result in more casualties and deaths than Viet Nam. I hope that there are enough sane thinkers in Congress and the Pentagon to keep us out of North Korea. But, the President has power, so the President can start a war even without congressional support and can tell the Department of Defense what to do."

Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), both military veterans, asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to give them a picture of how a war North Korea would unfold and what the military consequences would be. Lieu told Newsweek that they were "trying to get the administration to explain to the American people what a war in North Korea would look like. People need to understand if there is military conflict in North Korea we would be going to war against a nuclear power." Defense Secretary Mattis' and the Joint Chiefs' response was chilling. "The only way to 'locate and destroy-- with complete certainty-- all components of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs' is through a ground invasion... 'North Korea may consider the use of biological weapons as an option' in the event of a conflict, adding, 'It has a long-standing chemical weapons program with the capability to produce nerve, blister, blood, and choking agents, and it likely possess a [chemical weapon] stockpile.'"

North Korea and the U.S. have been enemies for decades, but tensions have reached new heights in recent months as Pyongyang has ramped up its long-range missile tests in pursuit of a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the mainland U.S. North Korea conducted its sixth nuclear test in early September and has threatened to conduct a seventh over the Pacific Ocean. Amid all of this, Trump and Kim Jong Un have been engaged in a global rap battle, frequently trading insults and threats.

Trump's top advisers have publicly championed a diplomatic approach to North Korea, but the president has exhibited a preference for military options. Over the summer, he said North Korea would experience "fire and fury" if it didn't stop threatening the U.S. During his first address to the United Nations in late September, Trump threatened to "totally destroy" North Korea if it forced the U.S. to defend itself or its allies.

A recent Pew Research Center survey showed a strong majority of Americans (84 percent) feel Trump is "really willing" to go to war with North Korea and less than half (39 percent) were confident in his ability to handle the current heightened tensions.

Given the potential consequences of a military conflict and President Donald Trump's apparent aversion to diplomacy, Lieu is not satisfied with the response he received to his letter. He wants the Trump administration and the Pentagon to offer far more details about the potential consequences of a war with North Korea.

The California congressman and U.S. Air Force veteran is not only concerned about what might happen during such a conflict, but also once it's concluded.

"There’s no plan for the aftermath. What about refugees? What would happen with China?" Lieu said. "South Korea would basically take over after the shooting stops. I imagine we would still need ground troops there. How long would that take? We’ve been in Afghanistan for 16 years. We have not won that war. And you’ve got a brainwashed North Korean military that could continue to cause problems."

Lieu, an Air Force Reserve Colonel, has been working with other congressional military vets-- from both parties-- to urge restraint. This week he and 16 other vets currently serving in Congress-- Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Salud Carbajal (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), Pete DeFazio (D-OR), Anthony Brown (D-MD), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Walter Jones (R-NC), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), Mike Thompson (D-CA), Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Del. Gregorio Sablan (D-Mariana Islands-- issued a joint statement on a potential ground invasion. The statement follows a letter from the Joint Chiefs addressing the questions raised by Lieu and Gallego about the Pentagon’s plan for military action against North Korea.

The statement warns that since the letter from the Joint Chiefs confirms that the only way to destroy North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is through a ground invasion, the result could be "hundreds of thousands, or even millions of deaths in just the first few days of fighting."

As Veterans, we have defended this nation in war and we remain committed to this country’s security. We also understand that entering into a protracted and massive ground war with North Korea would be disastrous for U.S. troops and our allies. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, it appears, agree. Their assessment underscores what we’ve known all along: There are no good military options for North Korea. Invading North Korea could result in a catastrophic loss of lives for U.S. troops and U.S. civilians in South Korea. It could kill millions of South Koreans and put troops and civilians in Guam and Japan at risk. The Joint Chiefs said they have no reason to believe North Korea would resist using their stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. It is our intent to have a full public accounting of the potential cost of war, so the American people understand the commitment we would be making as a nation if we were to pursue military action.

A nonpartisan report by the Congressional Research Service indicates conflict on the peninsula could impact as many as 25 million people on either side of the border, including more than 100,000 U.S. citizens. We must pursue every other option before even considering a massive ground invasion. The Administration has also failed to articulate any plans to prevent the military conflict from expanding beyond the Korean Peninsula and to manage what happens after the conflict is over. We’re still engaged in the longest war in U.S. history in Afghanistan with no end in sight.

With that in mind, the thought of sending troops into harm’s way and expending resources on another potentially unwinnable war is chilling. The President needs to stop making provocative statements that hinder diplomatic options and put American troops further at risk.

The Joint Chiefs’ assessment and the CRS report clearly demonstrate that every diplomatic and economic option must be exhausted before military options are considered. If President Trump does intend to pursue a military option against North Korea, he must come to Congress as required by our Constitution. The stakes are too high and the potential outcome too grave for President Trump to violate his constitutional duty to come to Congress to authorize and oversee use of force.

Over the weekend Trump arrived in Japan and his stance-- recognized as the bluster of a babbling imbecile in Pyongyang-- was aggressive and destabilizing. A new poll published by the Washington Post on Saturday, emphasizes that Trump, with an abysmal 37-59% approval rating, does not have the confidence of the American people. 53% of Americans say that under Trump America's leadership in the world has gotten weaker; only 26% say it has gotten stronger. And 59% of Americans say he's not a strong leader. 58% say he's a bad deal maker. In terms of the North Korea situation most Americans are very wary of his abilities:

Now that Trump has failed to get China to help solve the Korea problem for him, he's trying with his pal Vlad Putin, who helped him on another matter last year, to come to his rescue. Putin is expected to grant him an audience in Da Nang on Thursday or Friday.

Doug Applegate, the progressive Democrat likely to end the disgraceful political career of Darrell Issa next year (CA-49-- norther San Diego and southern Orange counties), is a former Marine Colonel. His own perspective is that "Trump can only offer the rhetoric of a tin horn dictator who would never go In Harm's Way himself. Worse yet, he abandons diplomacy, intelligence and coordinated economic leverage with the rest of the world."

Tom Prigg, a military vet running for Congress in western Pennsylvania against corrupt Trump rubber stamp Keith Rothfus, would have been the 18th signature on Lieu's letter. "Conservative estimates of casualties," he told us, "in a ground offense are in the tens of thousands in South Korea alone, where at least 100,000, and as many as 500,000, Americans reside. If combat were to expand beyond Korea’s borders, massive casualties could push casualties into the millions." He has a far more rational approach than Trump does"

The report does maintain that there are other alternatives to a ground offensive, and highlighted seven possibilities, though this is not an exhaustive list of possible actions:

1- Maintaining the military status quo.
2- Enhanced containment and deterrence.
3- Denying DPRK acquisition of delivery systems capable of threatening the United States.
4- Eliminating ICBM facilities and launch pads.
5- Eliminating DPRK nuclear facilities.
6- DPRK regime change.
7- Withdrawing U.S. military forces.  

North Korea is not an imminent threat. We’ve faced nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union and have exercised diplomacy down to the 11th hour during the Cuban Missile crisis. North Korea doesn’t have the nuclear arsenal that the Soviet Union once had. They don’t have the technological advancements that the United States possesses. The United States has active cyber operations against their nuclear programs that can cause their missiles to blow up on take-off. 

Despite the nuclear threats we faced against the Soviet Union, which actually did invade other countries, we never resorted to a ground offensive. The Soviet Union fell through peaceful means, and so can North Korea.

In an all out war, the United States would not only face a nuclear threat and prolonged ground offensive, it would face possible Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attacks from at least two North Korean satellites. Such an attack could cause planes to crash, hospital equipment to fail, among a myriad of other catastrophes.

As a veteran, I stand behind the policy that war should always be the last option, and only used when absolutely necessary. The Trump administration has approached war with North Korea as the first.

In these difficult times, we need leaders with compassion and foresight who can think beyond the simple mentality of smashing nations we label enemies, and can recognize the virtues of diplomacy and the long-term value of avoiding wars started for the sake of bravado.

Time For Progressives To Step Up And Take Over The Arizona Democratic Party

Schumer doppelgänger Krysten Sinema

I got a nice letter the other day from Noelle David, a DWT reader and faithful Arizona Democrat-- a faithful Arizona Democrat whose faith is being tested and strained.

I am horrified that our party would even consider putting Sinema as the anointed one to run for the Senate seat next year. It is an open secret that she is an opportunist-- however, even I, as an active Democrat living in the east valley for over a decade had no idea how terrible she is until I read a recent piece in the New Times. I read the piece yesterday and was so nauseated by what I read that I texted our district chair telling him as much. He told me to “calm down” and that it is better her than Ward. I responded by telling him that I have always voted straight ticket but that if Sinema is the Dem candidate it will be the first time in 30 years that I will not vote for a Dem on the ticket. I also said that I will not “calm down.”

I would think that our party should be worried about people like me because for better or worse I have always abided by our party’s suggestions and voted for our candidates-- as much as it has hurt at times I have always voted for the Democratic candidat-- literally ALWAYS. But, not this time.  I refuse to vote for Sinema. We are at a time in our politics where people are aware more than ever before of politicians’ voting record... i.e. people, particularly younger people, are NOT stupid. Sinema IS the worst kind of opportunist and maybe that kind of behavior is rewarded in the Republican party it should NEVER even be tolerated in our party.

Honestly, if this were not so pathetic it would be funny.

Anyways I just wanted to email you to tell you that I appreciate you writing about her true nature in your blog.

Have a good day.

Noelle David

I once served on a board with Sinema-- before she was in Congress-- so I've known what a dangerous sociopath she is before most people had an opportunity to see for themselves. She's as crazy and unhinged as Trump... and if Schumer gets his way, she'll soon be in the U.S. Senate demonstrating that. The chair of the Blue Dog Caucus, she's corrupt beyond what's normal even for this Congress and she, literally, has the worst voting record of any Democrat-- or even fake Democrat-- in Congress.

There are few as bad, though the hollowed out and sad Arizona Democratic Party knows how to turn them out. Tom O'Halleran is a Republican legislator who was defeated in a primary and "switched" his registration for the sake of opportunism and pretends to be a Blue Dog Democrat while voting with his old party on most crucial roll calls. There are also two excellent Democrats in Congress from Arizona: Raul Grijalva from Tucson and Ruben Gallego from Phoenix-- so two piles of crap and two exceptionally good members. The race for the other Tucson seat-- east of Grijalva's-- is a swing district likely to elect a Democrat next year. The primary will determine what kind of Democrat-- one like Sinema and O'Halleran from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party or a real Democrat.

AZ-02 has 7 Democrats running for the seat held by Republican Martha McSally. The district's 2015 PVI (R+3) is now R+1. Although Romney edged Obama there by less than a point in 2012, Hillary beat Trump 49.6% to 44.7%. The DCCC is eager for a right-of-center corporate Democrat from the northern part of the state, Ann Kirkpatrick, to be the candidate-- mostly because they know her from her days in Congress before suffering several defeats, defeats because she is so right-of-center that Democratic base voters just refused to show up at the polls to support her. Kirkpatrick is a New Demo and a picture-perfect example of the opposite of courageous. I can't think of any defeated incumbents less worthy of bringing back to Congress-- and I doubt the voters in her new district will either. No one wants her to be the candidate except the DC Dems at the DCCC... and Martha McSally, who knows her best shot at reelection would be a carpetbagger from Flagstaff depressing activist turnout. Take a look at this website put together by one of her primary opponents. Does this sound like a Democrat?

Ann Kirkpatrick in her own words on supporting the NRA

“I am not going to allow Washington to ignore the values of Arizonans and the traditions of four generations of my family in District One, and I am proud to be pushing back against the federal government to stop our Constitutional rights from being infringed. Every time the anti-gun rights groups propose legislation that restricts our freedoms, I am going to make sure they know millions of Americans will fight them every inch of the way.” [Congressional Documents and Publications. May 13, 2010. “Rep. Kirkpatrick Updates Greater Arizonans on Her Fight to Defend Second Amendment Rights in Tele-Town Hall.”]

Kirkpatrick welcomed the NRA to Phoenix for its annual convention, calling it “one of the country’s oldest continuously operating civil liberties organizations” in a press release.

“As a gun owner myself, I firmly believe in the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms, and I am proud that my state is hosting the group that has protected that right for 138 years. This is a chance for Arizonans to show our nation’s leaders we will not let them take away our freedoms.”

“People in Washington need to stop undermining the Second Amendment. That’s why I took on the Attorney General for his proposal to ban so-called ‘assault weapons. I will continue to work vigilantly to maintain and protect our Second Amendment rights against every challenge they face.”  [States News Service. July 22, 2009. “Rep Kirkpatrick Reaffirms Support for Critical Second Amendment Protections, Continues “Defending Arizona Values” Campaign.”]

Kirkpatrick was a co-sponsor for the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act which allows those authorized to carry firearms in their home state to travel with their weapons. [Congressional Documents and Publications. November 20, 2009. “Rep. Kirkpatrick Emphasizes Importance of Protecting Second Amendment Rights to Greater Arizonans in Tele-Town Hall.”]

Kirkpatrick agreed with a radio caller in 2010 that citizens should be able to buy and own fully automatic firearms. “I agree with you, I think people should be able to legally purchase and carry the gun they want.” She also stated that she opposed bans on some types of firearms, opposed DC and Chicago laws barring private ownership of some gun types, and supported allowing guns in national parks.[Arizona Daily Sun. January 10, 013. “Kirkpatrick pivots on guns.”]

Kirkpatrick did not support President Obama’s call to reinstitute the assault weapons ban and limit magazine size. [Eastern Arizona Courier (Safford, Arizona). February 5, 2013. “Kirkpatrick talks guns, jobs, water.”]

Kirkpatrick continued her opposition to limiting extended magazines.

Kirkpatrick was the only Congressional Democrat in Arizona to receive an “A” rating from the NRA in the last decade which she maintained through Fall 2012. [The Arizona Republic April 5, 2013. Final Chaser Edition. “Arizona’s Gun Divide.”]

Ann may be right for Flagstaff. But she's not right for us.

As far as I can tell, the best candidate to win this seat and serve working families in Congress would be former Assistant Secretary of the Army Mary Matiella. (Watch the video below.) What we don't need is another tired white bread candidate who will spend and do the same old mailer and media buys without the kind of grassroots field operation and ground game that will be needed to inspire voters and oust McSally. That's certainly not Kirkpatrick, the recycled DCCC-imposed candidate.