Max Rose Sounds Like An Asshole And Picks Fights With Progressive Women Because He Thinks That's What His Constituents Want In A Congressman

 

One of my childhood homes was on East 17th Street between Avenues O and P in Brooklyn. Manny Cellar was the powerful congressman from that district from 1923, long before I was born, to 1973, long after I had moved away. The district has been redrawn many time since then and it is divided between the current 8th (Hakeem Jeffries), 9th (Yvette Clarke) and 11th (Max Rose) districts. About 2 blocks from my old house, Yvette Clarke's district ends and Max Rose's begins-- the corner of East 15th Street and Avenue P. All three congressmen are Democrats-- although Rose is a Blue Dog, not an actual Democrat-- but NY-11 is a swing district, blending Republican-leaning Staten Island with diverse Brooklyn neighborhoods that are traditionally Democratic but have seen an influx of very far-right Russian immigrants in recent years. The PVI-- a lagging indicator of reality, like everything that comes out of Cook-- is R+3. Obama won the district 51.6% to 47.3% in 2012 and 4 years later Trump won it 53.6% to 43.8%. The district keeps flipping back and forth from a bizarre set of Republicans to a just-as-bizarre set of quasi-Democrats. I couldn't imagine every moving back there, even though I have family still living in the 11th.

When Max Rose won the seat in 2018, it was always a career step for him, never about the people of the district; only about Max Rose. The DCCC was looking for a win for their "majority maker" program, not for someone who would represent the legitimate interests of the people in the district and not for someone to help push any kind of Democratic Party agenda. They got what they wanted-- a seat in their new majority and someone willing to do and say whatever it takes to hold onto it, including badd-mouthing his own party and kissing up to Trump.

Rose is saved from being New York's worst Democrat in Congress by Anthony Brindisi, another New Yorker, who happens to be America's worst Democrat in Congress. Progressive Punch rates both their voting records "F" (as it does half a dozen other New York members-- Brian Higgins, Joe Morelle, Kathleen Rice, Antonio Delgado, Tom Suozzi and Sean Patrick Maloney). Brindisi's crucial vote score is a jaw-dropping 24.69%, further right than several Republicans! Rose's is the 25th worst among House Dems-- 55.56%, far to the right of an average Democrat, but right about what the average Blue Dog/New Dem gets. Max Rose sits in the center of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

He's in a fight for his political life right now, but is likely to win in 3 weeks-- and then lose his seat in the 2022 midterms, when Democratic voters will be discouraged by a do-nothing Democratic White House/Congress and just stay home and not vote. Rose picks fights with progressive Democrats-- usually, though not exclusively women-- to show Staten Island conservatives he's one of them. Rose is working hard to create an image for himself that fits how he sees the unfocussed and very disparate district. He apparently thinks-- not without reason-- that most of the district is made up of assholes (it was after all the district that enthusiastically elected and reelected Mafia thug Mikie "Suits" Grimm, even after Grimm was indicted), so he has cultivated the demeanor of an asshole. Last week he was a guest on Peter Hamby's Vanity Fair podcast, Good Luck America to curse a lot, show he can be as much a boor as his Staten Island constituents and to talk about "why the presidential polls are bullshit, why police need more funding-- not less-- and why it’s cool to be a 'swagger-filled' moderate." Here are some excerpts from the interview that capture Rose's Blue Dog careerist mentality:

Peter Hamby: I want to ask you about some national politics. Talks fell apart between the president and the House over a second coronavirus stimulus deal. Who do you blame for that?

Max Rose: Well, first of all, everyone is to blame. I’m so sick and tired of this notion of finger-pointing in our politics. But with that being said, the president did walk away, and the president is the one that gave up. Now, I was a part of a bipartisan coalition that announced a significant, bold framework for COVID relief: $1.6 trillion. It’s clear that we don’t need something skinny that doesn’t match the scale of this public health and economic crisis, and it’s clear that we don’t need something that is blindly partisan, that is going to be dead on arrival. But we need everybody to rise to the challenge here, and that is clear. State and local aid, extended unemployment, direct stimulus checks. This ain’t rocket science at this point. It’s just not.

... PH: So you’re from the most conservative House district in New York City. It includes Staten Island, parts of Brooklyn. Trump won your district. So what’s it like when you say you support Trump on some things? Because you have. If you go into Manhattan, if you go to the halls of Congress and run into a lot of Democrats, are they like, “Hey, man, don’t say that stuff”?

MR: No. And it’s just so weird about the Democratic Party, and it’s weird about the state of partisanship today that people’s opinions become defined by their partisan affiliation. Just look at the war in Afghanistan. It’s like the perfect example, right? It’s a conflict that’s deeply personal to me, and I am of the belief that it’s got to end. It’s America’s longest war. We have soldiers enlisting today-- today-- who were not born on 9/11. Who were not born when we sent our first soldier to Afghanistan. Donald Trump stands up and says, “It’s clear that we need some type of peace, reconciliation between the Afghan government and the Taliban, and we’ve got to get out of that war.” And suddenly the freaking Democratic Party becomes the pro-war party? Saying, “No, no, we should stay there longer.” It’s the oddest thing. It was the same with the killing of Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian terrorist, who was someone that deserved to be killed. The blood of over 600 soldiers, American soldiers, on his hands. So yeah, I’m not dictated by blind party commitment and dedication. It’s always got to be country first.

PH: One thing I was thinking about before this interview was the Democratic presidential primary. In a lot of ways, [Joe] Biden emerged from that as kind of like the perfect nominee for Democrats, because he has a little bit of a traditional view of politics, not just policy but also dealmaking, reaching across the aisle. He's pretty inoffensive, quite frankly, to a lot of people. What’s your biggest takeaway from the Democratic primary, which seemed like it was sometimes fought over certain issues that were either unpopular or uninteresting to a lot of Americans?





MR: Well, yeah, the Democratic Party is allergic to show business at times. So you can always rely on the Democratic Party to be fundamentally uninteresting at times. I think that what certain segments of the party learned, and have to relearn this lesson over and over and over again, is that politics is not about bullet points. Politics is about trust-building, and politics is about presenting a bold vision for the future. But it’s also, when you boil it down, right, it’s about trying to instill the message that if it matters to you, it matters to me, no matter how small, no matter how big. In that sense it’s like a job interview, right? Very rarely on job interviews do people say, “Oh, give me your 10-point bullet plan for this very specific problem 18 months from now.” So I am of the belief that when it came to that primary, when it comes to any election, it’s fundamentally a question of: Who do you believe down in your soul and down in your gut? And then I guess that’s what we saw here. But going forward, though, it is critical that the Democratic Party-- there will come a day when Donald Trump’s not the president. That day will come, and it’s critical that the Democratic Party not be just defined by anti-Trumpism. It can’t just be what we’re against. It has to be: “What are we for?” And this idea that if you’re a moderate or you’re a centrist, it means that you’re some shy, milquetoast incrementalist, I think is total bullshit. Rather, what you need is you need to figure out what are the bold and nonetheless unifying policies that we can put into place that will allow for us to address climate change, allow for us to address gun violence, allow for us to position America as the preeminent global power of the 21st century, all the while having an inclusively just capitalist economy. Being moderate or centrist cannot be shy. It can’t just be focused on what you’re not. Has to be what you’re for too.

...PH: Trump announced he’s got COVID. It's spreading throughout the White House and D.C. among his aides. The national polls are kind of opening up for Joe Biden as a consequence of that. But how is it playing in your district on Staten Island?

MR: I mean, for all we know, these polls are B.S. The only thing that matters is what happens on Election Day. So I think anybody who ever becomes arrogant in this business quickly regrets it. But with that being said, COVID is an unprecedented security crisis and health crisis, unprecedented in nature, but also no different in terms of the unifying and bold response that it warrants, whether it came to the world wars that we have fought in the past or to the counterterrorism fight that we’ve undertaken over the last 20 years. It requires strong government action. It requires solidarity. It requires resources. It requires a strategy. And it requires our leaders to rise above the political fray and not think about how they can divide us, but think about how they can unify us. Mitch McConnell came out with a skinny COVID bill a month ago. It’s a good thing we didn’t have a skinny plan to beat the Nazis. A skinny plan to get to the moon. That’s never what this country has been about. Never has been and never should be.

...PH: I know you think polls are bullshit, but one trend that seems pretty unmistakable is that Biden is opening up a nontraditional lead among senior citizens and older voters. You’ve got a lot of old folks in your district. Are they...

MR: Don’t call them old folks. They’re just getting started. All right, bro? Sixty-five is the new 45. But look, no one’s vote in this country should be taken for granted, and the Republican Party certainly has taken the senior vote for granted. There’s no doubt. The Democratic Party is guilty of taking the union vote for granted. It’s guilty of at times taking communities of color for granted, only going into some communities right before Election Day, treating them like fully owned subsidiaries. We hear so much in politics about: “Get out the vote.” It is the most messed-up terminology in politics today. Everything should be about earning the vote, not just communicating with someone 96 hours before an election, making sure they know where their polling booth is. It’s everything that is wrong with our system, that it’s become so bifurcated. You see all these wonks in politics that say, “Well, you don’t have to be on the ground anymore. You don’t have to talk to people. The off year doesn’t matter because I’ve got digital targeting. I’ve got the analytics behind me.” Fuck you and your analytics, okay? This is about people; it’s about trust; and it’s about finally positioning this country to fulfill its promise.

PH: From what I’ve read, I think the murder rate is up, like, 50% in New York City. Shootings are up almost 150%. Where is this crime wave and the violence coming from? What is it a result of?

MR: Well, if it were as easy as one thing, it would certainly be simpler to solve. Part of it is most definitely attributed to the failures of this mayor’s leadership, and I regret that I’m on Snapchat, because 15 seconds ain’t enough to describe how he is the worst mayor in the history of New York City. But with that being said, COVID certainly also plays a role. Skyrocketing unemployment. An absence of unity in the city. Right now an emerging sense of us against them. I think that there is a federal role here as well. The vast majority of the guns retrieved from crime incidents in New York City come from out of state. They flow up the iron pipeline from down south, from areas with lax gun laws, and they end up in inner-city New York City. We need federal action when it comes to gun legislation, but nothing should take us away from the fact that we can concurrently and simultaneously and boldly pursue justice for all and safety for all, all while supporting our police. I think defunding the police is 100% the wrong decision. I’m of the belief that we should be thinking about how to pay our cops more. We should be thinking consistently about, How do we invest in our public institutions, invest in our public servants more, make sure that they are the highest-paid public servants not just in the country, but in the world? Because that’s how we can truly have the most effective and just government and public services.

PH: Are you worried that police-- not just in New York, but in this country-- that police forces are becoming almost radicalized? That only certain kinds of white folks are going to sign up to become police officers at this point, that there’s a war now between police and communities, and it’s driving people in different directions?

MR: When you go to visit a police precinct in New York City, and I have more than a number of times, what you see when police officers line up, for 2020-- NYPD cops line up before they go out onto the street that day on to, on to their beat-- you see a group of people that represent the beautiful cultural mosaic that is New York City. You see folks who are striving to be in the middle class, stay in the middle class, serve their family, serve their communities. So from that vantage point, I think that there’s no public institution in America that can’t continue to improve. But on the same hand, I am of the belief that when you look at our cops, many of them represent exactly who New York City is in this modern day and age. But it is clear as well that if you want to continue to think about, How do we improve policing in America? Just like, How do you improve any public institution in America? And they all can improve, every single one of them, most especially Congress. You have to consider, How do you further invest in that institution? Not, How do you abandon the institution? How do you turn your backs on people who are putting their lives on the line each and every day? Rather, in my book, it is, How do you develop further strategies and how do you resource them?

...PH: You rail against Bill de Blasio on the campaign trail.

MR: Am I too subtle? Is it too nuanced? Is it nuanced?

PH: Not at all. Just define your loathing of him. Where does it come from? Why is he such a bad mayor in your mind?

MR: He’s not a leader. He’s not decisive. He doesn’t show a love for New York and a love for the job that I think the job requires. He doesn’t realize that if you’re antibusiness, then you can’t generate the tax revenue necessary to raise union salaries and help people who need help. And I don’t think people take pride in him, and that’s why New York City needs better than that. New York City can be the city that can run circles around every other city in the world. We could be showing the rest of the world how to have a testing strategy that actually works, that’s proactive, not reactive. We can show how you can build out an integrated health care system that’s ready for the next pandemic. You can do things like run and build out the best and most well-resourced and most efficient public housing units in America. Now, none of this, though, none of Bill de Blasio’s failures should take away from the fact that the federal government should not be telling New York to drop dead, should not be establishing federal aid for cities and states like New York and New York City as a blue-state-versus-red-state issue. And there is a moment in time, and I believe we are in it right now, where it requires bold federal action to be there for people. Thankfully, when a state or a city down south goes through a tornado or a superstorm, we’re not saying, “Oh, that’s a bunch of Republicans." That’s never what this country has been about, and it shouldn’t be now.

PH: Last thing: When a lot of people see you attack the mayor, they kind of see it as a political tactic. That he’s unpopular, he’s easy to run against. But when I hear that, I hear you want to run for mayor one day. I know you’ve got a tough race right now, but is that something you’d want to do one day? Be the mayor of New York?

MR: No. Look, man, I got an election ahead of me right now. I ain’t running for mayor. And you got to have a conversation with Leigh Rose about anything like that, all right, buddy? But with that being said, though, my North Star from the very beginning has been two things: Party cannot matter. If it matters to you, it matters to me. And who runs city hall, whether he’s a Democrat or not, his failures, the mayor’s failures, directly impact my own constituents. I’m not going to remain silent to the mayor’s failures just because he’s a Democrat. That to me represents a failure of leadership and a failure of public service.

PH: All right. Thanks, Max. Favorite Wu-Tang song before you go?

MR: I ain’t telling you, man. I’m not getting into it, man. I’m not getting into it. I love you, though, buddy. Thank you again.

That's not part of Rose's image. But this is, after all, Staten Island's contribution to culture:

Max Rose Is A Garbage Member Of Congress...

...And he represents my old neighborhood in Brooklyn, a neighborhood where both Bernie and Ruth Bader Ginsberg grew up. Rose's district ends at the corner of Avenue P and E 15th Street and I lived 2 blocks away on 17th between Avenues O and P. It was once the most liberal district in America. Now it's paired with Staten Island and Bay Ridge to make a swing district that's only been represented by a Republican or a Blue Dog from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, right now Max Rose.

He's got a tough Republican challenger and I hope she beats him. His new ad isn't about her. This is it:





The worst mayor in the history of New York City? Really worse than Rudy Giuliani? Worse than Stephanus Van Cortlandt? Worse than Whitehead Hicks? Certainly not worse than David Matthews, the same kind of conservative scumbag then as Rose is today. (He was a royalist and was involved in an assassination plot against George Washington.) Too long ago. OK, how about a series of election-stealing, graft taking puppets of Tammany Hall? Still too long ago? Abe Beame (1974), Ed Koch (1978), Bloomberg (2002)... I'll guess those are all Rose's ideas of good mayors. Bashing DeBlasio is bad for the Democratic brand but is supposed to be good for Rose, who keeps his distance from Democrats. In fact, Rose sides with Trumo a lot. He believes in keeping everything open and doesn't seem to have come to the realization that the pandemic needs to be fought. Rose is also Trump-friendly in other ways. "I am perpetually concerned that the Democrats' foreign policy is just being opposed to whatever the president does... It was the right decision for us to invade Afghanistan. It was the right decision for us to take it to the Taliban, take it to al Qaeda, exact revenge for those who did us so much harm on 9/11 and prevent something like that from happening again."

What has Max Rose accomplished since being swept into Congress in an anti-red wave? I mean aside from running up a voting record that rates a low "F?" And aside from confusing people about what the Democratic Party stands for? And aside from pandering day in and day out?

A right-wing Democrap, Republicans still find a way to call Rose a socialist!!!

Bloomberg Buys His First Congressional Endorsement-- A Blue Dog, Of Course

Team Bloomberg

Once Bloomberg, the billionaire self-funder and least liked of all the Democratic candidates running for president, put out feelers that he would pay-- and pay big-- for congressional endorsements, we asked who the first asshole would be. Democrats polled say they find Bloomberg relatively untrustworthy, dishonest, unable to deal with their hopes and aspirations, bad on issues and unable to beat Trump. But he is spending and spending and spending and even hiring lobbyists to bribe Democratic congressmen into endorsing him. So it should have come as no surprise which corrupt Blue Dog bit first.

Yesterday, the Associated Press' Sydney Kashiwagi reported that Rose "has endorsed Michael Bloomberg for president, winning the former New York City mayor his first endorsement from a sitting member of Congress." Kashiwagi didn't mention how much Bloomberg paid Rose.

"The city Mike Bloomberg inherited in 2002 was reeling from the worst terrorist attack in American history and facing economic recession. There were real fears nothing would ever feel or be the same again. Mike Bloomberg took the reins, brought New York City back to life and put us on track to lead in the 21st century,” Rose said.

“Mayor Bloomberg’s even keeled and visionary leadership is what we need to reduce the chaos, partisanship and hyper-vitriol that has overtaken Washington. Rather than submit to another stage of politics as usual, we must be bold and unifying in taking on the huge challenges we face as a nation,” Rose continued. “We need to root out corruption so we can put the economy back on the side of working people, fix our crumbling infrastructure, lower prescription drug costs and end the opioid epidemic. Mike Bloomberg has taken on tough fights and gotten results, which is why I believe he is the best candidate for my district, my city, and for our country.

The billionaire has presented himself as a centrist candidate, but has faced some criticism for positions he held during his time as mayor, such as the NYPD’s stop and frisk program and the push to ban large-sized sugary drinks. Bloomberg attempted to address the stop and frisk concerns during a campaign speech in Brooklyn last year.

“I was wrong,” Bloomberg said before the Christian Cultural Center, a predominantly black megachurch. “And I am sorry.”

The former mayor paid a visit to the Island in early December to attend the Iron Hills Civic Association’s annual holiday dinner at the Richmond County Country Club.

“If we work together, we can solve problems and make progress,” Bloomberg told the room of more than 200 people. “We’ve done that here in New York City, and we desperately need to do it across the country.”

Rose’s endorsement comes as the race for his congressional seat is heating up.

Rose is currently running unopposed in the June primary, but faces two Republican challengers-- Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis and Brooklyn prosecutor Joseph Caldarera.

Let week Democratic Socialist Richard-Olivier Marius dropped out of the primary. And even before Bloomberg's contribution, which we won't see until the spring, Rose had raised $2,130,499, compared to the GOP establishment's Malliotakis, who has brought in $756,964. Saladino raised just $55,143 and isn't considered a serious candidate, just another right-wing vanity candidate. There has been some talk about Mafia-thug and Trump amigo Michael Grimm, who has been released from prison, running as well. But he's been quiet for a few months.

I don't know off hand if there is even one Blue Dog who hasn't earned an "F" from ProgressivePunch, but if there is-- it sure isn't Max Rose. He has continued to let his constituents down by consistently voting with conservatives. In fact, his miserable voting record is 12.62% more conservative than the Staten Island and Brooklyn residents of his district. His most recent vile roll call vote was to cross the aisle with 7 other of the worst Democrats in the House to oppose the War Powers Resolution. It passed last Thursday 224 to 194 without Rose. There were even 3 Republicans who voted for it. It really is tragic that there is no one primarying Rose this cycle. Hopefully... 2022.

And, by the way, at the same time Bloomberg and his bought-and-paid for pack of lobbyists were rolling out the Rose endorsement, Bernie got a real good one that he obviously didn't have to pay for:





And so did former Bernie DNC delegate Jill Carter, a state senator and candidate for Congress for Baltimore's open seat (MD-07). Ben Jealous' endorsement is a very big deal-- and would be in any congressional race. I'd take either one of these over Max Rose or any other Blue Dog-- any day of the week. Please take a look as Ben explains why he endorsed Jill:

Blue Dog Max Rose-- More Crazy Or More Brave?

If you vote for the lesser of two evils... you're voting for evil

I spent a lot of time in Afghanistan-- and without an army. I was there twice. First time was in 1969 and I don't mean to toot my own horn, but you had to be either brave or crazy. I was just coming down off a 4-year psychedelic haze (and worse), that some people refer to as "college." The Afghanistan I saw was wilder the what the U.S. Army saw, even though no one was shooting at me per se. I wound up being arrested and thrown in a hole they called a jail but I had a business partner who was part of the royal family and he got me out-- with my van and the 50 kilos of Mazar opium-laced hash I was arrested for-- at the Russian border, no less. I was crazy, not brave, just effin' out of my mind. What the hell was I doing there? And there are crazier Afghan adventures than that. That was just the simple, easy to explain one.

Reading David Freedlander's overly dramatic essay for New York Magazine on Blue Dog asshat Max Rose, made me think if he was more crazy or more brave in Afghanistan. Hard to say, braver than me, probably. But Freedlander paints a picture of one crazy jerk off of a congressman. He's 32, the youngest male member of Congress. AOC-- who Rose hates and is incredibly jealous of-- is the youngest female member. I doubt it's personal with AOC. He just hates progressives, especially loud aggressive ones. He's one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress, although he seems to be making a concerted effort to move a bit more towards the center in the last few months, likely after pressure from the constituents he needs if he's going to be reelected. But he's still awful-- just how he sounds in Freedlander's piece.

His district-- NY-11-- all of Staten Island and a chunk of the most conservative part of Brooklyn (Mafia + Russians; Trump did well there). Freedlander paints it as redder than it is. Last year Kirsten Gillibrand and Andrew Cuomo both won the district. Obama won it both times he won-- and of course Trump beat the dreadful candidate the Democrats nominated. And Rose, a completely unknown and unproven Democrat running a cash-rich Republican-lite campaign beat Republican incumbent Dan Donovan 101,823 (53.0%) to 89,441 (46.6%). Rose won big in Brooklyn and a smidge better than a tie in Staten Island. Rose spent $4,395,518 and Donovan spent $2,661,359. [So far this cycle Rose had raised $1,395,673 and hasn't reported his third quarter yet.] His GOP establishment opponent, Nicole Malliotakis, reported raising $756,964 as of September 30. Michael Grimm-- yep, he's out of prison and running again-- hasn't reported anything yet. Trump's approval in the district is 5 points underwater.

Freedlander wrote that the last several weeks have turned Rose "into a minor political celebrity in his own right, after he became one of the last Democrats in the country to come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry. He announced the decision at a Staten Island town hall that was ostensibly about the borough’s gridlocked traffic. 'If I had hair, I’d want to rip it out,' he said, while blasting Democrats for coming out in favor of impeachment before any of the facts were known, and Republicans for going 'deaf, mute, and blind whenever allegations against the president are brought up.' So he blasted both sides-- but he also came down off the fence on an issue that’s very difficult to navigate for Democrats who need Republican support to win." In other words-- both sides suck, including my own-- but I'm here for you. Maybe Rose was brave in battle... I have no reason to doubt it. But politically, he's a yellow-bellied coward.

It is also part of Rose’s skills as a politician that he doesn’t come down from his coiled, bleeding-from-the-eyeballs intensity whether he is talking about defending the Constitution, the brothers he served with in Afghanistan, or split-tolling on the Verrazano. At the town hall, he told the audience that he wouldn’t let them or his fellow vets down while pursuing grave constitutional matters in Washington, and that nothing would distract from his fight with the Port Authority and “their outrageous proposal to eviscerate the resident discount on our outer bridges.”

...Rose had been hedging on impeachment for months. During the campaign against incumbent Republican Dan Donovan, he promised that it wasn’t something he would pursue, even as he said the Russia inquiry should continue apace. On Face the Nation soon after being sworn in, he rebuked fellow freshman Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s call to “impeach the motherfucker,” even as he made plain he had no objection to the profanity. As late as last month, he wrote an op-ed in which he urged Democrats to focus on their agenda: “We are in danger of losing the trust of the American people if we choose partisan warfare over improving the lives of hardworking families.”

“It was the wrong decision for Hunter Biden to be on that board. In no way, shape, or form should someone’s public service benefit their family,” he said, adding, “But if we are going to question Hunter Biden, we should also question Donald Trump Jr. and the way his companies have benefited, and not just Donald Trump Jr., but the other guy — the one who is even less impressive. What’s his name again? Eric! That’s right, Eric.”

The local Republican Party is hoping to capitalize on Rose’s shift on impeachment. “Staten Island is Trump country,” said Jessica Proud, a top GOP operative in New York who worked for Rose’s opponent in 2018. “They are very resistant to the notion of leftist elitists in Washington who are perpetually offended by everything. They view this as just an attempt to get Trump out, and I don’t see how it is going to serve Rose. It cuts right to the heart of the brand he is trying to create for himself, that is going to go to Washington and not join the partisan fray. It puts him squarely in the Democratic camp.”

West Brighton is the Ohio of Rose’s Staten Island district, the neighborhood that the eventual winner must carry if they hope to win the seat. And among these Oktoberfest-goers, the support for Rose’s support for an impeachment inquiry appears very strong. “Thank you, thank you, just thank you,” says one young woman who raced over when she spotted the young congressman. Teenage girls pose for selfies. An older woman rushes out of her car to tell him he is defending the Constitution. “You know what we say now,” said another woman, putting down her Pinot momentarily. “It’s not ‘You’re fired!’ It’s ‘You’re impeached!’”

Rose brushes past these encomiums. “I do not want to be here. This is the last thing I want to be doing,” he said when he at last made his way through the crowd and settled in at a back table at Jody’s. “But no one is to blame but the president. The president says he is innocent, so all we are saying is ‘prove it.’ But that is not what they are doing. They are not cooperating, and we need to get to the bottom of it.”

Trump himself raised the stakes for Rose when he retweeted a grainy GOP attack ad against him, one that sandwiched Rose’s face in between Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Nancy Pelosi. “Will happen to all of those seeking unlawful impeachment in 50 Trump type Districts. We will win big!” the president wrote.

Rose hasn’t committed to voting for impeachment, since it would mean the outcome is predetermined. And he is critical of colleagues who have been calling for it, or even fundraising for it, since the day this new Congress was sworn in. “This is a national tragedy. It is nothing to cheer on, it is nothing to sell T-shirts over.”

Rose should be a goner when he runs for reelection, his victory the product of a Democratic wave and a Republican who had lost his taste for the work. This is Staten Island, after all. Donald Trump won this district by a larger margin than he won in Texas. Rose is banking on being saved by forging a new kind of politics, one that makes an authentic connection with voters that enables them to look past his party label, that convinces voters he is on their side. Trump won, in Rose’s estimation, by convincing voters that he was on their side on infrastructure, on preserving Social Security, and draining the Washington swamp. Obama won the district two years earlier by promising pretty much the same thing, and painting his opponent as an out-of-touch plutocrat. In this context, supporting an impeachment probe seems like it could be a good gamble-- he’s not promising anything, but he’s also establishing himself as an independent, discerning agent for his constituents.

“The Democratic Party has been completely subsumed by this ‘What’s the Matter With Kansas,’ mantra,” he added, his voice turning into a pleading and effeminate version of Rose’s Brooklyn patois. “Oooh, I don’t understand why they don’t vote for us? Why can’t they be smarter? Don’t they know all we are doing for them? It’s the most offensive, patronizing thing imaginable. And it’s taken over the party. A better question would be: Why don’t they trust us?”

Rose calls his approach “centrist populism.” It’s not the populism of the right, which promises to be on the side of Staten Island cops and firefighters and gives tax breaks to millionaires, tossing in a side of racism to keep their voters’ suspicions at bay. And it’s not the populism of the left, either, which is unrealistic, wants to turn America into Europe, and is overly concerned with banning plastic straws. And it is not the centrism as we have come to know it-- a Mike Bloomberg/Howard Schulz/Third Way approach which, Rose said, “believes there is no problem that can’t be solved by a public-private partnership.”

Rather, he wants to double the number of people in unions, wants Apollo-sized infrastructure and energy investments, wants to kick the opioid crisis in the ass. And he wants to name names: the drug companies that keep your prescription-drug costs too high; the carried interest loophole that keeps venture capitalists paying less taxes than nurses; the feckless Democrats, who among other things, pledged in 2018 to not vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker, but then cowed to pressure and did so on their first day in office. Rose didn’t. “And it took me four months to get the five-inch heel out of my ass,” he says.

But ultimately it’s about winning-- especially winning elections in Trump-loving places. Today that means keeping your powder dry for the impeachment inquiry so that more people will trust that it is carried out faithfully.

“I don’t think losing is cool. I want the Democratic Party to be the party of Kyrsten Sinema and not the party of Beto O’Rourke,” he continues, referring to the congresswoman who in 2018 became the first Democratic senator from Arizona in 30 years, and the congressman who parlayed a losing race in Texas into celebrity.

“Losing is not as cool as he thinks it is,” Rose says. “When you win you get to help people, and when you lose you get to be a social-media rock star. So I don’t think Beto is cool, and I don’t think losing is cool. If we don’t win, we can’t do a fucking thing for anybody in a union, anybody in public housing, anybody that can’t reunite with their family because of a fucking racist Muslim ban. This is where it begins and ends for me, so fucking figure it out.”

Rose wants to be a political lifer. He doesn’t see why “career politician” should register any different than “career social worker” or “career teacher.” None of this is difficult. “What is difficult is what our teachers are going through, what our nurses are going through, what our cops and soldiers are going through. This? This is fun.”

He gets back in the car. He has National Guard duty this weekend and has to get home.

“I did not go to Washington to become everybody’s buddy,” Rose says. “I am not down there to be a part of the system. What I am down there for is to wage war on the entire political class.”

Congressman Max Rose is full of shit. He's in Washington to build himself a comfy career and set himself up for a future job as a sleaze-ball lobbyist. I wish pollsters would ask questions like this in congressional races. This graphic  is from the CBS poll that was released this morning:

Worst Democraps In Congress-- Time For NRA Champion Anthony Brindisi

Brindisi addressing other right-wing fake Democrats

There are just 10 Democrats left who haven't come out for an impeachment inquiry. It's probably the final list-- cowardly careerists afraid of losing their seats. These are the final 10-- 9 Blue Dogs and someone who should be tossed out of the Progressive Caucus-- with Trump's 2016 win numbers in their districts:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 54.8%
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 53.5%
• Jared Golden (Coward-ME)- 51.4%
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 53.2%
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)- 49.3%
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 39.1%
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 61.8%
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)- 53.6%
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 50.1
• Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)- 50.6%

Before we get into Brindisi, I want to just mention that DCCC chair Cheri Bustos and Señor Trumpanzee can hold a joint fundraiser for Jefferson Van Drew. Wouldn't that be clarifying? Van Drew was on Fox & Friends yesterday throwing shade at fellow Democrats for opening an impeachment inquiry. Trumpanzee tweeted "'All that’s swirling around us now is Impeachment. We talk about it day and night, it’s what’s on the news, there is NOTHING that has turned up that is Impeachable. Our founding fathers set impeachment to be extremely rare. We need to get good stuff done. Let the people vote... we are going to have an Election very shortly.' Rep. Jeff Van Drew, Democrat of New Jersey. @foxandfriends Thank you. Just another Witch Hunt by Nancy Pelosi and the Do Nothing Democrats!" Van Drew told Fox viewers that he doesn’t believe anything "turned up that is truly is impeachable" at this point.

I can understand why Collin Peterson is so scared of Trump voters. He's got a really hard core rural red district, filled with Trumpists. But none of the others do. Trump won marginally in the other districts. The second biggest Trump score was in Brindisi's upstate New York district-- all or part of 8 counties that wanted CHANGE, not Trump. How do I know? In 2016 these counties completely rejected the the status quo candidacy of Hillary Clinton. In fact of the 8 counties in Brindisi's district all 8 went to Bernie in the primary (listed in order of population):

• Oneida

• Bernie- 7,272
• Hillary- 6,054
• Trumpanzee- 10,830

• Broome

• Bernie- 9,176
• Hillary- 7,035
• Trumpanzee- 8,409

• Madison

• Bernie- 2,346
• Hillary- 1,880
• Trumpanzee- 2,968

• Herkimer

• Bernie- 1,755
• Hillary- 1,377
• Trumpanzee- 3,955

• Chenango

• Bernie- 1,494
• Hillary- 958
• Trumpanzee- 2,384

• Cortland

• Bernie- 1,878
• Hillary- 1,402
• Trumpanzee- 1,627

• Oswego

• Bernie- 3,066
• Hillary- 2,424
• Trumpanzee- 6,151

• Tioga

• Bernie- 1,825
• Hillary- 1,232
• Trumpanzee- 2,801

Last year the Republicans managed to lose the two biggest counties-- Oneida, Broome-- hold the 3rd biggest (Madison) by a virtual tie and lose Cortland by double digits. So win is Brindisi such a woos? I asked a member of Congress yesterday. He told me that all Brindisi ever does is whine about how anything the caucus wants to do that is even vaguely progressive. "Do you want to end my career?" is his one and only cpontribution to any discussion about anything. "And I bet he skips right over to Peter King and tells him everything he's heard from our side of the aisle. (Because he's one of the chairs of the Blue Dog caucus, Brindisi is privy to planning sessions so he's hearing a lot more than he should.)

The other day, Brindisi and the Republican next door, John Katko, made a joint statement to the media about opposing the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. Katko is an absolutely horrible member of Congress and, hopefully, the DCCC won't screw up the election again, which will mean he's replaced by progressive champion Dana Balter. But Brindisi is actually a worse-- and more destructive-- member of Congress than Katko is. And Brindisi has no primary. Cheri Bustos has threatened anyone who wants to primary him and, in fact, has been fundraising for him, even after his joint statement with Katko:

Brindisi is bad on just about everything. His ProgressivePunch score is not just an F-- it's tied with fellow Blue Dogs Jeff Van Drew (NJ) and Joe Cunningham (SC) as the worst Democratic record in Congress. His crucial vote score is exactly 20%. As a point of reference, conservative Republicans John Katko (NY) and Thomas Massie (KY) voted more progressively than he does, respectively 21.35% and 28.50%. Brian Fitzpatrick scored a 20.10% and Justin Amash's lifetime score in 32.86%. Amash is very conservative but his score for the current cycle is 57.78%. Compared that to Brindisi's 20.0%. And Brindisi sucks across the board. When Jim Clyburn's moderate background check bill came up for a vote, 7 Republicans voted for it and just 3 Democrats voted against it, Brindisi, of course, being one of them. How about raising the minimum wage? That should be easy for every Democrat, right? Well, almost every Democrat. Three Republicans voted with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage. Six Blue Dogs who hate the working class-- Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Kurt Schrader (OR), Joe Cunningham (SC), Ben McAdams (UT), Kendra Horn (OK) and, of course Brindisi (NY) voted to kill it. Does this lunkhead think voters-- who backed Bernie in 2019-- in Binghampton, Rome, Utica, Cortland and Oneida don't want better wages? This clown deserves to lose his seats. I asked my friend the congressman if he agrees. His whispered, "yes!" This is the kind of raw sewage in a suit and tie that Cheri Bustos is trying to protect from progressives.





And the Democrats who kiss up to the GOP most-- and most frequently vote for their reactionary positions and policies-- are the ones the NRCC goes after with the most vehemence. This ad above started running over the weekend to destroy freshman Blue Dog Max Rose, even though he-- like his pal Brindisi-- has adamantly and publicly opposed an impeachment inquiry. This is the misleading press statement the NRCC sent out: "Aware of the political damage it will cause, Max Rose is desperate to convince Staten Island voters he hasn’t backed the socialist Democrats baseless impeachment of President Trump."

Is The Democratic Party Tent Too Big To Offer Voters Anything?

A new poll done by Change Research-- a very good firm-- found that 60% of voters in rural counties in 9 states-- Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and West Virginia-- approve of the way Trump is doing his job. Democrats need to work harder in rural districts, which they've largely abandoned. And when they haven't abandoned them, they've left them to right-of-center Blue Dogs, New Dems and other conservaDems who don't represent the Democratic Party and its values at all. These are the only Democrats whose districts are at least 25% rural. Non-conservatives G.K. Butterfield (NC) and Bennie Thompson (MS) represent districts that, though rural, are over 50% African-American. Most of the others oppose Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, even a $15 minimum wage. Perhaps that helps explain why Trump does so well in rural areas-- no one to fight back. This list shows what percentage of each district is rural and the grade at the end of each line is how ProgressivePunch rates the congressmember.

• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)- 29.8%... F
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- 52.4%... F
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- 40.95... F
• Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)- 27.6%... F
• Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL)- 42.7%... F
• Abby Finkenauer (D-IA)- 47.7%... F
• Dave Loebsack (D-IA)- 60.7%... F
• Jared Golden (D-ME)- 71.9%... F
• Bennie Thompson (D-MS)- 75.3%... D
• Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH)- 57.6%... F
• Xochitl Torres-Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 73.1%... F
• Antonio Delgado (New Dem-NY)- 45.7%... F
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 28.9%... F
• G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)- 48.6%... F
• Peter DeFazio (D-OR)- 36.8%... B
• Peter Welch (D-VT)- 69.5%... B
• Derek Kilmer (New Dem-WA)- 27.8%... F

And speaking of no one to fight back, Blue Dog Max Rose, represents Staten Island and a substantial chunk of south Brooklyn. A few days ago he wrote an OpEd for the Staten Island Advance on why he opposes an impeachment investigation. It also demonstrates why I oppose supporting Blue Dogs running for office as Democrats. He starts with some whiny "why can't we all just get along" bullshit, seemingly not cognizant of the Republicans impeaching Bill Clinton over nothing at all, Moscow Mitch making refusing to allow a vote of President Obama's Suprme Court nomination, Moscow Mitch allowing the Russians to help Trump steal the 2016 election... little things like that. Even yesterday... Trumpist Cory Lewandowski obstruction at the House Judiciary Committee. As always, Rose follows that up by breaking out his Republican Party talking points and singing them as loud and he can:

For the past decade, the American people have been sending a clear and unmistakable message: End the hyper-partisanship and do your jobs. Yet, both parties have taken electoral victories as mandates to ignore that message to do what they want. It must stop.

Republicans across the country ran on a proactive agenda in 2016: To drain the swamp, rebuild our roads and bridges, and protect Social Security and Medicare. What they did instead was pass a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very companies that created the opioid epidemic. I fear the Democratic Party is now at risk of repeating a similar bait-and-switch mistake by focusing on impeachment instead of infrastructure, healthcare costs, and putting people to work with livable wages and benefits.

Let me be clear, we have made real progress this year, including permanently extending and fully funding the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, passing the most sweeping anti-corruption legislation in a generation, and bipartisan gun safety reforms.

This Rose stinks

But there’s far too much work left to be done and we are in danger of losing the trust of the American people if we choose partisan warfare over improving the lives of hardworking families. I made a promise to my constituents to focus on making their lives better, and I won’t break it.

There is no doubt that this Administration is one of the most corrupt in history. From taxpayer dollars propping up Trump Organization properties to the mass exodus of Administration officials who have been forced to resign, are facing serious ethical investigations, or have sped through the revolving door to become federal lobbyists for the same industries they oversaw. It’s clear as day, the swamp is alive and thriving.

But pursuing a partisan impeachment process won’t address any of those serious issues. The truth is impeachment will only tear our country further apart and we will see no progress on the enormous challenges we face as a nation. Impeachment will not fix our roads and bridges or lower the costs of drugs. Impeachment will not keep our kids safe from gun violence or end the opioid epidemic. Impeachment will not improve the lives of the hardworking Staten Islanders and South Brooklynites that I fight for every day.

That’s why I implore my Democratic colleagues to focus on making our case that we are the party that will put the interests of working families first. Because in just over 400 days, men and women across the country will go to the polls and render their judgment on this administration. I have faith in the American people and believe that they will-- and should-- make the final decision as to who will lead this country.

Rose hasn't accomplished a thing since he got to Congress-- unless you call holding back accomplishments accomplishing something. He's been against virtually every progressive initiative proposed. The video above, released this afternoon by the Kina Collins campaign in Chicago, shows a very different end of the Democratic tent, a young woman who has every intention of getting things done for her constituents. The theme of this one is gun violence prevention and Kina is on fire to get it done-- done for real. Kina is running in Chicago, in IL-07 for a seat held by do-nothing incumbent Danny Davis-- and it's a tragedy that there isn't someone like her running against Rose.

"We have to go beyond the gun," she said, "to address systemic issues of poverty and neglect. It's time to pursue a bold progressive platform that includes Medicare-for-All, a Green New Deal, criminal justice reform and future free of gun violence... It's time; it's our time." Please consider contributing what you can to Kina's grassroots congressional campaign by clicking on the 2020 Blue America House  thermometer on the right. We desperately need more activist members of Congress like Kina Collins and far fewer like do-nothing reactionaries like Max Rose. This is a time for independent-thinkers like Kina, not for passive follow-the-leader shills like Danny Davis and Max Rose, sitting around and ignoring the urgent issues of the day while they collect their unearned paychecks.

There's More To The Lack Of Progress Than Just The Anti-Impeachment Freshman Dems

Speaker Nancy Pelosi by Nancy Ohanian

Pelosi is bending over backwards for the freshmen-- who Cedric Richmond, Louisiana New Dem and co-chair of Biden's campaign-- says to ignore because they're "scared of their own shadows." A small handful of them are the reason Congress isn't doing it's duty for the American people. Axios' Alayna Treene dug deep to see where each freshman stands in regard to impeachment and almost all of them are either ready to impeach now or looking for more investigations and leadership buy-in. One, though-- Katie Porter-- announced a dramatic change of heart last night and came out full-force for impeachment, even though she's the first Democrat to ever represent her red-leaning Orange County district. Pelosi and Hoyer call her a "majority maker" and advice freshmen like her to play down the whole impeachment thing and just pretend to be busy with policy. Ironically, Porter is busier with policy than almost any other member of Congress and it's her constituents who have been demanding impeachment hearings. Listen:




There are, however, a few contemptible careerists who are completely opposed to impeachment and are making a farce out of the institution-- and the constitution. "Of the 64 freshmen House Democrats 42 say they want Congress to continue their oversight investigations before launching impeachment proceedings. In January, 48 said they thought Congress should wait for the release of the Mueller report before considering impeachment. 13 say they support impeaching the president, up from only 6 in January. 4 have not made clear, on-the-record statements. Previously, only 3 members fell in this category. [And] 5 caution against impeachment, down from 7 in January."

New Jersey Blue Dog Jefferson Van Drew is probably the worst of the worst: "What I am done with, barring any new evidence, is any talk of impeachment investigations or divisive, unproductive politics. It is time to move forward." He isn't the only one whose statement might as well have been written by McCarthy, the NRCC or the White House.

Another lowlife Blue Dog Max Rose also sang from the Republican hymnal when he spoke with Politico: "If Democrats go down the path of impeachment then they should warm to the idea of going back to the minority," he hissed. "Right now we're in this incredibly childish game of impeachment chicken, and everyone has to start acting like adults... Congress needs to act responsibly... and then lets go back to actually doing the work of the American people that they sent us here to do." Protecting the country from a tyrant isn't what the voters expect?

One of the Blue Dog chairs, Anthony Brindisi (NY) refused to address the issue himself by had his communications director, Luke Jackson, tell Axios that "the congressman does not support impeachment."

Joe Cunningham (SC), also from the bottom of the Blue Dog barrel told the Post & Courier: "You're talking about basically nullifying the election of 2016 and what voters voted for. Straight from the NRCC.

Another dreadful Blue Dog, Xochitl Torres Small (NM) just tells her constituents that she flat out opposes impeachment. Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ) and Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT) both they they're against it but will reconsider when it's a "sufficiently bipartisan effort," Justin Amash (R-MI) not being enough for them.

And then there's Virginia Blue Dog Abigail Spanberger, one of the worst of the political cowards who, more than any other member, just ducks and ducks and ducks all questions. Quack, quack. "I'm focused on prescription drugs and infrastructure" is what she says. Someone give her a merit badge. Sunday's idiotic NY Times story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg on the subject was just another establishment excuse to bash AOC and whine about how the House "can be dominated by loud voices on the left" that endanger what Hoyer and Pelosi slyly call "the majority makers," almost all of whom are very conservative compared to Democratic voters nationally and are already muddying up the party brand.

Late Sunday night, reporting for the Washington Post, Rachel Bade wrote that a fear of Pelosi is keeping impeachment from moving forward. "Prominent liberals in the House, impatient with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to impeaching President Trump, seemed on the brink of a major breakthrough one night last month. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a key Pelosi ally and the man who would preside over the hearings, was preparing to buck his party’s leader and join the pro-impeachment movement." He wasn't; that's just a story they put out for the media.

Pelosi moved swiftly. She summoned her top lieutenants to a late-night meeting and hatched a plan-- that six party leaders, speaking in unison, would make clear to the chairman why impeaching Trump was a terrible idea.

“Republicans are stewing in their own juices,” Pelosi told Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY., arguing that the majority of the Democratic caucus didn’t support impeachment and that the party should devote its time to calling out Republicans for siding with a president trampling the Constitution, according to Democrats and other senior officials who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely describe what transpired.

Nadler left the room that night and has not publicly endorsed impeachment. “Impeachment is a political act, and you cannot impeach a president if the American people will not support it,” he has said.

As pressure has mounted in recent weeks on House Democrats to move more aggressively against Trump, Pelosi has demonstrated the firm grip she wields over her caucus-- quashing, at least for now, the push for impeachment. It is a command that colleagues say is drawn from a deep well of respect for the political wisdom of the most powerful woman in American politics-- and fear that challenging her comes with the risk of grave cost to one’s career.

In January, Pelosi blocked two ringleaders of the rebels who had tried to deny her the speakership from securing their preferred committee assignments-- even though the peace pact she made to reclaim the gavel precluded retaliation. And veteran lawmakers keenly remember how she rebuffed former Democratic Congress members Jane Harman (CA) and John Dingell (MI), two occasional thorns in her side, in their quest for chairmanships, moves many viewed as revenge for challenging her vision or authority.

“It’s much better to be with her than against her,” said Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA), a Pelosi antagonist who eventually backed her for speaker. “She doesn’t make it easy, that’s for sure.”

“One, you want to be a team player and support the leader’s position, but secondly you’re worried about your own self and . . . what can happen if you don’t follow along,” said another Pelosi critic, Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR), who summed up the concerns members face if they defy Pelosi.

The reluctance to oppose the speaker, according to interviews with more than 20 lawmakers and aides, has undermined the push for impeachment despite the growing support for ousting Trump among the party’s liberal base and several 2020 presidential candidates. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday found more Democratic voters backing impeachment-- 48 percent up from 30 percent last month-- but the nation divided, with Republicans and independents opposed.

Thus far, impeachment proponents in the caucus have been unwilling to call Pelosi out by name or rally support to begin proceedings. Consequently, the campaign has slowed, with a caucus minority of just over 60 lawmakers backing impeachment-- at least for now.

Longtime Pelosi allies say the fear factor is vastly inflated. Rather, they say it’s more that members respect the California Democrat, who has led them for 16 years and understands the political consequences of impeachment.

“I don’t think there’s anything more divisive we can do than to impeach a president of the United States, and so you have to handle it with great care,” Pelosi said Sunday in an interview with CNN. “It has to be about the truth and the facts to take you to whatever decision has to be there.”

Pelosi’s midterm election strategy of focusing on health care rather than the president helped Democrats capture the majority last year, as the party won in 31 districts where Trump had prevailed in 2016. Pelosi knows Democrats could lose those seats-- and their majority-- in a backlash over impeachment.

“She is the single smartest strategist that we’ve ever had... People are not wanting to second guess her because she’s been right on so many fronts,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a longtime Pelosi ally who has deferred to the speaker on impeachment.

To be sure, the impeachment push is far from over and could become more difficult for Pelosi to manage as Trump repeatedly defies congressional investigators.

Pelosi is “holding it together, but it’s fragile because we’re kind of one event, one piece of explosive testimony, one action by Trump away from that dam collapsing,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA).

But even if a majority of her caucus calls for impeachment, Pelosi allies predict she will withstand the pressure.

Over the past few weeks, Pelosi has worked behind the scenes to stifle the pro-impeachment movement in her caucus with strategically timed comments and announcements-- and nudges to her members to get in line.

When House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-SC) said impeachment was inevitable during a television appearance in early June, Pelosi’s staff mobilized quickly, calling his office and telling staff to have Clyburn walk it back, according to congressional officials familiar with those conversations.

When other senior Democrats started advocating for impeachment on television, Pelosi made sure at least some knew she was unhappy. During one recent private meeting, she snapped at Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-RI), a member of the Judiciary Committee, signaling she wanted him to soften his impeachment language and focus more on the legislative agenda, according to Democrats and other senior officials.

Pelosi declined to discuss private conversations.

Both pro- and anti-impeachment lawmakers say recent court rulings upholding Democratic subpoenas have helped solidify Pelosi’s argument that her strategy is working. And the fact that members are torn about what is right means many are content with deferring to their leader.

But Pelosi’s aptly timed announcements have also played a major role in easing tensions. When the clamor for impeachment grows louder following some explosive news about Trump defying Congress, Pelosi has made a point to echo the frustration of a pro-impeachment base by accusing Trump of a “coverup” or saying he should be “in prison.” Those remarks, her allies say, shield her as she pumps the brakes on impeachment.

Pelosi has also made a conscious effort to “let the air out of the balloon before it pops,” according to one aide. Last week, she greenlighted a civil contempt vote on the House floor to give frustrated members an outlet to vent.

On Thursday, after Trump told ABC News that he would be willing to take opposition research from a foreign country in the future, Pelosi was likewise ready with a response: Weeks earlier, she had instructed her committees to prepare legislation forcing all candidates to report such contacts to the FBI. She discussed the legislation at a news conference, batting down reporters’ questions about impeachment yet again.

Part of Pelosi’s effectiveness has been planning ahead. In late May, after Robert S. Mueller III said he did not exonerate the president and set off another impeachment firestorm, Pelosi asked her senior leadership to come to a Monday meeting prepared with counterarguments on impeachment, according to Democrats and other senior officials.

During the huddle June 3, Pelosi went around the room to ask her top allies what they thought of impeachment; all agreed with her. Caucus Chairman [and notorious suck-up] Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) even suggested the brave thing for members to do would be to resist the base’s call for impeachment.

Outflanked, the impeachment proponents did not push back.

Pelosi’s grip on her caucus stands in stark contrast to her Republican predecessors. Former speakers Paul D. Ryan (WI) and John Boehner (OH) frequently faced fierce public resistance from their rank-and-file and grass-roots opposition that hindered their effectiveness.

The conservative House Freedom Caucus not only broke with Ryan, but also regularly circumvented his leadership and appealed to Trump to get what they wanted, undercutting the speaker. Before Ryan, Boehner faced the same conservative critics who threatened to oust him over his pragmatism, eventually forcing him to resign.

While conservatives were suspicious of Boehner and Ryan, the Democratic base views Pelosi as one of their own-- loyalty Republicans actually inspired by attacking her as a liberal boogeyman during campaigns, said former Boehner chief of staff Mike Sommers.

“I believe that she’s about the only person that can manage their caucus right now,” he said. “She has a base of support that is unmatched within the Democratic caucus.”

Pelosi tightened her grip on the caucus by quashing a group of rebels who tried to prevent her from becoming speaker for the second time in more than a decade and emerging stronger after a showdown with Trump in January over government funding.

Pelosi’s move to punish her adversaries, as she did on the committee assignments, wasn’t the first time she had used hard-line tactics. In 2006, Pelosi refused to name Harman as chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee. The two had been at odds for decades, and when Democrats took the majority, Pelosi appointed Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), citing term-limit rules she could have overridden. In 2002, Pelosi backed a primary challenger to Dingell, who survived. One of her allies, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), then seized a committee chairmanship that Dingell wanted-- with Pelosi’s tacit approval.

“You can always disagree with her-- no problem. But you don’t take those outside to a news conference,” said former representative Steve Israel (D-NY), who worked alongside Pelosi for years. “I wouldn’t say they have a fear of her, but I think members who may want to oppose her think long and hard about it.”

Nowadays, few House Democrats criticize Pelosi by name, even on the emotional question of impeachment. If they do contradict her publicly, many give her a heads up, as Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) did before he announced his support for impeachment on Thursday, according to Democrats and other senior officials.

House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), a vocal impeachment backer, said she is not organizing an effort to change minds on impeachment and defers to Pelosi’s leadership.

“I don’t criticize her. I don’t blame her,” Waters said of Pelosi’s impeachment position. “She’s got the responsibility of doing the best job that she thinks she can do for this caucus.”

Cicilline bristled at the notion that the speaker was upset with him or his pro-impeachment colleagues. Asked why he didn’t rally votes for impeachment, he said the issue is too personal to try to twist arms on the matter.

Still, he argued it’s only a matter of time before the number of pro-impeachment lawmakers grows: “In those instances where the president acts in a way where he believes that he’s above the law... additional members of the caucus will be forced into no other choice but to open an impeachment inquiry and respond.”