Note To Steve Israel And Chuck Schumer: The Word Progressive Actually Has A Meaning

When then-DCCC head Steve Israel was asked by a reporter for the Omaha World-Herald how he felt about his conservative recruit, Brad Ashford, a Nebraska Republican state senator, getting into Congress as a Democrat and voting far more with the GOP than with the Democrats, Israel responded:

"It doesn't concern me, it doesn't faze me, it doesn't bother me."

No, it wouldn't. Israel is now Pelosi's head of House Democratic messaging and he, along with other unscrupulous DC party bosses, have admitted they want to entice Bernie's grassroots supporters into contributing to candidates like Ashford and the other garbage candidates who the DCCC-- like "former" Republicans Monica Vernon in Iowa, Mike Parrish in Pennsylvania and Mike Derrick in New York-- and DSCC-- "former" Republican Patrick Murphy-- recruit on a regular basis.

It's especially galling to watch these conservatives using the word "progressive" to describe themselves during primary season. It's linguistic fraud. It isn't popular in Democratic primaries for a candidate to run as a conservative even if that's what they are. You keep seeing Hillary Clinton, who-- after she was finished campaigning for Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller and was no longer a student at Wellesley College, where she was president of the Young Republicans-- switched to the Democratic Party but was always a conservative Democrat. She felt fine sitting on the Board of Walmart and later telling her Senate colleagues that marriage equality should be off the table because marriage MUST remain "between one man and one woman," and now accepting millions and millions of dollars from Wall Street banksters and K Street lobbyists. That's the behavior conservative Democrats share with Republicans. But not something they want to highlight during primary season. So they called themselves "progressives."

Steve Israel, who hates progressives far more than he hates Republicans, encourages even the most conservative Democrats stuck in a primary battle to make the word meaningless by using it over and over and over until voters are confused or even turned off. It's what conservative Democrats did to the word "liberal." Yesterday and the day before I got letters from the frantic and desperate Patrick Murphy campaign-- horrified that Alan Grayson's polling lead in the Florida primary has continued to grow-- asserting that Murphy is a progressive. Patrick Murphy-- the one who has one of the most right-wing, anti-working family voting records of any Democrat in Congress? Who voted for the Keystone XL Pipeline half a dozen times? Who voted to create the Benghazi witch-hunt Committee to destroy Hillary Clinton? Who voted for oil drilling off Florida's pristine beaches? Who has worked in the House Financial Services Committee on behalf of his Wall Street financiers to undermine and sabotage Dodd-Frank? Yes, that Patrick Murphy. He actually tried making the case that he's a progressive and Alan Grayson isn't! Chuck Schumer told him it would be good politics. They even dragged poor, old, increasingly senile Harry Reid into it!

Patrick Murphy, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer

I noticed the other day when Chris Matthews' conservative lobbyist wife endorsed Wall Street-friendly establishment Democrat Chris Van Hollen for Senate against progressive icon Donna Edwards, she (Kathleen Matthews) kept referring to herself as a "progressive." But she isn't a progressive. She's an upper class conservative who's pro-Choice. Progressives are tribunes for working families. Democrats like Kathleen Matthews have contact with working families when they hire them as servants.

The misuse of the word "progressive" bothered me enough so that I asked some of the Blue America candidates if they're finding this phenomena in their own races. Tim Canova, who's running for the seat Debbie Wasserman Schultz drew for herself when she was in the Florida state legislature, didn't need me to ask twice. He Referred to an article at the Huffington Post by Zach Carter who wrote that the Canova-Wasserman Schultz primary "could well reveal more about the Democratic Party than any other contest in this cycle, including the one for president... It’s a test of whether progressive ideas or corporate money are more central to the Democratic Party’s future." And earlier today he told me that his "is a truly progressive agenda-- to rebuild our country, provide jobs and educational opportunities for all, and force the wealthiest corporations to start paying their fair share in taxes. As head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Wasserman Schultz recently reversed President Obama’s long-standing ban on corporate lobbyist donations to the DNC. This opens the door to the same corporate interests that have been funding her own campaigns-- the Wall Street banks, huge corporations, and big alcohol and private prison companies. That’s why she keeps voting to deregulate Wall Street, fast-track terrible trade deals that threaten our public health, jobs and the environment, and continue with a disastrous war on drugs, privatized prisons and mass incarceration. I am proud that our campaign is different.  We don’t take a penny of corporate money and we never will.  And when elected, we will not owe any favors to corporate special interests."

Alex Law in South Jersey has a similar race against an even more overtly conservative opponent. "Donald Norcross," he reminded us, "has voted with Republicans more than any Democrat in the entire New Jersey delegation. His first vote in Congress was for the Keystone XL Pipeline. He has voted against the President by going against the Iran Deal and the refugee bill. He has consistently sided with his campaign donors Monsanto and Lockheed Martin through his votes on GMO labeling and defense contracts. He has voted to extend the Patriot Act, voted to support unfair lending practices to minorities, and has refused to take a stand for campaign finance reform. Mr. Norcross is not a progressive. But, now that our campaign has been successful, he has tried to make voters think he shifted to the left by supposedly supporting a $15 an hour minimum wage. The problem is, not only does his plan take 10 years to do it, it also includes clauses that give huge, sellable tax credits to companies that act early. Which means, Mr. Norcross essentially wants poor and middle class tax payers to bribe corporations for their raise. Our campaign is truly progressive. We endorsed Bernie Sanders as soon as he announced he was running. We support sustainable energy, campaign finance reform, LGTBQ rights, health care for all, and many other progressive issues. We proudly support #blacklivesmatter. This campaign has awakened a progressive spirit here in South Jersey by knocking on tens of thousands of doors and making tens of thousands of phone calls. We have been supported by over a thousand individual donors chipping in when they can because they are saying collectively with us, 'Enough is enough!' Mr. Norcross is not a progressive; he has been more conservative than many Republicans. For him to say or imply otherwise is so thoroughly misleading, he should be ashamed."

Mike Noland is a state senator with a somewhat different situation. A longtime progressive with an impeccable record, he's running for an open blue congressional seat in the 'burbs west of O'Hare, through Schaumburg out to Elgin and Carpentersville. He's considered one of the most pro-union legislators in Illinois and for obvious reasons-- he's had to work his entire life. He started by shining shoes at the age of 7, working all throughout high school and driving a limo at night while attending law school. All of this is in sharp contrast to his opponent, Raja Krishnamoorthi, who enjoyed the privilege of financial support all throughout his academic career and then went to work for a multi-national law firm, Kirkland and Ellis. K&E’s clients include BP, Bain Capital, and United Airlines. Raja was an attorney of record for United Airlines during their bankruptcy. As part of the settlement, United cut over 58,000 jobs and the pensions of its employees. That's not what progressives do-- not ever. As a member of the general assembly Noland has voted multiple times to raise the minimum wage in Illinois. As someone who has worked minimum wage jobs himself, he supports a national minimum wage of $15 per hour. Meanwhile, Raja supports a $10.10 minimum wage that would leave thousands of low wage employees still living in poverty.

Raja tries claiming he's a progressive too but he can't deny he was the co-author of a paper praising the virtue of privatizing important public services stating doing so is "just a matter of math." Mike, on the other hand, has consistently fought to protect essential government sector jobs for teachers, first responders and health care providers through Medicaid. An especially telling and deep contrast between Mike and his opponent is Mike's steadfast opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Mike has recognized since the beginning that the TPP would be bad news for American workers and said so publicly. Raja, on the other hand, trying to appeal to his corporate base, only recently, followed along, reluctantly stating his opposition to TPP while ignoring the fact that just a few years ago he said that he supported the President's fast track authority. Voters in the 8th district must wonder if the "R" in Raja stands for Republican. As for Mike, he told us that "when you’ve got as strong a progressive record as I have you really don’t even have to call yourself one. Those who know you, know." Blue America endorsed Mike, as well as Alex and Tim and you can find them on this page.

We're also seeing this in a district north of Chicago where Brad Schneider, a conservative New Dem who was defeated in 2014, when Democratic voters in the district stayed away from the polls in droves to protest his Republican-lite record, is trying to pose as a progressive for his primary fight against Nancy Rotering, the progressive mayor of Highland Park. A couple hours ago Rotering said "While in office my opponent, Brad Schneider, voted against President Obama 37% of the time, more than almost any Democrat in Congress, yet he calls himself a progressive. He even voted with Republicans repeatedly to delay and undermine Obamacare. And he also claims to be a champion for gun control, yet shied away from dozens of opportunities to take a stand."

Nanette Barragán has a similar situation. She's running for an open blue seat in L.A.'s South Bay and has a corrupt conservative state senator running against her, Isadore Hall. "I stand by my progressive values," he said when we asked her, "not because it’s easy or popular, but because I believe that as a public servant, it is my job to move my community forward, no matter the political cost. While I was fighting to protect our community from special interests in an oil industry trying to take advantage of us, my opponent abandoned his heavily polluted district in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the oil and tobacco industries."

Alan Grayson hasn't been holding back against the self-proclaimed DC bosses on both sides of the aisle, the ones with their hands on the Wall Street money taps. "Barack Obama was not born in Kenya," he wrote today. "Hillary Clinton did not kill Vince Foster. Bernie Sanders does not hold an Israeli passport. And it is so, so pathetic that the corrupt, inept bureaucrats who call themselves our 'leaders' have to stoop so low as to make the same kind of baseless smirches against me. Just today, they tried to put it out there that I’m not a “real” progressive. Excuse you?"

I’m fighting a political life-and-death struggle against a Democratic Party D.C. Establishment that has betrayed progressive principles over and over and over again, over my very loud objection. (No wonder they don’t love me.) Look at what they’ve done:

• The Democratic Establishment killed the public option.
• The Democratic Establishment refused to punish the banksters.
• The Democratic Establishment wasted billions of dollars on bailouts.
• The Democratic Establishment keeps pushing for Social Security benefit cuts.
• The Democratic Establishment opposes Medicare for All.
• The Democratic Establishment implemented huge tax cuts for multinational corporations.
• The Democratic Establishment has shipped millions of jobs overseas.
• The Democratic Establishment has taxed union benefits, and refused to put EFCA up to a Senate vote.
• The Democratic Establishment has collaborated in the destruction of affirmative action.

And that’s just off the top of my head.

Look at their appalling sell-out record. Then look back at mine. You’ll see a Congressman who not only cares about working people, but gets good things done for them. Who actually delivers for progressives, and for our progressive principles of justice, equality and peace.

And them? Liars, losers, fakers and sellouts.

Let's not let them and their media lackeys drive this guy out of Congress with their shameless piles of lies, smears and distortions. Please tap on the thermometer:

Did The NRA Order Paul Ryan To Grow His New Beard?

Ryan's beard is different from Lindsey Graham's beard or Patrick McHenry's beard

The New Republic has commented on the fact Ryan hasn't shaved in a few days and has a scruffy look. They didn't mention that he has blood on his hands for facilitating the NRA's murderous agenda but wondered if "Ryan’s beard is a result of his relentless, sleep-in-the-office work ethic, or if it’s just an effort to reach out to younger voters with a newer, hipper image. If it’s the former, that’s bleak but respectable. If it’s the latter, perhaps Ryan should next consider adding some gingham and a man-bun to really reach the young set where they live." Meanwhile, as you probably know if you're a fashionista, GQ likes the beards-- but worries Ryan is just making "an obvious media play. It's the eye-roll-inducing style move equivalent to your father showing up to dinner on a skateboard. If two weeks from now Ryan's rocking a full frontier-level beard, then we'll talk." But let's talk about Ryan's devotion not just to last year's style but about his slavish devotion to the gun manufacturers' lobbyists.

The NRA hasn't allowed any legislation about guns to come to the floor of the House since February of 2011. They have enough power over the Republicans to bury in committee every attempt the Democrats make to pass gun legislation. Last June, when Nita Lowey offered an amendment to end the ban on just studying the relationship between mental health and gun violence, it failed 19-32. Remember, "it's a mental health issue" is the Republicans' default position on gun-related mass murder. (The most paid-off current member of the House by the NRA and other pro-gun organizations, Paul Ryan, was yammering away about it right after the slaughter in San Bernardino.) Anyway, as you can see from this document, every single Republican on the House Appropriations Committee plus the Blue Dog NRA-whore Henry Cuellar (TX) voted down Lowey's bill. The House Republicans have adamantly refused-- as recently as Tuesday, the day before the mass murder in San Bernardino-- to even allow a debate and vote on keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists!

Yesterday, though, Harry Reid forced a vote in the Senate unjust that-- an amendment by Dianne Feinstein "to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists." Who would vote against that? Well, it failed 45-54, every Republican but vulnerable Illinois Republican Mark Kirk, voted against it, crossing the aisle in the other direction from the one extreme right-wing Democrat, Heidi Heitkamp (ND), who voted with the NRA, the terrorists and the Republicans. Even NRA-friendly Joe Manchin (D-WV) voted for this amendment!

After the vote, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) put out a statement to his supporters:

Here is the very sad truth: it is very difficult for the American people to keep up with the mass shootings we seem to see every day in the news. Yesterday, San Bernardino. Last week, Colorado Springs. Last month, Colorado Springs again. Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Isla Vista, Virginia Tech, Navy Yard, Roseburg, and far too many others.

The crisis of gun violence has reached epidemic levels in this country to the point that we are averaging more than one mass shooting per day. Now, I am going to tell you something that most candidates wouldn’t say: I am not sure there is a magical answer to how we end gun violence in America. But I do know that while thoughts and prayers are important, they are insufficient and it is long past time for action.

That’s why I want to talk to you today about a few concrete actions we should take as a country that will save lives.

1. We can expand background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. This is an idea that over 80% of Americans agree with, even a majority of gun owners.

2. & 3. We can renew the assault weapons ban and end the sale of high capacity magazines-- military-style tools created for the purpose of killing people as efficiently as possible.

4. Since 2004, over 2,000 people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list have legally purchased guns in the United States. Let’s close the “terror gap” and make sure known foreign and domestic terrorists are included on prohibited purchaser lists.

5. We can close loopholes in our laws that allow perpetrators of stalking and dating violence to buy guns. In the United States, the intended targets of a majority of our mass shootings are intimate partners or family members, and over 60% of victims are women and children. Indeed, a woman is five times more likely to die in a domestic violence incident when a gun is present.

6. We should close the loophole that allows prohibited purchasers to buy a gun without a completed background check after a three-day waiting period expires. Earlier this year, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine of our fellow Americans while they prayed in a historic church, simply because of the color of their skin. This act of terror was possible because of loopholes in our background check laws. Congress should act to ensure the standard for ALL gun purchases is a completed background check. No check-- no sale.

7. It’s time to pass federal gun trafficking laws. I support Kirsten Gillibrand’s Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking & Crime Prevention Act of 2015, which would “make gun trafficking a federal crime and provide tools to law enforcement to get illegal guns off the streets and away from criminal networks and street gangs.”

8. It’s time to strengthen penalties for straw purchasers who buy guns from licensed dealers on behalf of a prohibited purchaser.

9. We must authorize resources for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study and research the causes and effects of gun violence in the United States of America.

10. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are over 21,000 firearm suicides every year in the United States. It’s time we expand and improve our mental health capabilities in this country so that people who need care can get care when they need it, regardless of their level of income.

Earlier today, the U.S. Senate voted against non-binding legislation to expand background checks, close the “terror gap,” and improve our mental health systems. I voted for all three, although each of them came up short.

They failed for the same reason the bipartisan Manchin-Toomey legislation failed in 2013, just months after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School: because of the financial political power of a gun lobby that has bought candidates and elections for the better part of the last several decades.

In 2014 alone, the gun lobby spent over $30 million on political advertising and lobbying to influence legislators in Congress and state capitals across the country. And just last month, it was reported that the Koch brothers made a $5 million contribution to the NRA.

Americans of all political stripes agree. It's time to address the all too common scene of our neighbors being killed. It's time to pass a common sense package of gun safety legislation.

With your help, that's what we’ll do when I’m president.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

Are you in solidarity? You can help Bernie's grassroots campaign here. Any Bernie is hardly the only Blue America-endorsed candidate fed up with refusal of the Republicans and their conservaDem allies to deal with the orgy of gun mayhem in our country. I'd say Illinois state Senator Mike Noland, running for the seat west of Chicago that Tammy Duckworth is giving up, is speaking for all of our congressional candidates when he explained why Members of Congress saying they're praying for the victims just isn't enough. "I do offer my prayers and thoughts for the victims and their families," he told his supporters. "However, we must do more than pray and think, we as a society must come together to act. I am running for Congress because I have lead and I am ready to lead further on this issue. In our world it is all too common to turn on the news to see coverage of another mass shooting while hearing about another tragic gun related homicide of a teenager in Chicago, or the accidental death of a toddler who discovered her parent's gun. And this just breaks my heart. For the past 20 years I've been advocating for common sense gun safety reforms, there is no excuse for Congress to continue to be afraid to stand up to the NRA. When I go to Congress I pledge to: 

• Support stricter laws to address gun trafficking. One of the major issues we see with gun violence involves illegal guns that come from states with less stringent laws.
• Fight for increased funding to help those affected by mental illnesses and to teach anger management in our schools. This funding will help ensure that those who need help can receive it and will help keep them and their loved ones safe.
• Advocate for a national background check program which will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

"I am tired of hearing about school lock downs, mass shootings, and children dying in the streets," he concluded. "Nothing will change until Congress has new leaders ready to fight the NRA."

UPDATE: NY Times Against Gun Massacres

For the first time since 1920, the NY Times has run an editorial on the front page: End The Gun Epidemic In America. You should read the whole thing. Here's my favorite part, though:

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

...[P]oliticians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically-- eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

Vetting Terrified Syrian Refugees

There's a sickening rush by cowardly/opportunistic politicians to demonize refugees-- fleeing for their lives from these ISIS monsters-- as, in Trump's words, "Trojan Horses" who will come here and murder us. Conservative governors-- mostly Republicans but putrid New Hampshire conservaDem Maggie Hassan as well-- have bravely barred refugees their states, which they have no power to do, while the presidential demagogues-- virtually all of them-- try to out-do each other on their ugly xenophobia. Dr. Ben claims it's impossible to vet them all, as false as any standard pronouncement from Dr. Ben. Trump, who now wants to shut down mosques in America, claims the 10,000 refugees President Obama wants to resettle here are actually "hundreds of thousands"-- no one can lie more grandly than Trump (what page is that on in the Art of the Deal?) and Ted Cruz, the child of immigrants (and, actually an immigrant himself who didn't get rid of his dual-citizen status until a few months ago), has already started writing legislation to reject immigrants. I know he's enmeshed in a fight with Rubio over who's more anti-immigrant and pro-domestic spying, but hope there's no clause in it to send the Statue of Liberty back to France.

Cruz, who has said that the United States should not allow Syrian Muslim refugees into the country but should provide safe haven to fleeing Christians, plans to introduce legislation that would bar Syrian refugees from entering the country... Cruz told CNN that it would bar Syrian Muslim refugees from entering the United States.

Jeb Bush has the same disgusting position as Cruz, to allow Christians in but not Muslims. And Texas GOP congressional sociopath, Bruce Babin just wants to ban everyone. Maybe he wants to be a GOP VP contender. Even Rand Paul, who usually has the sense to stay clear of this kind of bullshit and demagoguery over foreign policy, has waded right into it, introducing legislation to block visas for Syrian refugees.

Monday night Chris Hayes had Eleanor Acer, senior director of Refugee Protection at Human Rights First, as a guest on his show. The interview is on the video up top. Too bad Fox and the other TV stations practicing the kind of yellow journalism that would have made William Randolph Hurst proud, didn't invite her as well. No doubt Peter King is more up their alley. You can watch his appearance on Morning Joe here:



King represents a part of Long Island where I grew up, an area filled with the descendants of Jewish refugees from war-torn Europe, many of whose antecedents were fleeing genocidal Nazis in Germany and genocidal Czars in Russia. And many, if not most of whom, had family members who were turned away by... bigoted, self-serving politicians like Peter King, Maggie Hassan and the now nearly 30 shameful conservative governors, empowered by... the same kind of public opinion then that has been created to drive this now. This comes from an issue of Fortune Magazine in 1938:

There have been 750,000 refugees resettled in the U.S. since 9/11. Guess how many of them turned out to be terrorists? Despite a barrage of lies by slime-buckets like Peter King and Donald Trump, not a single one. (Suggestion: help get rid of Peter King by supporting progressive Suffolk County legislator DuWayne Gregory; you can do it here.) Two-thirds of Americans polled just after Kristallnacht opposed taking in 10,000 German Jewish refugee children. They were not just the Trumps, Huckabees, Cruzes, Vitters, Carsons, Bushes, Hassans, Christies, Kasichs, Brownbacks, Feinsteins, Kings. Do you believe in God? He was watching, weeping...

In Tennessee-- a state with more than a few problems the Republican Party vision has caused, or made worse-- the chairman of the House Republican Caucus, Glen Casada, said "We need to activate the Tennessee National Guard and stop them from coming in to the state by whatever means we can... I’m not worried about what a bureaucrat in D.C. or an unelected judge thinks... We need to gather (Syrian refugees) up and politely take them back to the ICE center and say, 'They’re not coming to Tennessee, they’re yours.'" The Public Religion Research Institute has a new poll out this week shows Islamophobia has been getting stronger in America, even before the Paris attacks, obviously among Republicans in a big way but even among Democrats.

Trump supporters are much more likely to express negative views of immigrants than the supporters of other candidates. Eight in ten (80%) Trump supporters say that immigrants today are a burden to the U.S. because they take American jobs, housing, and health care. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Trump supporters say that it bothers them when they come into contact with immigrants who speak little or no English. Supporters of other Republican candidates also view immigrants negatively, but somewhat less so—a majority (56%) say that immigrants are a burden on the U.S. due to their economic impact and a similar number (58%) report that coming into contact with immigrants who do not speak English bothers them.

Chicken/egg situation? Are the politicians leading the public down the rabbit hole of fear, hatred and bigotry or are the politicians just following along the mob, maybe trying to get in front of it? Michael Gerson had a good OpEd at the Washington Post yesterday talking about the consequences of having a political elite as craven as our own.

All our efforts are undermined by declaring Islam itself to be the enemy, and by treating Muslims in the United States, or Muslims in Europe, or Muslims fleeing Islamic State oppression, as a class of suspicious potential jihadists. Instead of blaming refugees, we need to make sure our counterterrorism and intelligence policies give us a chance to screen and stop any threat (which means keeping the post-9/11 structures of surveillance in place). But if U.S. politicians define Islam as the problem and cast aspersions on Muslim populations in the West, they are feeding the Islamic State narrative. They are materially undermining the war against terrorism and complicating the United States’ (already complicated) task in the Middle East. Rejecting a blanket condemnation of Islam is not a matter of political correctness. It is the requirement of an effective war against terrorism, which means an effective war against the terrorist kingdom in Syria and western Iraq.

Let me leave you with five voices-- there are plenty of others, of course-- of sanity during this panicky situation, even above and beyond the principled stand President Obama has taken. Bernie, early yesterday: "I am disturbed by some of what I am hearing from my Republican colleagues, and I will just say this: During these difficult times, as Americans we will not succumb to racism. We will not allow ourselves to be divided and succumb to Islamophobia,” Sanders said. “We will not turn our backs on the refugees."

And Colin Van Ostern, the progressive running to succeed that horrible Maggie Hassan as governor of New Hampshire took a bold, courageous step in standing up to the knee-jerk tendency political cowards have to just give in to the terrorists (like all the Republicans and certain types of Democrats like Dianne Feinstein, Tulsi Gabbard and New Hampshire's own Maggie Hassan. This, in part, is the statement he made to New Hampshire voters yesterday:

As Governor, keeping the people of New Hampshire safe will always be my highest priority.

Six days ago-- 48 hours before the terrorism in Paris-- I stood in a Manchester living room taking questions at a house party, and a young student asked me whether I support allowing Syrian refugees into the United States.

My answer was straightforward: offering safe refuge to those fleeing oppression is part of what it means to be an American. When carried out carefully with deep, extensive security screenings that protect our homeland without banning an entire religion or nationality, we are a stronger nation because of it. It’s why the Statue of Liberty holds her torch high in the night, as a beacon of hope.

ISIS tried to extinguish that hope Friday night in Paris. Make no mistake: this terrorist organization wants the world to hate and fear the refugees they are driving from their homes in Syria.

The best way to protect the security and liberty of the people of New Hampshire is through expanding the extensive person-by-person security and safety screening process that the United States requires today for every refugee-- not by adopting a new blanket ban against one nationality or religion that plays into the hands of the ISIS terrorists while giving us a false sense of security.

As Senator Shaheen has pointed out, our nation’s deep asylum vetting process can sometimes take up to two years-- much different than some European nations that are struggling with overwhelmed borders and inadequate screening of refugees today. This is a complex threat-- in many cases, carried out by various terrorists who are nationals of friendly and dangerous nations alike. It requires complex, thorough, and thoughtful safety and security measures – as well as an assertive campaign to end a global threat that has clearly not been contained.

The progressive running to replace Tammy Duckworth in IL-08, state Senator Mike Noland was mortified that Illinois' governor, Bruce Rauner, announced that he would try to stop Syrian refugees from finding shelter in Illinois. "I was beyond disappointed to learn that Governor Rauner is trying to close Illinois to refugees from the crisis in Syria.These refugees are simply fleeing a war torn homeland seeking a better life for themselves and their children. God forbid they should also have the opportunity to live the American Dream. Governor Rauner's decision is shortsighted. He is letting fear, xenophobia, and Islamphobia cloud his judgement while trying to score cheap political points oblivious to the long term consequences of his actions. This is an opportunity for our state and our people to show compassion and to offer hope to those facing some of the harshest conditions in the world. I hope that the Governor will reconsider this and decide to govern with hope instead of fear." And this is what Elizabeth Warren had to say yesterday on the Senate floor. The second half is especially electrifying. It's a lot different than what that hideous embarrassment-of-a-Democrat Chuck Schumer said yesterday:



Donna Edwards, the progressive Maryland congresswoman, running for her state's open Senate seat, was not pleased when Maryland's Republican governor, Larry Hogan, right out of the hospital after cancer treatment (but without the heightened sense of empathy that kind of brush with death usually leaves people), told Obama he didn't want any Syrian refugees in his state. "Governor Hogan’s refusal to resettle Syrian refugees fleeing from violence," said Donna, "is against the values we hold dear as Marylanders and as Americans. Throughout our history, we have opened our doors to those fleeing war and political persecution. We are a nation of immigrants, as more than 12 million immigrants passed through Ellis Island’s doors between 1892 - 1954. At the end of the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of refugees attempted to flee Southeast Asia and the United States accepted and resettled more than 800,000 of them. And since 1980, we have resettled millions of refugees, including well over 1 million from the Middle East, and there has not been a single recorded terrorist attack in the U.S. committed by refugees.

"In the 18th and 19th centuries, Baltimore helped resettle refugees fleeing the French-Indian War and the French and Haitian Revolutions. And during the Second World War, even though six out of ten Americans opposed resettling Jewish refugees fleeing concentration camps, our political leaders found the will to do what was right. Our country and state were stronger for it then, and are stronger for it now.

"Governor Hogan should draw from our history, and summon the will to open our state’s doors once more to those in search of safety and peace."

And in answer to the hypocrites and bigots like Cruz and Huckabee claiming that Christians should be admitted but not Muslims or Jews, let's wander back to the early 1960s when many of these politicians were children and listen to a Bob Dylan ditty of the day that talked about what happens to people when they think their version of God is on their side.

Republicans Talked Business At The Business Debate On Fox's Business Channel

Yesterday we looked at how the Republican presidential contenders dealt with the issue of immigration in their latest debate. The other two big take-aways from the debate were in regard to the minimum wage and to health care/insurance. It's a shame the intimidated/on best behavior and biased Fox anchors didn't have what it takes to draw out of the candidates their philosophical approaches to the entire concept of a minimum wage and to social insurance policies like Medicare and Social Security. [Perhaps someone could have had noted Ayn Rand scholar, Paul Ryan, who was in the audience, stand up and state the official-- if publicly downplayed-- Republican Party position.] Still a lot of what the candidates did have to say gave us a glimpse at the reactionary 19th Century dystopic vision of society most of them share.

The first question came from Neil Cavuto: "As as we gather tonight, just outside, and across the country, picketers are gathering as well. They’re demanding an immediate hike in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Just a few hours ago, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed doing the same for all state workers, the first governor to do so... Are you sympathetic to the protesters' caused? Hereditary billionaire-- who claims his pappy only gave him a measly million dollars to start-- stated that he's not sympathetic and that American workers already earn too much money. No, he really said that. Listen:



Then-- boom, as if the moderators needed something for PolitiFact to do-- they turned right to Dr. Ben for the night's first big tall-tale, which he was happy to provide: "Every time we raise the minimum wage, the number of jobless people increases." This is a standard-- and ancient-- right-wing trope that has long ago been proven false but that is endlessly repeated on Hate Talk Radio and Fox News. PolitiFact was quick to respond:

[J]oblessness rose after a minimum-wage hike more than half the time-- seven out of 11 occasions-- but fell four times. Since joblessness fell some of the time, it means that Carson’s sweeping claim-- that joblessness rises "every time" the minimum wage goes up is off-base.

But there’s another factor that casts additional doubt on his assertion.

As it happened, there was a recession under way during six of the 11 periods we studied. During each of those periods, joblessness rose after the minimum wage went up. This is not surprising-- but it does cast into doubt the cause and effect behind the rise in joblessness. The impact of a recession does, at the very least, raise questions about whether a minimum wage hike in and of itself caused joblessness.

If you look instead at the five wage hikes that occurred when a recovery was under way, joblessness declined four of those times. The only exception was the 1991 wage hike, which took effect soon after a recovery began.

Finally, we should note that economists are split over what effect a minimum wage hike has on job growth. There’s some research that shows raising the minimum wage negatively impacts job growth, and a lot that shows it has an insignificant effect.

Our ruling

Carson said, "Every time we raise the minimum wage, the number of jobless people increases."

If you look at the 12-month period following every minimum-wage hike since 1978, joblessness did rise on seven occasions, but it fell on four occasions, undercutting his sweeping claim. In addition, it’s not at all clear that a minimum-wage hike was the primary culprit for the periods in which joblessness rose, since those periods also coincided with broader recessions in the economy.

We rate his claim False.

It's also worth mentioning that even Carson himself appears to be conflicted over raising the minimum wage. In May, he recorded an interview with NBC's John Harwood during which he said the minimum wage "probably" should be raised. And then there was Florida's AWOL junior senator, Marco Rubio, the tap dancer. He told the audience that if he "thought that raising the minimum wage was the best way to help people increase their pay, I would be all for it, but it isn’t. In the 21st century, it’s a disaster." Using an argument that's been around as long as the first proposals for a minimum wage, the young reactionary claimed that "If you raise the minimum wage, you're going to make people more expensive than machines. That means all the automation that is replacing jobs and people right now will be accelerated."

Poor Jeb, now a third tier candidate, kept quiet on this one, but back in March told South Carolina Republicans that he thought the minimum wage should be left to the states and not the federal government. He used the same scare tactics about automation that Rubio used.

Fiorina got the ball rolling by by calling for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, something all of the Republicans say they agree with, which amounts to cutting off access to quality affordable health care for something like 18 million Americans, as well as denying health insurance coverage for preexisting conditions and for preventive care services. Fiorina, universally considered one of the worst failures as a CEO in business history, insisted that Obamacare is a failure. One of the worst of the GOP liars, she may be a flawed spokesperson but last night she was just another loud voice braying the same message-- for which PolitiFact didn't just give her a False grade but yet another Pants on Fire. The truth of the matter, of course, is contrary to what Firoina and her tribe had to say. The Affordable Care Act has made health care more accessible-- the country's uninsured rate has fallen below 10% for the first time since the early 1970s-- and has lowered the uninsured rate, while drastically reducing the rate of increase in health care spending, even with concerted sabotage from Republican governors and legislatures in many states. So listen to some trademarked Fiorina Menacity:



Although I'm not sure how she's trying to differentiate between "drugs companies" and "pharmaceutical companies," one is expected to walk away persuaded that the pharmaceutical and insurance companies are paying off the Democrats. She's partially correct. Both industries give a good deal of money to Democrats, overwhelmingly corrupt, conservative Democrats-- New Dems and Blue Dogs primarily-- from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. But neither industry gives nearly as much to the Democrats as they give to their Republican Party handmaidens. These charts just represent legal bribes Pharma and Insurance have given to congressional Republicans and congressional Democrats. First the charts that show what has been given since 1990 and then the charts that show what has been given just this election cycle so far:

Also worth mentioning-- neither the Insurance Industry nor the Pharmaceutical Industry are among the top 10 contributors to Hillary's campaign or to Bernie's campaign or to Martin O'Malley's campaign. Different story among Republicans. The Insurance Industry is the 14th biggest source of contributions for Jeb, 15th for Cruz, 9th for Carson, 17th for Rubio, 13th for Rand Paul, 7th for Huckabee, 12th for Trump, 12th for Kasich, 12th for Santorum and 15th for Fiorina herself. When she ran her disastrous 2010 Senate campaign she took $250,264 from the insurance company, her 11th biggest source of contributions. The biggest recipient of Insurance contributions so far this cycle has been John Boehner (R-OH) with $301,300/$2,455,364 since 1990 and the biggest recipient of pharmaceutical industry contributions so far this cycle has been Richard Burr (R-NC) with $168,432/$1,254,013 since 1990, a member of the Finance Committee's subcommittee on Health Care and a member of the Health Committee's subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, two positions from which he works to implement the pharmaceutical industry's agenda.



State Senators Mike Noland (D-IL) and Ruben Kihuen (D-NV) are two of the most accomplished progressives in their state's legislatures. To put it mildly, they don't view these issues in the same way the Republicans do. Ruben is running for the seat currently held by anti-minimum wage Republican, Cresent Hardy. Take a look at the video he sent us today, just above. Mike is running for an open, blue-leaning congressional seat west of Chicago now, the one Tammy Duckworth is giving up, and his interests have always revolved around supporting the legitimate interests of the area's working families. After Tuesday's debate he told us that "While our economy improves, income inequality in America continues to worsen. Real wages, and so the average household income of average Americans, continues to decline. The best way to bridge the gap between rich and poor in America is by increasing pay for low-wage workers. Creating a stronger minimum wage will increase consumer spending mostly to the benefit of local small businesses, the backbone of our economy. Moreover, we should index the minimum wage to inflation, so that real wages, and so America’s buying power, does not continue to fall in real value every year. This will help stabilize both earning and spending and so our overall economy. In the end, raising the minimum wage is good for our national and state economies, local businesses and, most importantly, working families. It is an essential component of any rational plan for continued economic recovery in the United States. I support it." We need more men and women with Mike's and Ruben's perspective in Congress. If you'd like to help their grassroots campaigns, you can do that right here, while you watch the Cruz/Fiorina team do their crazy, ugly little dance.

2016 Republican ticket

How Do You Prevent Republican Majorities In The House And Senate From Cutting Social Security Benefits?

As we've been discussing for the last month or so-- and despite the indisputable fact that real costs the seniors have to spend (housing, medical, food...) have been rising-- next year will see no Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Social Security beneficiaries. Progressives in Congress-- as opposed to Republicans or Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (the New Dems and Blue Dogs)-- are furious that seniors are being kicked to the curb. Elizabeth Warren in the Senate and Alan Grayson in the House are introducing legislation to increase income for seniors and disabled veterans-- ending tax subsidies for million-dollar corporate bonuses to give 70 million Americans emergency relief. Warren's bill-- with a host of co-sponsors like Bernie Sanders, Tammy Baldwin, Jeff Merkley, Ed Markey, Al Franken and Mazie Hirono-- is meant to provide an emergency payment of 3.9% (around $580) for 2016 to all Americans who receive Social Security, SSI and veterans benefits, while fully covering the costs by closing corporate compensation loopholes. The Act would close the "performance pay" loophole that costs taxpayers billions annually in tax subsidies for runaway corporate executive compensation packages. This idea has bipartisan support, and is based on the House Republican Ways and Means Committee Chairman’s 2014 tax reform proposal. 


A $581 increase could cover almost three months of groceries for seniors or a year's worth of out-of-pocket costs on critical prescription drugs for the average Medicare beneficiary. The bill would lift more than 1 million Americans out of poverty.

..."If we do nothing, on January 1st, more than 70 million seniors, veterans, and other Americans won't get an extra dime in much-needed Social Security and other benefits. And while Congress sits on its hands and pretends that there's nothing we can do, taxpayers will keep right on subsidizing billions of dollars' worth of bonuses for highly paid CEOs," Senator Warren said. "Giving seniors a little help with their Social Security and stitching up corporate tax write-offs isn't just about economics; it's about our values. Congress should pass the SAVE Benefits Act today to give a boost to millions of Americans who have earned it."

Bernie Sanders, one of the most outspoken cosponsors said that "It is unacceptable that millions of senior citizens and disabled veterans did not receive a cost-of-living adjustment this year to keep up with their rising living expenses. At a time when senior poverty is going up and more than two-thirds of the elderly population rely on Social Security for more than half of their income, our job must be to expand, not cut, Social Security. At the very least, we must do everything we can to make sure that every senior citizen and disabled veteran in this country receives a fair cost-of-living adjustment to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs and health care."

Even if this bill gets through the Senate, Grayson's companion bill in the House will be much more difficult, despite the fact that Grayson has managed to pass more legislation through the Republican-controlled House than any other Democrat. As Robert Costa and Ed O'Keefe reported in the Washington Post yesterday, House Republicans are feuding among themselves about how to approach Social Security and Medicare-- with the extremists wanting to force even worse changes than cutting out the 2016 COLA, while more mainstream Republicans petrified that in non-Confederate states and in less gerrymandered districts, harming Social Security or Medicare could be career-ending.

The rift was exemplified this week by the biggest GOP stars of the moment. Newly installed House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said he plans to pursue a “bold alternative agenda” that would include major revisions in entitlements. At the same time, leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump railed against proposals to end or significantly change Medicare.

The dispute is part of a larger GOP argument over which policies Republicans will present to voters next year and how far the party should go in pushing for changes. Three years ago, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and Ryan, his running mate, faced withering Democratic attacks after endorsing dramatic overhauls of Medicare and Social Security that proved unpopular.

...For years, Ryan has embraced proposals that would privatize parts of Social Security, slash Medicaid and convert Medicare to a voucher-based program. His vow to try again as House speaker quickly earned the attention of top Democrats, who are eager to revive attacks they’ve used against Ryan and other Republicans in the past.

...Trump and other populist contenders, including former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, have disputed the need for drastic changes and have warned against riling the seniors who have become a crucial voting bloc. This week, Trump attacked emerging front-runner Ben Carson-- his main GOP rival-- for advocating sweeping changes to Medicare.

“Ben wants to get rid of Medicare,” Trump said during a news conference at Trump Tower in New York on Tuesday. “You can’t get rid of Medicare. It’d be a horrible thing to get rid of. It actually works. You get rid of the fraud, waste and abuse-- it works.”

...Trump has shrugged off Ryan’s proposals as political missteps. “He’s been so anti-Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, in a sense,” Trump said of Ryan last month on CBS’s Face the Nation. “Now, he would say he hasn’t been, but [Democrats] certainly played that up hard” in the 2012 race.

It's issues like this that animates Blue America and other progressive support groups into action. We need more progressives in the House to stand with men and women like Grayson, Donna Edwards, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Barbara Lee, Mark Pocan, Jerry Nadler, Jan Schakowsky, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Ted Lieu, Ruben Gallego and Judy Chu, not more Wall Street shills from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the Blue Dogs and New Dems who vote with the Republicans-- like Patrick Murphy (FL), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Jim Costa (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Scott Peters (CA), Collin Peterson (MN), Ami Bera (CA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Donald Norcross (NJ), Pete Aguilar (CA), Brad Ashford (NE), Cheri Bustos (IL) and Gwen Graham (FL). Unfortunately, almost none of these conservaDems are facing primaries. One who is though is Donald Norcross in south Jersey. His progressive opponent, Alex Law, didn't hesitate for second when we asked him his reaction to the proposal. "Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren," he said, "are two of the leaders in Congress I look up to the most. As a progressive, Bernie Sanders supporter, and candidate for Congress I whole heartedly support this bill. Closing corporate loopholes to help real people in need is something that our government needs to do. When I get to Congress, I look forward to lending my voice and vote towards initiatives like this."

Eric Kingson is the progressive running for the congressional seat centered in Syracuse. The founder of Social Security Works, he told us that "Elizabeth Warren's 'Seniors And Veterans Emergency (SAVE) Benefits Act' is good policy and good politics. Senators will not be able to hide from it. They will need to declare whether they are on the side of 70 million Americans who receive modest Social Security, Veterans and SSI benefits. Or on the side of over-compensated CEOs."

State Senator Mike Noland is running for the northern Illinois seat Tammy Duckworth is giving up west of Chicago. He's extremely excited about the bill Elizabeth Warren wrote. Here's what he told us: "Dedicated public servants like Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken and Alan Grayson should be an inspiration for all of us. They aren't lining up for handouts from Wall Street banks for their re-election campaigns. They are looking out for the most vulnerable among us: Seniors who have worked their whole lives and disabled vets who have given so much to protect the rest of us. Here in Illinois there are so many people who depend on the Social Security benefits they've rightly earned. As congressman from the 8th Congressional District, I will never vote to cut the benefits of working men and women. Rather, I vow, not promise, but vow, to strengthen and expand them. These are our parents and grandparents. We should honor them by ensuring that in the twilight of their years they will live lives of dignity."

Pat Murphy is the progressive former Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives, running for the northeast Iowa district currently held by Freedom Caucus/Tea Party extremist Rod Blum. Pat is excited about the twin bills Senator Warren and Rep. Grayson are introducing. "This is what Congress should be doing. Making sure that seniors, veterans, and the disabled receive an increase when many on Social Security are getting notices of increased rates from their insurance companies on Medicare Part B. This is not just fair, it is the right thing to do. Funding this by closing corporate loopholes shows Democrats are fiscally responsible while trying to make the tax system more fair."

Blue America's newest endorsed candidate, DuWayne Gregory on Long Island, is running for the Nassau/Suffolk seat on the south shore that Peter King occupies. He told us that "We owe a great debt to our veterans and our seniors for their contributions to our country. They have fought for our freedom, raised a generation, and laid the foundation of our economy. I commend Senator Warren for her fiscally-responsible legislation that will help our parents and grandparents keep up with the ever-increasing cost-of-living. Fulfilling our nation's promise to them is the least we can do."

All the grassroots campaigns of the Blue America candidates ready and eager to go in and make sure conservatives-- from whichever party-- do not cut Social Security and Medicare benefits can be found on this page.

Between Crackpot Republicans, Sold-Out Democrats And Lobbyists, Does Our Species Even Have A Chance?

This week Hart Research released polling on how millennials in battleground states feel about the climate-change debate. Short version: Bye-bye, Ron Johnson, Rob Portman and Pat Toomey. "[T]oday’s Millennials accept the established science around climate change and see it as a serious problem and a threat."

What is more, they are looking for a presidential candidate with a forward-looking vision to solving our country’s toughest economic problems--presenting clear potential for a candidate who has a bold plan around expanding clean, renewable energy to heighten their enthusiasm and capture their vote.

Our research indicates that large majorities of swing-state Millennials accept the science of climate change and recognize that it is a threat, with 78% saying it is a serious problem, including 92% of Democrats, 80% of independents, and a 59% majority of Republicans. Three-fifths (60%) of these young adults recognize that human activity is a major cause of the problem.

Millennials are looking for a bold solution to climate change and are solidly behind plans to expand clean energy in the United States. The overwhelming majority (73%) is favorable to setting a goal to power America with at least 50% clean energy by the year 2030 (including 52% who are very favorable). Furthermore, they see direct economic benefits to setting this goal. Sixty eight percent (68%) of Millennials believe that setting this clean energy goal would have a positive effect on America’s economy overall (only 10% think it would have a negative effect) and 68% say the same about jobs.

Creating jobs for the next century is a top priority for Millennials and offers a potential connection to expanding clean energy jobs. When presented with a list of various priorities a candidate for president might express, wants to make America a leader in creating jobs for the next century emerges as most important to these Millennials, with 82% saying this is very important to them personally (ratings of seven to 10 on a zero-to-10 scale). Millennials are also strongly supportive of proposals with an explicit connection to clean energy jobs. We found that expanding clean, renewable energy technology and creating more clean-energy jobs is an effective way to connect the problem of climate change with the more idealistic, optimistic goal of spurring the economy and creating good-paying jobs for the next generation of Americans. Expanding clean energy is seen as a multi- faceted solution: it will create jobs, grow our economy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while still addressing the problem of climate change. Participants throughout our focus groups also were able to envision a wide array of what “clean energy jobs” might look like-- from manual labor, to engineering and design, to sales and marketing-- indicating a belief that these jobs will benefit Americans across socioeconomic lines and be a driver of middle-class opportunity.

In fact, of several climate-related messages we tested, the idea that combating climate change will create the jobs of the future, spur innovation and investments in clean energy, and put young people to work in good-paying jobs tested among the top-tier, with two-thirds (66%) of Millennials in battleground states saying this was a strong reason (ratings of seven to 10 on a zero-to-10 scale) why climate should be an important issue in the upcoming presidential election. This includes large majorities of Democrats (79%) and independents (61%), as well as more than half (52%) of Republicans-- the only climate message to surpass the 50% threshold among the latter group. Even battleground Millennials who express only muted enthusiasm about the 2016 election respond very positively to this message: 59% of the least enthusiastic group say it is very important to them, as do 63% of those who are only fairly likely to vote next year-- the top-testing climate message for both of these groups.

...It is clear from our research not only that Millennials accept the science of climate change, but that a candidate who does not is at a disadvantage. We heard throughout our conversations with swing-state Millennials that climate denial is associated with stubborn or backward-looking thinking. And in our survey, 70% of Millennials say they would have major concerns (45% very major concerns) about a Republican candidate who disagrees with NASA, the US Military, and 97% of climate scientists that human activity is responsible for climate change, including 69% of independents and half (50%) of self-identified Republicans.

The Koch brothers, specifically, are viewed by Millennials in a very unfavorable light, especially when attached to a short identifier explaining who they are. At the outset, Millennials view the Koch brothers negatively by 19 points (8% positive, 27% negative), and a 55% majority know who they are. And after reading a description of a hypothetical candidate who is backed by the Koch brothers, the big oil billionaires who have a long record of environmental violations, who, along with their network of wealthy conservatives, have pledged to spend almost a billion dollars on the presidential election, 72% of Millennials (including 74% of independents) say they would have major concerns about supporting that candidate, with 47% saying they would have very major concerns. What is more, 74% of Millennials would have major concerns about a candidate who has close ties to the oil industry and supports tax breaks for oil companies, including more than half (52%) of Republicans-- reflecting the broader distaste Millennials have for the industry.

Expanding clean energy is extremely popular among Millennials who are already active on energy and environmental issues, and they can thus can be used to serve as “boots on the ground” to stoke engagement among their age group. Among Millennials who demonstrated an interest in energy and the environment via their Facebook activity, a whopping 84% say that expanding renewables and creating clean-energy jobs is an extremely important priority for them (ratings of nine to 10 on a zero-to-10 scale)-- by far the top-testing issue among this group-- along with 71% of those respondents who have already interacted with NextGen Climate by pledging to become “climate action voters.” And when presented with a list of various issue positions a candidate might take and asked which two or three would be most important when casting their ballot, both groups of “activists” are most likely to choose expanding renewable energy-- edging out not only unrelated issues such as student debt and equal pay, but also reducing carbon pollution, having a strong environmental record, and making corporate polluters pay.

What got me going on this was some bad news from the California legislature, where Democrats are ostensibly in charge, but where lobbyists with fat wallets exercise huge clout-- clout they are using to gut the historic legislation progressives have been working on to combat climate change. SB350, which aimed for a 50% reduction in petroleum use by 2030 and already passed the state Senate, fell victim to lobbyists and the bribe-hungry legislators they control.

California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, who authored the legislation, said Wednesday that a major lobbying campaign by the oil industry was largely to blame for the doubt that had emerged over the bill. “The fact that, despite overwhelming scientific opinion and statewide public support, we still weren’t able to overcome the silly-season scare tactics of an outside industry which has repeatedly opposed environmental progress and energy innovation-- means that there’s a temporary disconnect in our politics which needs to be overcome,” de León said.

The oil industry has poured money into a campaign against SB 350, calling the legislation the “California Gas Restriction Act of 2015″ and warning that it could lead to bans on SUVs.

SB 350 is “an attempt to essentially put oil companies out of business,” Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, said in August.

De León has maintained that none of the oil industry’s claims are true. Still, SB 350 had come up against a wall of moderate Democrats in recent weeks. In late August, about 20 Assembly Democrats met with Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, saying they were worried that SB 350 isn’t clear enough on how it will affect motorists. These Democratic holdouts could have meant the end for the bill during this legislative session.

Taking out the petroleum measure was meant to be a concession to these moderate Democrats-- and it seems to have worked, at least on one. Henry T. Perea, a moderate Democrat who had led the opposition to the petroleum measure, told the New York Times that he would now support SB 350.

“S.B. 350 will set California apart as a leader in climate change policy and will go a long way in reducing emissions in areas like the Central Valley that suffer from some of the worst air quality in the nation,” he said.

Gov. Jerry Brown also said Wednesday that he wouldn’t let the oil industry get in the way of his efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in California.

“Oil has won the skirmish, but they’ve lost the bigger battle,” he said. “Because I am more determined than ever to make our regulatory regime work for the people of California: cleaning up the air, reducing the petroleum and creating the green jobs that are going to put hundreds of thousands of people to work over the coming decades.”

SB 350 is expected to come to a vote before the end of the week. The bill is part of a larger climate package of 12 bills, some of which have already been voted on. SB 185, which prompted the state’s public employee investment funds to divest from coal, passed the Assembly last week, and is expected to be signed by the governor. Another bill, SB 32, which would have required the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, failed in the Assembly this week, though it may come up for another vote.

Meanwhile, reporter Chris Mooney, writing for the Washington Post, explained a new report from the Solar Energy Industries Association which shows American families and businesses aren't waiting for easily corrupted elected officials to get on the right path. The industry is hitting new growth levels this year.

Solar photovoltaic installations now exceed 20 gigawatts in capacity and could surpass an unprecedented 7 gigawatts this year alone across all segments. A gigawatt is equivalent to 1 billion watts and can power some 164,000 homes.

The second quarter of this year witnessed a new record-- a 70% year-over-year growth rate-- for residential solar installations. Last week when Obama was in Las Vegas to meet with the solar energy industry, he termed it "an age-old debate in America. It's a debate between the folks who say 'no, we can't,' and the folks who say, 'yes, we can.' "

The new GTM Research and Solar Energy Industries Association report suggests the "yes, we can" crowd is winning, finding that out of all new electricity installations in the U.S. in the first six months of this year, 40 percent were solar.

...U.S. solar photovoltaic is at 20 gigawatts of installed capacity now, and may add another 18 gigawatts by the end of next year. Overall, the growth boom is being fueled by a combination of declining costs, low interest rates, and a federal solar investment tax credit, the report suggests.

For comparison, according to the Department of Energy, the wind industry in the U.S. recently reached 66 gigawatts of installed capacity, with 13 more gigawatts expected to come online by the end of 2016. Overall, the U.S. had over 1000 gigawatts of electricity capacity installed as of the year 2012, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. So while still a minority of all electricity generation, wind and solar are, nonetheless, growing more and more significant on a national scale.

Still, there are storms ahead. The GTM Research and SEIA report points out that after 2016, if the solar investment tax credit is allowed to decline, the industry will face considerable uncertainty from 2017 to 2019 that could hampered growth. The situation is expected to then change again after 2020, as a key incentive program that’s part of the federal Clean Power Plan goes into effect, which will strongly favor solar and wind.

"If the solar investment tax credit is allowed to decline" means: if Republicans and Democratic sellouts run Congress, we're in big trouble. Which is all the more reason to elect progressives like the men and women Blue America has endorsed for Congress. All of our candidates are committed to seriously combatting global warming and fighting for rational environmental laws. No one gets on that list unless they are. Just yesterday our candidate in IL-08, just west of Chicago, state Senator Mike Noland, was rated a 100% Environmental Champion by the Illinois Environmental Council, one of only 16 state senators with that score. He's running against a crass corporate shill who will say anything and vote for whoever hands him the biggest... contribution.