Draft Donna Edwards-- Why It Matters

Yesterday, Blue America launched a Draft Donna Edwards Act Blue page and all Blue America members got this email from us:

Following in the footsteps of Senator Barbara Boxer earlier this year, the Dean of Senate women, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, announced this week that she will not run for re-election. For 38 years Senator Mikulski was a pathbreaker, having been "the first" in at so many things, perhaps most notably the first woman to chair the powerful Appropriations Committee. She has served her country well and will be missed.

Luckily, Maryland has a wonderful progressive congresswoman who would be the perfect candidate to carry on her legacy: Donna Edwards of the state's 4th congressional district. She needs no introduction to those of you who have been around progressive Netroots for a while.

For those of you who might not have been with us back in the day, let's just say that Donna isn't just a hard-working public servant with great progressive record, although she is that. And she isn't just brilliant on TV at articulating our philosophy with passion and skill, although she is that too. She is a giant slayer which she proved back in 2008 when she took down a powerful and corrupt Democratic party hack with a bold progressive message that impressed just about everybody who heard it. Her race was a template for the many Netroots primary races to come.

In fact, Donna was one of our first ever endorsees-- for the 2006 race she very narrowly lost. Here's Howie back in 2007, endorsing her for the re-match she won handily:

I have a dream. I don’t know how realistic it is, but it doesn’t seem completely crazy. My dream is that my country will elect a superb leader, one who is wise and sharp and compassionate and educated, who understands what America needs and works effectively towards those goals.  A few months ago I met Donna Edwards in Georgia. I had spoken to her many times on the phone but we had never met before. Of all the people I’ve talked to on behalf of Blue America, she’s the one who I am certain would best fulfill that dream.

And she has done just that. Donna has proven to be a stalwart progressive in the House with a perfect record on the issues. She has been a vocal leader and fighter for everything we care about. In fact, she has fulfilled Howie's expectation in every respect.

That's why we'd like to see Donna Edwards run for the Senate.

She has expressed no desire to do it at this point. And maybe she has other plans. But we'd like to try to persuade her to take up the challenge.

It would be a sad day indeed to see Barbara Mikulski's seat go to anyone less worthy.

We have started a "Draft Donna" Act Blue page to tell her just how important we think it is that she consider this run. We want her to know that just as we were there for her all the way in her hard-fought primaries back on 06 and 08, we will be there for her this time as well.

Donna is the Netroots promise in living color. She talked the talk and we backed her. We stuck with her when she hit a snag and worked hard to get her over the line in her winning race. And she fulfilled her promises every step of the way.

Now we'd like her to consider taking the next logical step. Let's let her know that if she does, we'll be there for her once again.

Senator Donna Edwards. It has a nice ring to it don't you think?

Blue America donors helped launch Donna's first campaign-- when she primaried corrupt conservative Democrat Al Wynn-- and we have felt a great sense of satisfaction to watch a talented and sincere political leader live up to our hopes and expectations. Her voting record-- consistently one of the top 10 most progressive in Congress-- speaks for itself. And so does her record of leadership. I want to remind you of something shared by another Blue America congressional candidate, Nate Shinagawa, about Donna some time ago and unrelated to this draft movement.

Progressives had high hopes that Nate would beat conservative Republican Tom Reed in a southern and central New York state congressional district in 2012. And he nearly did. But Nate was abandoned by then-DCCC chair Steve Israel and his right-of-center faction and narrowly missed out on an historic breakthrough. At the time, Nate spoke highly of Donna Edwards as a "values-driven leader" who worked tirelessly for his campaign despite DCCC disinterest. Nate:

I know first-hand how effective, inspiring and wise Congresswoman Edwards is. In 2012, I was the Democratic nominee for United States Congress in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. I ran as a progressive Democrat in a conservative, rural district against a Republican congressman who spent $2.4 million against me. Every pundit and campaign analyzer, from left to right, said our campaign didn’t stand a chance. The DCCC listened to the pundits and wrote us off. Despite that, we received 48% of the vote, making us one of the most competitive races in the nation and out-performing the vast majority of candidates that the DCCC prioritized as “Red to Blue.”

Throughout the campaign, we showed the DCCC that we could win. We hit our targets in field and finance. We had polling that showed the race was competitive. We were told that if we kept working hard, they’d come in and help us. The help from the DCCC organization never came. I remember how demoralized my staff and supporters were the final months of the campaign. We were like soldiers surrounded by enemy forces, assured that reinforcements would come, and realizing in our final moments that we’d be left behind.

Luckily, like a hero who does what’s right instead of what’s told, Congresswoman Donna Edwards came to our rescue. She not only endorsed the campaign. In the final month, she flew to Ithaca, NY, and rallied my supporters and staff. She gave us, and especially me, the morale boost needed to push onward. What made her visit especially powerful is that she is a leader within the DCCC. It was the little signal to our team that we had a fighting chance. Even though the DCCC as a whole ignored us, she took individual initiative to help us. After she came, there was an electric feeling of hope among my team. After months of being demoralized by the DCCC, she gave us the inspiration to continue the fight.

...What makes her unique, though, is her values. She’s compassionate, open-minded, and progressive. She knows how small investments in people can yield tremendous returns later on. She’s simultaneously strategic and tactical, caring and analytical. I believe she can change the course of... the Democratic Party. The American people today are like my campaign before her visit: increasingly demoralized and in need of hope. We need a rescue from a leader who has the heart, mind and soul to inspire change and lead us to victory. We need a progressive leader like Congresswoman Donna Edwards.

The race for Barbara Mikulski's Senate seat is likely to turn into a crowded primary that includes establishment figures like multimillionaire conservative John Delaney and Beltway insider Chris Van Hollen. If you'd like to help make sure the next senator from Maryland is a real progressive who fights for working families out of inner conviction, please consider making a contribution to Donna at the Blue America Draft Donna Edwards page. Remember, while Donna was fighting hard and smart to protect Social Security and Medicare from corporate predators, "progressive" Chris Van Hollen was strongly backing the Simpson-Bowles "compromise" that cut both programs and smacked of what eventually became a key element in Frank Underwood's vile AmWork initiative. Social Security Medicare and the social safety net are bargaining chips for career politicians like Van Hollen (and Underwood); it's experiential, existential life and death for a woman genuinely of the people, like Donna Edwards.

A Democratic House Candidate Relies On His Experience To Endorse Donna Edwards For DCCC Chair

You may remember Nate Shinagawa as one of Blue America's top candidates for Republican Tom Reed's NY-23 seat southern and central New York, which stretches from Jamestown to Elmira and up to Ithaca and Geneva. The PVI is R+3 but Obama won narrowly against McCain in 2008 and lost narrowly to Romney in 2012. That year, Nate was edged out by Reed 52-48%, after Reed spent $2,006,454 to Nate's $828,811. Over $750,000 in Independent Expenditures bolstered Reed while the DCCC didn't spend a nickel to help Nate. The night he lost, DCCC chairman Steve Israel, stunned by how close he had come, called and tried to recruit him for 2014. Nate demurred. Yesterday I asked him if he thought Donna Edwards would be able to help transform the DCCC if Nancy Pelosi were to give her the appointment. This was his response:

The Democratic Party is at a critical juncture after facing shocking losses in the 2014 elections. Should we continue the status quo by hoping that elections can be won with money and innocuous candidates? Or, do we recognize that the American people yearn for values-driven leaders who will not only raise money, but raise up the spirit and morale of voters?

We don’t have to wait months to make this choice. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is in the process of choosing its new leadership. There are contenders who will blindly try the same worn and failed formula. They should be benched. We need a DCCC chair who leads with values, elevates the discourse and inspires action. That leader is Congresswoman Donna Edwards.

I know first-hand how effective, inspiring and wise Congresswoman Edwards is. In 2012, I was the Democratic nominee for United States Congress in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. I ran as a progressive Democrat in a conservative, rural district against a Republican congressman who spent $2.4 million against me. Every pundit and campaign analyzer, from left to right, said our campaign didn’t stand a chance. The DCCC listened to the pundits and wrote us off. Despite that, we received 48% of the vote, making us one of the most competitive races in the nation and out-performing the vast majority of candidates that the DCCC prioritized as “Red to Blue.”

Throughout the campaign, we showed the DCCC that we could win. We hit our targets in field and finance. We had polling that showed the race was competitive. We were told that if we kept working hard, they’d come in and help us. The help from the DCCC organization never came. I remember how demoralized my staff and supporters were the final months of the campaign. We were like soldiers surrounded by enemy forces, assured that reinforcements would come, and realizing in our final moments that we’d be left behind.

Luckily, like a hero who does what’s right instead of what’s told, Congresswoman Donna Edwards came to our rescue. She not only endorsed the campaign. In the final month, she flew to Ithaca, NY, and rallied my supporters and staff. She gave us, and especially me, the morale boost needed to push onward. What made her visit especially powerful is that she is a leader within the DCCC. It was the little signal to our team that we had a fighting chance. Even though the DCCC as a whole ignored us, she took individual initiative to help us. After she came, there was an electric feeling of hope among my team. After months of being demoralized by the DCCC, she gave us the inspiration to continue the fight.

That’s the kind of leader the DCCC needs. Yes, Congresswoman Edwards raises money and works hard. Plenty of contenders for DCCC chair do. What makes her unique, though, is her values. She’s compassionate, open-minded, and progressive. She knows how small investments in people can yield tremendous returns later on. She’s simultaneously strategic and tactical, caring and analytical. I believe she can change the course of the DCCC and the Democratic Party.

The American people today are like my campaign before her visit: increasingly demoralized and in need of hope. We need a rescue from a leader who has the heart, mind and soul to inspire change and lead us to victory. We need a progressive leader like Congresswoman Donna Edwards as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair.

The MoveOn.org petition to Nancy Pelosi requesting that she appoint Donna Edwards has 1,500 signatures of the 2,000 they are aiming for. Please consider signing it.

Tom Reed Takes Legalistic Bribes From Big Oil & Gas But Lies To His Constituents About It

Although Nate Shinagawa didn't get any help from Steve Israel's DCCC in his fight against corrupt Republican medical debt collector Tom Reed, Shinagawa came close enough to winning-- 126,519 (52%) to 117,055 (48%)-- to make it obvious that if Israel hadn't been wasting all his efforts and resources trying unsuccessfully to reinvigorate the reactionary Blue Dog wing of the Democratic Party (all but one Blue Dog endorsed non-incumbent was defeated), Shinagawa would be sitting in Congress today instead of Reed. Where Shinagawa had the resources he needed-- like in blue-leaning Tompkins County-- he thrashed Reed thoroughly, beating him 24,264 (70%) to 10,201 (30%).

Yesterday Zaid Jilani exposed Reed's corruption in a video (above) he posted at the PCCC blog. Zaid's been on Reed's trail for a long time and last August we looked at how Big Oil & Gas bribes Big Tom. He's one of the most avid proponents of fracking in New York State, despite the dangers to his own constituents. And he's paid well for that. This past weekend he was fending off concerned constituents again.

After defending the exemption of fracking from the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, one constituent asked him about the over $100,000 he’s gotten from the oil and gas industries. He responded that he has “no idea” where that money came from:

CONSTITUENT QUESTION: Do you think the fracking industry should remain exempt from the Clean Air and Drinking Water Acts? [...]

REED: [...] I am not a believer in expanding federal government, I believe we have to downsize federal government. What we’re on a path here by doing that I think is expanding government. [...] I would defer to the state and defer to the local bodies on that.

(Audience hissing)

CONSTITUENT 1: Water and air are across state borders!

CONSTITUENT 2: Where did your $126,000 from gas companies come from? Which lobbyists? Which companies besides Chesapeake and the other lobbyists?

REED: No idea. No idea. We don’t keep track of that. I don’t keep track of that.

Reed should know that he is actually legally required to “keep track of that”-- and that it’s actually public information. The oil and gas industry was his third-largest donor in 2012. Here’s some of the biggest backers:

• Chesapeake Energy: $10,000 to Reed. Chesapeake, one of America’s largest fracking companies, has angered homeowners nationwide with its excessive use of legal maneuvers to gain access to land to drill on.

• National Fuel Gas Corporation: $10,000 to Reed. This fracking company is based in Western Pennsylvania and New York.

• America’s Natural Gas Alliance: $4,400 to Reed. This is one of the main advocacy coalitions for natural gas drillers pushing for fracking.

In Congressional Races, Persistence Can Mean Winning

Donna and Steny-- no longer enemies

In 2006, one of the most exciting and, ultimately successful, netroots cause célèbres was the push to replace corrupt conservative Maryland Democrat Al Wynn with a longtime and much-loved movement progressive, Donna Edwards. Pelosi, Hoyer and the whole weight of the Inside-the-Beltway Democratic Party were lined up against Donna. The grassroots stood strong for Donna both inside and outside the 4th district. The primary was September 12 and it appeared that Donna had won, narrowly. But suddenly Wynn operatives appeared with "more" ballots. In the end, the incumbent was "reelected" with 49.7% of the vote. I called Donna the next day and told her that Blue America wanted to start working on 2008 that day. She said OK. And we did. This time the primary was under heavy scrutiny and Wynn's machine wasn't able to steal the election. Although he was again supported by the Inside-the-Beltway Democratic power structure, particularly Hoyer, Donna crushed him. He had already lined up a lobbying job for himself when the vote totals came in and the 8-term incumbent wound up with 35% of the vote. Since then, Donna has won with greater support than any of the Maryland incumbents-- including Hoyer and her potential rival for the next Senate opening, Chris Van Hollen. This year Donna was reelected with 220,344 votes (77%). Hoyer got 211,816 (62%) and Van Hollen 192,711 (63%).

Friday, Markos, who was part of the coalition of grassroots supporters for Donna Edwards, pointed out how losing House races is great practice for winning them. He pointed to a few of the victories last month by candidates who had previously lost races:

AZ-01, Ann Kirkpatrick. Third race (won in 2008, lost in 2010).
CA-07, Ami Bera. Second race (lost in 2010).
CA-41, Mark Takano. Third race (lost in 1992 & 1994).
FL-09, Alan Grayson. Fourth race (lost primary in 2006, won in 2008, lost in 2010).
FL-26, Joe Garcia. Third race (lost in 2008 & 2010).
IL-08, Tammy Duckworth. Second race (lost in 2006).
IL-11, Bill Foster. Fourth race (won special & general in 2008, lost in 2010).
MN-08, Rick Nolan. Fifth race (lost in 1972, won in 1974, 1976 & 1978).
NV-03, Dina Titus. Third race (won in 2008, lost in 2010).
NH-01, Carol Shea-Porter. Fourth race (won in 2006 & 2008, lost in 2010).
NH-02, Ann McLane Kuster. Second race (lost in 2010).
NY-24, Dan Maffei. Fourth race (lost in 2006, won in 2008, lost in 2010).
WA-10, Denny Heck. Second race (lost in 2010).

While Steve Israel prepares to virtually spend all the DCCC's resources on Blue Dogs and New Dems again-- he's already encouraging 2012 reactionaries like Brendan Mullen (Blue Dog-IN) and Val Demings (New Dem-FL) to run again-- Blue America is talking with progressives who ran in 2012 about running against as well. One candidate who Donna Edwards encouraged and helped raise money for this cycle and who seems a sure bet for 2014 is Nate Shinagawa (NY-23) who-- with no help from Steve Israel at all-- managed to nearly beat far right incumbent Tom Reed. The final score was 126,519 (52%) to 117,055 (48%). In fact, Nate trounced Reed in one of the districts 3 biggest counties, Tompkins where he took 24,264 votes (70%) to Reed's 10,201 (30%). This morning Nate told us that "When you're a first time candidate, it's a constant struggle for legitimacy in the eyes of the party, donors and the media. Once you get it, the momentum builds, the organization grows and the race gets closer. A past campaign, especially if its a close loss, gives you that legitimacy immediately... Many members of Congress are independently wealthy and old enough to build a fundraising network over decades. For young progressives, we don't start with the same foundation and it takes time, and a lot of hard work, to build it."

Nate's ActBlue page is still open and although he hasn't officially decided he's running again in 2014... I'd say a contribution or two there is an excellent investment in a more progressive Congress. My guess is that Aryanna Strader will take on the abominable Joe Pitts again in the district once represented by the heroic Thaddeus Stevens and that Nick Ruiz will challenge John Mica, Rob Zerban will challenge Paul Ryan and Lee Rogers will go up against the corrupt head of the drone caucus, Buck McKeon. "Running for Congress," Aryanna told us, "certainly gives you a much deeper understanding of your community. The day-to-day contact you have with the needs of real people is an invaluable asset no matter what if you run for public office again, run a business or start a non-profit. I can't begin to describe the lessons I learned during the 2012 election."

Something all 5 incumbents-- Paul Ryan, Buck McKeon, Joe Pitts, John Mica and Tom Reed-- have in common is that they are all sticking with the Grover Norquist pledge and that they all oppose President Obama's push to keep taxes low for 98% of Americans, who they are helping Boehner hold hostage unless they can get tax breaks for the wealthiest 2%. All McKeon thinks about is how to keep federal money flowing to the Military Industrial Complex which, in turn, finances his own career. His 2012 opponent, Dr. Lee Rogers, who came closer to beating him than anyone in history is seriously considering a rematch. "They say practice makes perfect. It's true in medicine and I'm sure it's true in campaigning for office. A smart loser would spend some time in self-reflection and determine how to improve. My decision on whether or not to run again in 2014 isn't one I'm taking lightly. At the moment, I'm concentrating on being a doctor and a dad. But, I can assure you that my 'practice' run in 2012 will aid a more 'perfect' future victory."

Rob Zerban is still making up his mind about how to best serve the working families in southeast Wisconsin. But I think he'll run against Ryan again. Here's what he told us yesterday: "I certainly learned alot from my first Congressional campaign. I think that if I were to run again, we would be able to pick up a lot of the infrastructure we built right where we left off instead of recreating the wheel. I also think a lot of voters needed to see proof that a strong Democrat could go toe-to-toe with Paul Ryan-- they needed a sense of hope-- and I think by holding him below 55%, we were able to do that." 

Not all that many candidates win House seats the first time around. Progressives Beto O'Rourke (TX-16) and Matt Cartwright (PA-17) beat corrupt, reactionary incumbents in primaries and went on to win the general election in first time efforts for each. Alan Lowenthal won on his first shot for two reasons: he was well-known and admired as a state senator in the district and it was a new district with no incumbent. (Well, there was a third reason: his Republican opponent, Gary Delong, is a Climate Change denier and hopelessly out of touch with the district's voters and only managed to win 45% of the vote (and most of that in the smaller, very red Orange County part of the district).

The only Blue America candidate who I was able to reach who ready to make an on the record commitment to run again was Nick Ruiz in central Florida. He's not fooling around. "We have to keep chipping away at the largely bogus Democratic caucus-- to replace the shills with truly liberal and progressive Democrats. The current Democratic shillocracy is unimpressive edifice, and despite the Democrats that won this cycle, how many of them will actually do something we can be proud of? Not many-- and that will be the safest, surest prediction we can make all year. I lost in 2012, but I'm going to try again in 2014, because it's one way I can make a progressive difference in this world, among other things. And to the best of my ability, I'm going to do what I can to help other candidates replace as many Democratic shills as possible, nationwide."

This Cycle's Biggest Turkey: Meet Steve Israel (D-NY)

All the votes are counted and all the races decided-- although there's a Republican vs Republican runoff in Louisiana and a recount pending in North Carolina that could put Blue Dog Mike McIntyre's razor thin win in jeopardy-- and the make up of the new Congress goes from 240 Republicans and 190 Democrats to 234 Republicans and 201 Democrats. Nationally Democrats won slightly over half a million more votes in congressional races but because of grotesquely partisan gerrymandering by Republican-controlled state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina winning a majority of seats is virtually impossible.

Nevertheless, earlier in September Nancy Pelosi predicted that Democrats would win back the 25 House seats they needed to make her Speaker again. In fact, she told the media, the Democrats were on track to win a net of at least 27 seats. The man she had picked to chair the DCCC, Steve Israel, had given her the dope. "Steve," she gushed to the press, "has sufficient reptilian tendencies to do the job.” The Free Dictionary defines "reptilian" as "Despicable; treacherous" and "mean or treacherous; contemptible reptilian behaviour." Webster uses it to describe a villain: "cold-bloodedly treacherous."

A former Blue Dog and New Dem, Israel left those caucuses to pursue a leadership role in the House Democratic Caucus. He excels in raising money from corporate interests and especially from Wall Street and making sure they feel like they've gotten their money's worth. In a rationally organized societal situation Steve Israel would be sharing a prison cell with Duke Cunningham or Tom DeLay. Inside the House Democratic Caucus, he's hailed as a leader. Even after he dismally failed to win the 25-- let alone the 27-- seats he promised Pelosi, he was reappointed DCCC chairman for the next cycle.

Some observers chalk up Israel's failure to poor targeting and leave it at that. Poor targeting was certainly the problem. But leaving it to that is as well. It became apparent from the moment Israel took over the Committee that winning back the majority wasn't his primary goal; restocking the Caucus with "his kind of Democrats" was his primary goal. His kind of Democrats are not progressive, are not reformers, are not independent-thinkers. Steve Israel's world is a world based on corruption and his primary interest wasn't making sure there are more Democrats in the House than Republicans, it was making sure there were more corrupt Democrats in the House than independent-thinking reformers and progressives. He succeeded.

Early in the campaign I met a very wealthy, very powerful woman who I had been avoiding for a couple of years. Because of the legitimacy my former position in the music industry could bring to a fledgling endeavor, she had been trying to get me to join the board of a company she was putting together. My interest in the project was less than zero and I managed to avoid ever meeting her. And then... a wrinkle. It turns out she's one of the biggest Democratic contributors in California. And, I was told by an intermediary, she was willing to raise big money for Rob Zerban, the progressive candidate against Paul Ryan who was being stonewalled by Steve Israel and the DCCC-- and who was a top priority for Blue America. I'm easy; I even agreed to meet at the single most repulsive plutocratic watering hole in Los Angeles. I was sitting and reading Chris Mooney's brilliant new book, The Republican Brain when she swept into the restaurant. The first words out of her mouth, perhaps before even "hello," were that "your candidate" wasn't really going to run. She had just spoken with "Steve," she assured me, and he had told her not to waste her time or money. Rob Zerban wasn't the Democratic candidate and wouldn't even be running. The meeting went downhill from there.

In the end Rob Zerban was able to raise more money with no DCCC help than many of the candidates being pushed to wealthy donors and institutional organizations by Israel and the DCCC. The DCCC, always committed to giving Ryan a safe reelection, put two Democrats on their Red-to-Blue list, though neither was Zerban, even though Ryan's district was won by Obama in 2008-- 191,901 to 177,162. Voters there knew how to pull a lever for Democrats. It's not a situation like it is in districts where Israel spent millions and millions of dollars where voters do not consider voting for Democrats. The payoff, though, in those kinds of districts would be golden for Israel: Blue Dogs and New Dems. We'll come back to that in a moment. Let's stick with Wisconsin for another moment.

Israel and the DCCC routinely claim that progressive candidates they don't want to support can't raise any money and are therefore not serious contenders. They especially tell this to the lazy Beltway media and punditocracy, as well as to big donors and institutional donors. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because the Beltway media refuses to consider the races serious and the big donors refuse to "waste" their money on non-serious races.

As of the October 17 FEC filing deadline, Zerban has raised $2,117,162, almost entirely from the grassroots and in the face of relentless and determined DCCC sabotage. The DCCC and its allies spent nothing in the district. The single biggest outside spender was Blue America at around $22,000 and the only other expenditure of note was $3,000 from the SEIU.

Meanwhile, the DCCC was frantically helping two more Establishment candidates, New Dem Jamie Wall and top priority Pat Kreitlow. Wall, based almost entirely on DCCC help, raised $1,016,688 (less than half what Zerban raised) and a third of that ($334,778) came from PACs pushed by the DCCC. Before just giving up on the race entirely, the DCCC spent $87,664 on TV advertising against inconsequential Republican incumbent Reid Ribble. The other candidate the DCCC backed was Pat Kreitlow, who ran against GOP up-and-comer Sean Duffy. Kreitlow raised $1,176,147, with $389,719 of that coming from DCCC motivated PACs. And the DCCC itself spent $2,003,084 attacking Duffy while their junior partners at the House Majority PAC kicked in another $366,167 in independent expenditures.

In the 8th district Wall drew 156,371 votes (44.1%) to Ribble's 198,464 (55.9%). In the 7th district it was Kreitlow 157,340 (43.9%) to Duffy's 201,318 (56.1%) and in the 1st CD, Zerban managed to win 157,721 votes (43.4%) to Ryan's 199,715 (54.9%). That was easily the closest Ryan has ever come to being defeated since he was first elected in the traditionally Democratic seat in 1998. The DCCC has always moved aggressively to protect him from serious challengers, usually by manipulating Democratic candidate selection. But today's post isn't about WI-01 or Zerban or Wisconsin. It's about Steve Israel and the DCCC and how they work to hold back progressives and boost more conservative Democrats. What they did to Zerban is typical of what they do everywhere.

Let's go back to Israel's targeting for a moment. He made it clear from the get-go he wouldn't go after any Republican leaders, policy makers, committee chairs or anyone from the ultra-secretive shady little bipartisan Conservative-Consensus fraternity he founded, the Center Aisle Caucus. That pretty much excluded everyone but a bunch of unknown backbenchers, predominantly freshmen. The DCCC targeted one "national figure," the clownish Allen West (who spent nearly $20,000,000 and only to be defeated 166,223- 164,316), but not his female counterpart, Michele Bachmann (who spent nearly $20,000,000 and barely won reelection, 180,131- 175,923). Israel decided to back Murphy, a lifelong Republican who joined the New Dems and who Israel could be sure would never allow a progressive, reformist or independent thought to cross his mind, while ignoring the far more substantial Jim Graves in Minnesota, a very independent-minded, reform-minded, anti-corruption good government type with a pretty progressive economic agenda. The DCCC and House Majority PAC spent $3,036,163 helping Murphy. Although at the very end of the campaign-- when it was far too late to make any difference-- the DCCC put Graves on the Red-to-Blue program with Murphy and other candidates they were backing, they spent exactly zero on his race, the exact same amount the House Majority PAC spent. Graves' only two substantial independent expenditures came from CREDO ($37,806) and NARAL ($11,482). Could the DCCC have swung the race by helping get another 4,500 votes for Graves by using some of the money they wasted on losing right wing Democrats like Leonard Boswell ($2,090,111), Ben Chandler ($332,393), Mark Critz ($2,430,306), Kathy Hochul ($1,112,785), Sal Pace ($453,626), Brendan Mullen ($470,872), David Crooks ($516,483), Gary McDowell ($1,218,594), Charlie Wilson ($2,513,712), Nick Lampson ($163,722) and Eric Stewart ($298,914)? Easily! But that would have messed with Israel's targeting goals.

Several progressives won without any help from the DCCC-- Alan Grayson (FL), Alan Lowenthal (CA), Mark Takano (CA), Beto O'Rourke (TX) from the Blue America list-- but how many more progressives would have won with some of that money Israel spent on losing New Dems and Blue Dogs? Certainly Syed Taj in Michigan, Nate Shinagawa in New York and Lee Rogers in California. Possibly as many as another dozen with real efforts by the DCCC, enough to have brought the final "score" to 216 Democrats and 219 Republicans. And we're just talking about pro-Choice, pro-equality, pro-working family Democrats-- the ones from the FDR wing, not more anti-Choice/anti-gay Blue Dogs and not more New Dems who live to grovel for scraps from corporate dinner tables while selling out traditional Democratic constituencies-- particularly working families. One very experienced and very savvy campaign manager says it's more than just Israel's anti-progressive ideology that destroyed so many progressives; it's the systemic corruption that defines the DCCC. "You get blackballed," he told me on the phone yesterday, "when you don't use their high-price media people and their pollsters. They all want kickbacks."

Nate Shinagawa's race against medical bill collector, racist pig and Tea Party incumbent Tom Reed was always a winnable one that Israel stubbornly ignored. Red-to-Blue chair Donna Edwards campaigned with Nate in the district and gave him her own contributions-- but could never get Israel to put him on the Red-to-Blue list, let alone spend any money on him. Nate, who was ahead much of election night, ultimately lost-- 126,519- 117,055. Reed had raised $1,977,658 and Nate brought in $709,727. The DCCC spent nothing in the district. Even a modest independent expenditure would have swung the race to Nate, who not only had to battle Reed but was up against over a million dollars in outside spending from special interests eager to keep Reed in power, particularly the National Association of Realtors, whose PACs bolstered him with $700,000 in advertising. In contrast, the only outside spending for Nate was from the United Steelworkers, $423.

In Michigan's 11th district, Israel claimed Dr. Syed Taj had a funny accent-- a polite way of Israel admitting he's an Islamaphobic asshole-- and he refused to take a seat that was just waiting to be plucked. Crazed teabagger and reindeer farmer Kerry Bentovolio had nearly a million dollars spent by outside right-wing groups on his behalf. The DCCC spent $10,000 in the race and then ignored it and allowed Bentovolio to win 1811,796 (51%)- 158,889 (44%). This is the garbage that was thrown against Dr. Taj which the DCCC refused to respond to:



In CA-25, House Armed Services Committee chair was more vulnerable than ever in his career. Israel never tired of telling donors and institutional players that it wasn't a serious race. Other than Paul Ryan, no Republican incumbent got as much protection from Israel as Buck McKeon, who managed to keep Lee Rogers' campaign off the national radar. McKeon raised $1,869,645 and, with Israel urging wealthy Democratic to not contribute to Rogers, Rogers raised $333,391. Despite the antipathy from Israel, no candidate has ever come closer to beating McKeon, one of Congress' most toxic characters. A post-election chart in the NY Times shows McKeon is now the second most likely Republican to lose his seat. That's exactly what a DCCC chair is supposed to know-- and act on-- before it's reported in newspapers a continent away.

Pelosi decided to double down and reward Israel for his abysmal failure, reappointing him chair of the DCCC, virtually guaranteeing that John Boehner will be Speaker at least until 2016-- unless he's removed by his own caucus-- and guaranteeing that the House Democratic caucus will be less progressive and more subservient to the Wall Street interests Steve Israel is dedicated to serving.

Will Rural Chickens Come Home To Roost For The GOP Nov. 6?

Bye-bye Iowa?

As you know, the DCCC gave Boehner a free pass to reelection-- they made sure he would have no opponent this year-- and he's spending campaign season getting drunk with lobbyists raising money for vulnerable Republicans and campaigning in their districts (since he has no need to be back in his own). This week he was in Iowa begging voters to return one of his closest cronies, 8 term conservative shithead Tom Latham, who's in a tight incumbent vs incumbent match-up with Blue Dog Leonard Boswell (also a shithead). Latham is a straight down the line Establishment Republican, a member of the crooked Appropriations Committee and a member of that committee's Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration. It's how he brings home the bacon for his constituents. But it's what could cost him his career in two and a half weeks.

Iowans are flipping out that Boehner and Cantor refused to even bring the Farm Bill, which has overwhelming bipartisan support, up for a vote before adjourning Congress. Boehner and Cantor decided to gamble that causing pain in rural America would hurt Obama's presidential chances more than it would damage Republican congressional incumbents. They may have miscalculated. [A new poll out this morning, for example, shows Obama with a strong 51-43% lead in Iowa.] Everyone knows it was Cantor bottling up the bill and desperate Republicans, including Latham, are publicly blaming him. Latham claims "Boehner is not the problem... Eric Cantor is the one who controls floor activity.” The farm bill has passed the House Agriculture Committee and has passed the full Senate but has been hanging in limbo ever since and whether you blame Cantor or Boehner or both, voters in farm states-- and farm districts everywhere-- know the problems they're having now are the fault of the GOP leadership. Here's a letter Dick Durbin (D-IL) sent to a farm district newspaper in Illinois, explaining the problem.

Since we can’t make it rain, the single most important thing Congress can do to assist producers impacted by this year’s drought is pass a farm bill. Most farmers will tell you they can survive one bad year, but right now farmers can’t plan for future years. Nearly three months ago the Senate passed a full five-year farm bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. It would reauthorize several expired disaster programs, extend several other programs to assist fruit and vegetable growers and dairy producers and expand crop insurance coverage. The Senate farm bill would also provide farmers with long term certainty in farm policy that will allow to plan out their recovery from this drought while still reducing the deficit by $23 billion. Unfortunately, the House won’t even bring a farm bill measure to the floor for debate. Instead, they offered an extension of a few disaster programs that do little to help Illinois farmers and producers that have struggled through this drought. Nearly 63 percent of the country is experiencing some level of drought. Every county in Illinois has been declared a disaster by USDA.

And while our first thought during a drought is the impact to crop farmers, these conditions have a serious impact on businesses and economic growth throughout the state.

About 1.5 million Illinois workers are employed in agribusiness industry which contributes more than $8.85 billion to the Illinois’ economy annually. It’s time for the House to take up and pass a farm bill with robust disaster assistance and the long term policy farmers need.  If the House can’t write a bill, they should at least call the bipartisan Senate bill for a vote as soon as possible.

And Democratic candidates have been turning their fire on Republicans who were unable to persuade Boehner and Cantor to act on behalf of farmers. David Gill in one of Illinois' most productive farming areas: "We haven't just had a historic drought in Illinois and across the Midwest, we've had a drought of leadership in Congress. House Republicans have refused to step forward and pass a bi-partisan Farm Bill to help keep our Heartland alive. It's Tea Party politics at its very worst."

Aryanna Strader is opposing Joe Pitts in southeast Pennsylvania's Lancaster and Chester counties. Even if he's sitting on his hands and babbling about abortions and gays, she's talking directly to the regions farming families. "Too often, members of Congress like Joe Pitts talk about having political courage. Well Joe Pitts has been in Washington long enough that he should be able to demonstrate some leadership to get his Republican colleagues to pass the Farm Bill... but he hasn't. As an Iraq War veteran I have seen true courage and it means standing up and taking real action, not just standing at a microphone and giving speeches. The Farm Bill means jobs and economic security in Pennsylvania and Congressman Pitts just sits there waiting for the recess gavel to come down."

Another Blue America-endorsed progressive, Nate Shinagawa, is seeking to represent one of New York State's most productive farming areas, the Finger Lakes and Southern Tier. He held a press conference to distance himself from Rep. Tom Reed's blasé attitude about the GOP blocking the bill and the resultant hardship for area farmers. “Congressman Tom Reed and the Republicans seem to neglect the fact that Congress has significant responsibility, whether it’s with the livelihood of our farmers or promoting job growth, and as the party in power, should be taking immediate steps to compromise on a full 5-year renewal.” Shinagawa noted the importance of a 5-year renewal after conversations with local farmers, saying it was critical to be able to “plan accordingly to develop a business plan. They need the long term stability to remain profitable.” He supports the Senate version of the bill, which has passed with bi-partisan support, because it “sustains critical subsidies for farmers, and also limits cuts to food stamp programs used by 1 in 7 Americans.”

In North Dakota, Democrat Heidi Heitkamp has deftly turned the issue against Republican freshman Rick Berg, who's running against her for an open Senate seat. Heitkamp called the lack of a new farm bill the “biggest failure of this Congress" and Berg has cravenly blamed his cronies in the Republican leadership. "We have a stonewall problem. I’ll agree. The House Republican leadership is a problem on the farm bill."

Yesterday the Des Moines Register tore into Boehner while he was in Iowa campaigning for Romney, Latham, Steve King and other Republicans.

Boehner, of Ohio, didn’t respond to questions about federal farm provisions that expired this month after lawmakers failed to reach agreement on a new farm bill before leaving the capital ahead of the general election.

...Boehner’s speech did not include specific legislative priorities for the next Congress. He didn’t respond to media questions, and his staff blocked him off from reporters.

Boehner and other congressional leaders have been criticized in recent weeks for dismissing lawmakers without touching the federal farm bill.

Just before Congress went into recess, [Rep.] Loebsack wrote a letter to Boehner, urging him to push for a vote on the farm bill.

“Americans elected Congress to get things done for the American people. I stand ready to work in bipartisan fashion to get a farm bill passed and again urge your attention to bringing up the farm bill for passage in the House,” Loebsack wrote in September.

There are a handful of House and Senate races where the Boehner/Cantor decision to once again put their partisan anti-Obama mania before the good of the country could wreck GOP chances to win key races.

The farm bill, which sets subsidies for everything from crop insurance to milk production, expired on October 1 after the Republican majority in the House could not muster enough votes to pass a new law.

No race demonstrates the Democratic strategy better than in western Iowa, where Christie Vilsack, the wife of President Barack Obama's agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, is stressing the farm bill in a bid to unseat conservative Republican Representative Steve King.

"The lack of a farm bill right now has the farming community up in arms," said Bryan Kruse, 34, who has two small farms and works for another farmer to pay the bills outside Ringsted, population 422. "We need to get something done."

Kruse wants to know if he can still get federal crop insurance to protect his corn and soybeans against disasters like this year's drought.

...Democrats are focusing on the farm bill in Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Colorado and Illinois. It is also a major issue in close U.S. Senate races in Montana and North Dakota, where Republican House members are seeking seats held by Democrats.

...Vilsack, whose husband also was Iowa governor, touts the fact that the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate passed a farm bill, but the Republican House did not.

Steffen Schmidt, a politics professor at Iowa State University in Ames, says most Democrats have done a poor job of explaining that, apart from farm subsidies, the farm bill includes food stamps, school lunches and rural development money.

"A big failure of the Democrats is they have not explained the farm bill has broader economic and social implications," Schmidt said. "Christie Vilsack has done better than other Democrats at making that point."

Top 10 "Underground" House Races Party "Pros" Inside The Beltway Aren't Paying Any Attention To

Yes, Steve Israel is "reptilian," but whose side is he on?

Sarah Jaffe at Alternet seems a lot more tuned in than the DCCC or Cook. She looked at 10 congressional races this week that could spell big gains for progressives-- not reactionary Blue Dogs and New Dems or even just garden variety lockstep Democrats-- in November. She examined 10 independent-minded progressives who stand out from the pack but who the DCCC is either ignoring, sabotaging or just paying lip service to.

One of the candidates Jaffe focuses on is Patsy Keever and yesterday the Keever camp sent out a press release to local media asking them to take a look:

Two days ago Sarah Jaffe, associate editor at AlterNet, released her top 10 list of under-the-radar Congressional races to watch. The battle here in NC-10 between Patsy Keever and Patrick McHenry rated a spot on the list.
 
She writes, “North Carolina redistricted notorious Blue Dog Heath Shuler out of Congress […] But that might wind up helping Patsy Keever, who's facing off in the 10th against Patrick McHenry.” The article also quotes Alex Pareene at Salon as saying that McHenry was “born to be cheerfully corrupt: He’s a product of the College Republicans, an organization that trains little Lee Atwaters, Karl Roves and Grover Norquists in the arts of scorched-earth campaigning and wholly irresponsible 'governing' on behalf of the monied interests that bought you your job.”
 
“I think that the article is on target,” said Keever's campaign manager Bruce Mulkey. “We are running a very well-organized, people powered campaign, and Patsy is being met with enthusiasm wherever she goes. I hope the pundits are paying attention on November 6, because I think they’re going to be in for a big surprise.”

These are the kinds of candidates being supported by Blue America and if you;d like to help, you can find them all either here or here. These were the 10 races Jaffe says are "flying under the radar, where you just might see an upset." She starts with the most winnable race in America that the DCCC is ignoring, Lee Rogers' courageous battle against backward and corrupt House armed Services Committee Chairman, Buck McKeon:

1. CA-25: Democrat Lee Rogers vs Republican Buck McKeon

Buck McKeon is a trifecta of loathsome: a Republican in a district that Obama won in 2008 who got preferential treatment from housing-bubble blowers Countrywide, and who, as the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, refused to hold hearings on sexual assault at the Air Force's training facility at Lackland. He was also one of the forces behind California's anti-gay Proposition 8, and is the co-chair of the House drone caucus (for real).

So why aren't we hearing more about his opponent, surgeon Lee Rogers? As could be expected, Rogers is running heavy on health care, leaning on his experience with the system-- he says that 75 percent of his patients (he's a podiatrist) are on Medicare-- and calling for improvements to the Affordable Care Act. He's called for keeping drug addicts out of prison, getting out of Afghanistan, and investing in infrastructure. As Blue America's Howie Klein notes, McKeon hasn't had real competition in a while, so this race could get interesting.

2. NY-23: Democrat Nate Shinagawa vs Republican Tom Reed

Nate Shinagawa is running as both the Democratic and Working Families Party candidate in upstate New York's 23rd district against Republican Tom Reed. He is one of the youngest candidates for Congress this year (just 28 years old) and a former student labor activist. He's already spent six years in the Tompkins County legislature, and has been an outspoken critic of fracking-- a practice his opponent is all for-- which New York Governor Cuomo would like to open up in his district.

In addition to welcoming fracking in his backyard, Reed was one of the GOP members of Congress on an infamous trip to Israel, where in addition to enjoying the hospitality of AIPAC's nonprofit offshoot the American Israel Education Foundation, at least one legislator copped to going skinny-dipping in the Sea of Galilee. (Reed says that he and his wife were “appropriately clothed.”) He's been cited as a possible future GOP “star” from New York, and he's a big fan of Paul Ryan and his (wildly unpopular, especially in New York) budget.

3. PA-16: Democrat Aryanna Strader vs Republican Joe Pitts

Joe Pitts's name is familiar to anyone who cares about reproductive justice-- along with Democrat Bart Stupak, the Pennsylvania Republican was the author of the infamous Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health care reform bill-- a sneak attack on abortion rights that would've restricted access to abortion coverage in private health insurance plans.

Pitts should be a huge target for Democrats, but despite a leftward trend in his district and a bit of redistricting that might make it even more likely to swing Democratic, they're not pushing very hard. But Aryanna Strader is. She's a 29-year-old veteran, a mom, and a small business owner, and she leaves no question where she stands on reproductive freedoms-- she argues that Pitts “started the war on women's health.”

There are two independents running in the 16th as well-- Jim Bednarski, a former Republican who apparently wants to win the seat without fundraising, and John A. Murphy, who called Strader the Democrats' Sarah Palin. Pitts is smoking his competition when it comes to fundraising, though-- which might make one wonder about the Democrats' commitment to electing pro-choice politicians, since there's plenty of money being funneled into other Pennsylvania races, including Mark Critz's race at the other end of Pennsylvania-- despite his support for Pitts' H.R. 358, dubbed the “Let Women Die Act” because it would, well, let women die if their doctors were opposed to abortion.

4. MI-11: Democrat Syed Taj vs Republican Kerry Bentivolio

If this district sounds familiar, it's because Thaddeus McCotter resigned from it earlier this year after a chunk of the signatures qualifying him for the primary ballot were found to be fraudulent. (Four of his staffers were charged with violating election law.) Dr. Syed Taj is one of several M.D.'s running for Congress this year on their practical health care experience. He's skipping the special election for the remaining weeks of McCotter's term (really, weeks), choosing to focus on the general, where he's facing a Tea Party candidate, Kerry Bentivolio, who's well, unique-- Mother Jones describes him as “a reindeer rancher, Santa impersonator, and political novice who once starred in a low-budget movie suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job.” A former teacher, he's facing questions about his treatment of students, and he got a chunk of funding for his campaign from a 21-year-old Ron Paul fanboy
.
Taj has spent over 40 years as a doctor, including a stint as Chief of Medicine at Oakwood Hospital in Dearborn. He's been endorsed by the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, Representative Keith Ellison, Senator Debbie Stabenow, the Michigan Nurses Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

5. WV-01: Democrat Sue Thorn vs Republican David McKinley

West Virginia is coal country, and any political battle in the state is likely to have Big Coal's dirty fingers all over the race. Sue Thorn's challenge to David McKinley is no exception. Multimillionaire McKinley (what is it with these rich members of Congress in some of the poorest districts?) has gotten a good chunk of his campaign cash from Murray Energy, the company whose Utah mine at Crandall Canyon collapsed and killed nine people-- and which got slapped with the largest fines ever from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (until the 2010 explosion at Upper Big Branch mine right in West Virginia, that is).

McKinley tries to claim that Thorn doesn't support coal mining and works under a big picture of a miner-- but Jack Spadaro, former head of the National Mine Safety and Health Academy, doesn't buy that:

There's no question about that, he's a hypocrite. He may say that and have that poster in his office, but he hasn't done anything to further the interests of miners and to make their workplace safe.

Meanwhile, Thorn has pointed out that McKinley's voted against stronger protections against black lung (which is having a resurgence) and better safety regulations. And she spent her Labor Day at events with actual workers, not just pictures of them.

6. WI-01: Democrat Rob Zerban vs Republican Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan's busy running for Veep, of course-- but just in case, he's also running for reelection in his House district. And Rob Zerban would like to take that job from him as well. Zerban's probably the first serious challenge Ryan has faced in Wisconsin since his election; he's raised over $1.4 million for his race so far, and points out that Obama carried the district in 2008 (and still would have even after redistricting). He told AlterNet's Joshua Holland:

I’ve lived my version of the American dream. I was only able to do that because our government was there when I needed help. I realize that being a successful small business owner-- someone who employed 45 people, providing excellent wages and benefits-- I realize that this isn’t something I accomplished all on my own. Our government helped me get an education on Pell Grants and loans, I was able to go on and start these small businesses. I want to make sure economic opportunity exists for everybody in this country, not just the wealthy and the well-connected.

Zerban's wife is a teacher and they were both part of the Capitol protests against Scott Walker's anti-union bill. He endorses a “Medicare for All” single-payer system, noting that people don't start small businesses, in part, because of the sky-high costs of health insurance.

Ryan's selection to the presidential ticket may have helped put other Congressional races in play for the Democrats-- it'd be pretty funny if he managed to lose his own, too.

7. NC-10: Democrat Patsy Keever vs Republican Patrick McHenry

North Carolina redistricted notorious Blue Dog Heath Shuler out of Congress(Shuler decided to step down after some of the more Democratic-leaning parts of his 11th district were sliced out and dropped into the neighboring 10th). But that might wind up helping Patsy Keever, who's facing off in the 10th against Patrick McHenry, described by Alex Pareene at Salon as “born to be cheerfully corrupt: He’s a product of the College Republicans, an organization that trains little Lee Atwaters, Karl Roves and Grover Norquists in the arts of scorched-earth campaigning and wholly irresponsible 'governing' on behalf of the monied interests that bought you your job.”

Keever, on the other hand, won a primary over more conservative Asheville mayor Terry Bellamy (who had the backing of the national party). The former schoolteacher is a sharp critic of the corporate education reform policy currently being celebrated at both party conventions, writing recently:

Vouchers and charter schools are not the answer. Defunding good programs and instituting unfunded mandates are not the answer. Adding more students to each classroom while decreasing support systems for teachers is not the answer.

Howie Klein notes that unlike Hayden Rogers, the anti-gay, anti-choice candidate (and Shuler's Chief of Staff) now running in the 11th district, Keever's getting little support from the Democratic party in the 10th. This, even though she strongly opposed North Carolina's anti-gay marriage Amendment One and was endorsed as pro-choice by NARAL. Interestingly, the DCCC named Rogers a “Red to Blue” candidate, which gives him additional funding even though he's running to replace his old boss, a theoretical Democrat, while Keever's running against an honest-to-goodness Republican.

8. CA-39: Democrat Jay Chen vs Republican Ed Royce

Ed Royce is a longtime incumbent who's gotten more money from the financial sector than any other member of the California delegation; he's one of the few senior Republicans to actually join the Tea Party Caucus, has said that Arizona's “Papers, Please” anti-immigrant law should be the national standard, railed against multi-language ballots, and voted against extending the Voting Rights Act. But he's in a new district this time, and this one is 30 percent Asian-American and 30 percent Latino-- creating a perfect opening for Jay Chen to take a crack at defeating him.

Chen still faces an uphill battle, but the school board member and Navy Reservist is running on the issues that matter-- making education more accessible, better health care (he's ultimately a single-payer supporter) and financial regulation. He recorded Mandarin-language ads to urge the Chinese-American community to vote against Proposition 8, and even though the DCCC doesn't see fit to spend money on his race, he's determined to keep fighting.

9. PA-03: Democrat Missa Eaton vs Republican Mike Kelly

Missa Eaton is one of many educators running as a Democrat in a time of reduced funding for schools and universities. The daughter of a union bus driver, the assistant professor of psychology is challenging super-rich incumbent Mike Kelly and mentions the student debt crisis as one of her issues to tackle. She's also no slouch on trade policy, an issue that might not be sexy but is deeply important in the era of outsourcing.

Eaton's getting union support in her blue-collar western Pennsylvania district (represented, before Kelly, by Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper) and won the “Keystone Challenge” from the state Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, Mike Kelly compared the health insurance mandate to cover contraception to Pearl Harbor and September 11. No, really.

10. TX-16: Democrat Beto O'Rourke vs Republican Barbara Carrasco

Beto O'Rourke's already won one rough race this year-- his primary, where he knocked off conservative Democrat Silvestre Reyes, in part in a battle over drug policy. O'Rourke favors marijuana legalization and bluntly calls the drug war a “failure.” The El Paso city representative argued that marijuana prohibition only fuels the cartels and stokes violence just over the border. It didn't hurt that Reyes had other problems-- $600,000 in campaign funds steered to himself and family members, say, or a vote to defund Planned Parenthood. Tim Murphy at Mother Jones notes that try as Reyes might have to make drugs an issue in the campaign, the race was really won on the economy.

O'Rourke's also pushed for benefits for same-sex partners and is pro-choice, pro-contraception, and pro-health care. The district remains largely Democratic even after redistricting, but O'Rourke still has to go through Barbara Carrasco, a Republican whose website pledges that she'll “FIGHT for America's Free-Market Economy” and “PROTECT our Children-- Born and Unborn.”

"Ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel, the head of the DCCC-- who Nancy Pelosi endearing refers to as "reptilian"-- would rather see Republicans win than watch more progressives get into the Democratic House caucus. He's not supporting these candidates and there is documentary evidence that he's personally told major Democratic big dollar donors to not give them any support or contributions. Nancy was sure right when she used the term "reptilian" to describe Israel, regardless of what she had in her heart, which no one can really know for sure anyway.


Once again, these are candidates who can win but who the DCCC is basically ignoring so they can fight for more anti-Choice, anti-gay, pro-Business conservative Democrats in the imagine of horrible Beltway hacks like Steve Israel, Joe Crowley, Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, careerists with their own corrupt agendas. If you'd like to help the progressive candidates win seats in Congress instead of more Blue Dogs, you can contribute here and here.

Chris Hayes Bucks The Democratic Beltway Machine And Books Independent-Minded Candidates On His Show

Progressive candidates are always calling me and asking me how they can get on national TV shows. I always suggest they call the DCCC. And they always laugh. The DCCC won't book independent-minded progressives. In fact, they won't even give them the contact information for the show producers and bookers. Most of the producers and bookers-- like almost every single one of them-- are in the tank for the Machine. I love that Ed Schultz books whichever candidates he likes despite what the DCCC demands. And yesterday Chris Hayes did the same thing, booking a candidate the DSCC doesn't give a hoot about, Maine progressive Cynthia Dill, who's running for the Senate, two very independent-minded progressive Democrats the DCCC is aggressively ignoring-- Rob Zerban (WI-01) and Nate Shinagawa (NY-23)-- as well as two progressive candidates for open seats, Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09), and Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08)-- who the DCCC is backing. And then Chris led the discussion into his own narratives, not the Beltway narratives. All the candidates, for example, endorsed Medicare-for-all, which is very much not a DCCC-approved position.

Go, Chris! President Obama... not so much. I'm not going to speculate on who he wants in control of Congress or why. But he sure isn't doing anything to help Democrats win seats. Presumably he'll have some coattails in some districts and that will help, but he's not campaigning for them or with them and not helping with finances. "At rallies," the Wall Street Journal's Laura Meckler reports, "Mr. Obama seldom urges supporters to volunteer-- or even vote-- for other Democrats running for office. Sometimes, he mentions other politicians in the room without noting that they are seeking re-election. He rarely shares the stage with other candidates."

Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal advocacy group Campaign for America's Future, sees risks in the president's approach. He says it will be all but impossible for Mr. Obama to accomplish his goals in a second term if he doesn't have a Democratic Congress.

"He has a rap he uses all the time on the campaign trail about this being the election that will break the stalemate in Washington. But when you look at it, it sounds like he's just talking about getting him re-elected," Mr. Hickey said. The better course, he said, would be for Mr. Obama to tell voters: "Send me a Congress that can do the big things that need to be done."

Some other supporters agree. "It's not just about the president,'' said Kim Kennedy, 50 years old, a neighborhood team leader for the Obama campaign in Westerville, Ohio. "It's about the down-ticket people, also … so the president can work on his agenda and get things down." In August, she went to a rally for Mr. Obama in Columbus, where he didn't mention Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, who faces a re-election race of his own.

You can contribute to campaigns for two of Chris' guests, Rob Zerban and Nate Shinagawa, here at the Blue America page that deals with Democrats running for the House who support Prosperity Economics and oppose the kind of Austerity agenda that the GOP is pushing and that President Obama seems a little too eager to compromise on.

Another Paid Off Fracking Proponent-- Tom Reed (R-NY)

When Eric Massa first took the economically depressed 29th CD in New York's Southern Tier, there was a longtime Republican incumbent and the district had a history of voting for Republicans. Bush won it with 53% in 2000 and 56% in 2004. But in 2006 Eric Massa came very close and in 2008, even with Obama losing to McCain 48-51, Massa took the district 51-49%, ousting the incumbent. The 29th has been redrawn and is now NY-23, a far bluer district. In fact, under the current boundaries, instead of that 48-51% loss Obama experienced, it would have been a 50-49% win for the president. It doesn't take much to figure out this might be a good target for the DCCC.

But there's a problem. The conservative corporate shill the DCCC favored lost the primary. Instead, a county legislator-- and one of New York's most dynamic and progressive young elected officials-- won, Nate Shinagawa. Suddenly Steve Israel lost all interest in the district and decided to abandon it to Tom Reed, the freshman teabagger. THIS Tom Reed? The one who investigative journalist Zaid Jilani found to be a corrupt pile of excrement who has been paid off to push a fracking agenda?

In August of 2011, Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) faced a town hall packed full of his constituents who opposed the controversial gas drilling process of fracking. Here’s an excerpt of a local news article at the time detailing how Reed defended the practice to his angry constituents:

Reed made no bones about his view on the subject-- he’s in favor of fracking the Marcellus Shale if it can be done cleanly and responsibly, which he believes it can. “I am a supporter of the industry, natural gas,” Reed said.

His view drew ire from those in attendance. “Our town in Troy, Pa., is ruined” because of gas drilling, one woman said. “I could tell you horror stories. The things we live every day … They call it Gastown now. It doesn’t even have its name anymore.”

Reed’s constituents were enraged at his defense of fracking in their backyards. But maybe it wasn’t his constituents he was trying to appeal to. In the weeks and months following that town hall, gas lobbyists showered Reed with sizable donations from their political action committees (PACs):

• The National Fuel Gas Political Action Committee: This group gave Reed $2,000 on September 8th, approximately a week and a half after the town hall. This is the PAC of the National Fuel company, which not surprisingly has been operating in the Marcellus Shale area that Reed wants to expand drilling in.

• The American Gas Association Political Action Committee: This power-house D.C.-based group for gas companies and their lobbyists wrote Reed a $1,000 check exactly two weeks after the Natural Fuel Gas PAC donated to him.

• America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) Political Action Committee: This PAC gave Reed a $2,400 check on October 1st, 2011. ANGA is financed by a variety of natural gas drillers.

• Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Political Action Committee: This natural gas group gave $1,000 to Reed on November 15th, 2011.

Reed was no doubt feeling the heat from his constituents last August on this issue. But was not reported until now is that he may have had a reason to take this unpopular stand in favor of fracking. The $6,400 he received in a matter of weeks from various natural gas interests gave him an incentive to rebuke his own constituents in favor of campaign contributions.

And then there's Nate Shinagawa, a fracking opponent who's been endorsed by environmental experts Sandra Steingraber and Bob Howarth.

“As a hospital administrator, Nate has seen how drilling and fracking undermine the health of communities,” said Steingraber. “Better than anyone, he knows you can’t have a good economy without a healthy population. Nate has been a long-time advocate for moratoria, bans, and home rule to protect our water, food, and air from ruinous fossil fuel extraction. His ideas for truly sustainable economic development are needed in Congress,” she added...

“Nate has a record informed opposition to practices such as fracking that harm our environment and agricultural industry,” said Howarth. “As an active member of his community, a county legislator, and future Congressman, he is committed to engaging all sides in respectful, solutions-oriented conversations about fracking and alternative paths to economic growth and job creation,” he said.

Nate's compelling personal story is quintessentially the All American story. Like every last one of us, his antecedents had come to America, struggled, persevered and come to love and become part of their new homeland. His Japanese ancestors were interned in concentration camps while his grandfather joined the U.S. Marine Corps to fight for the country they loved. That story helped to define how Nate saw himself as grew into the best America has to offer itself. And that story led him to explain his campaign to me as one "about being brave and fighting for a government that provides for its senior citizens, creates opportunities for its young people, and protects the pristine lands and waters of this great country."

Tom "I got mine" Reed is a self-entitled freshman who insists he's both a teabagger and a multimillionaire. Before running for office, he was a medical debt collector who profited off of the misfortune of sick people and once he did manage to get into office-- as a result of the Eric Massa scandal-- he, in quick succession hired a former health insurance company lobbyist as his legislative director and voted to repeal mandatory funding for school-based health center construction. Reed, a huge supporter of Paul Ryan's plans to radically redraw America in an Ayn Rand image, proudly supports raising the Medicare eligibility age (rather than bring down costs by expanding coverage the way Nate is suggesting) and has publicly said that Social Security had to be "on the table" for cuts.

Nate is enthusiastically campaigning on a Prosperity Economics agenda, while Reed pursues the failed Austerity precepts that have been so catastrophic for the European countries that have adopted them. "I support the Prosperity Economics plan," Nate told us, "because it lays out a clear set of bold and thoughtful policies that will keep the American Dream alive. The austerity measures championed by Republican Congressional leadership goes beyond cutting the fat out of the federal budget-- it cuts the muscle we need to rebuild the American middle class. We need to invest in our infrastructure, focus on renewable energy, make education affordable, and fight to save our economy from outsourcing and Democracy from corruption in the Citizens United era. Prosperity Economics should be the way forward for our next Congress, and I strongly urge others to support these ideas."

But even more than being reactionary and into voodoo economics, Reed is plain old corrupt. Despite the congressional earmark ban, he's introduced earmark tariff bills that would only benefit individual companies that contribute to his campaign, exactly what less hypocritical and idealistic Tea Partiers said the ban was meant to put a stop to. In other ways, though, Reed, is more in line with kneejerk GOP dogma. He insists that the Bush tax cuts did not need to be paid for or offset in order to be extended and he has opposed every attempt President Obama has made to make the tax system fairer and to bring jobs back to America. If Nate's story is quintessentially the All American story, Tom Reed's is quintessentially the All Greed story. Last fall when Tropical Storm Lee devastated much of his own district with floods and FEMA funding was running out, he stood with Boehner and Cantor and not with his own voters, a standoff that brought us to the brink of a government shutdown. While Reed was playing obstructionist games and posturing about his extremist ideology, people's lives and safety were in danger. Ironically, Nate was Incident Commander at his hospital, coordinating the emergency response in communities affected by the flooding from the same storm, even buying $3,000 worth of water with his own credit card when the hospital sewer system went down!

Nate couldn't be more different from Reed. "We need leadership committed to building up the middle class again," he told us, "and making government work again for all Americans. Voters have seen the Republican Congress give more advantages to the already advantaged at the expense of their own communities where working families continue to struggle as our economy slowly recovers from recession. It's time to prove once and for all that the American Dream is our future, not our past." It must make Reed's skin crawl to hear Nate drawing attention to the profound differences the two of them have:

"I believe that the job creators in this country are everyday Americans. They are our teachers, nurses, firefighters, construction workers who work hard every day. They are our small businesses and our entrepreneurs. They are our farmers, our students and our senior citizens."

If you'd like to help replace Tom Reed with Nate Shinagawa, you can do that right here on the Blue America page.