This New Dem Careerist Crap Really Pisses Me Off

 

I was speaking with a congressional candidate the other day. And she asked me if I know a particular member of Congress who had called her recently. I never met the fellow but I do know he's a corporate-friendly New Dem with an "F" rating from ProgressivePunch-- and in a ultra-safe blue district (D+over 20) that was designed to suck up every Democrat in the area to make it safer for 4 Republican incumbents by making sure their districts would be less competitive.

In any case, what did this New Dem want from the progressive? Was it to make a contribution to her campaign? Nah. But he had some advise for her: he chastised her for not taking PAC money-- even though she had out-raised her opponent without the money that comes with strings attached (which is how the congressman finances his own career).

And the other advise was even more offensive. She told me that the person who has done the most for her campaign has been Bernie Sanders, who has sent fundraising letters and done on-line events with her. The congressman wanted to warn her that if she was seen to be associating with Bernie, it would hurt her efforts to get elected.

This isn't even sound advice on the surface. There are 3 counties with almost all the people in her district. Two of the three-- including the biggest one-- all went for Bernie in 2016 and again in 2020. This isn't an area looking for a conservative, status-quo Democrat. His district isn't either. Democratic turnout in his district is pathetic, just a fraction of what it should be. He's very lucky there are so few Republicans there.

I spoke to other progressive candidates who have told me they've gotten very similar advice from incumbents, usually New Dems! "Go light on the anti-PAC message" and "Don't play up the Bernie association." Advice from the DCCC consultants is even harsher and more vile-- both in terms of the content and in the ways the content is delivered, especially to women candidates who always seem to get talked down to by these DCCC consultants. (I thought they put Bustos into therapy to make her less of a bigot. I guess it either didn't work or she didn't realize she was supposed to instill decency into her co-workers and consultants.)

The Democratic Party is going to need serious, committed men and women in Congress, not a bunch of worthless careerists who are serious about nothing but how to get reelected and not committed to anything but themselves. The DCCC candidates, for the most part, don't make the grade. I was just reading how Trump's plan is to leave Biden with a poison pill that will take candidates who are going to fight to win-- the way Pramila Jayapal and Ted Lieu and Jamie Raskin do and not whimper like a bunch of Third Way/Problem Solver/New Dem weenies. Andrew Feinberg reported that "The order, which the White House released late Wednesday evening, would strip civil service protections from a broad swath of career civil servants if it is decided that they are in 'confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating positions'-- a description previously reserved for the political appointees who come and go with each change in administration. It does that by creating a new category for such positions that do not turn over from administration to administration and reclassifying them as part of that category.  The Office of Personnel Management-- essentially the executive branch’s human resources department-- has been charged with implementing the order by publishing a 'preliminary' list of positions to be moved into the new category on what could President Donald Trump’s last full day in office: January 19, 2021."

The range of workers who could be stripped of protections and placed in this new category is vast, experts say, and could include most of the non-partisan experts-- scientists, doctors, lawyers, economists-- whose work to advise and inform policymakers is supposed to be done in a way that is fact-driven and devoid of politics. Trump has repeatedly clashed with such career workers on a variety of settings, ranging from his desire to present the Covid-19 pandemic as largely over, to his attempts to enable his allies to escape punishment for federal crimes, to his quixotic insistence that National Weather Service scientists back up his erroneous claim that the state of Alabama was threatened by a hurricane which was not heading in its direction.

Creating the new category-- known as “Schedule F”-- and moving current civil servants into it could allow a lame-duck President Trump to cripple his successor’s administration by firing any career federal employees who’ve been included on the list. It also could allow Trump administration officials to skirt prohibitions against “burrowing in”-- the heavily restricted practice of converting political appointees (known as “Schedule C” employees) into career civil servants-- by hiring them under the new category for positions which would not end with Trump’s term. Another provision orders agencies to take steps to prohibit removing “Schedule F” appointees from their jobs on the grounds of “political affiliation,” which could potentially prevent a future administration from firing unqualified appointees because of their association with President Trump.

“It's a two-pronged attack-- a Hail Mary pass to enable them to do some burrowing in if they lose the election,” said Walter Shaub, who ran the US Office of Government Ethics during the last four years of the Obama administration and first six months of the Trump administration. “But if they win the election, then anything goes for the destruction of the civil service… [This could] take us back to the spoils system and all the corruption that comes with it.”

Shaub explained that at the core of it, a non-partisan civil service is one of the most basic anti-corruption measures that any government can implement “because they free federal employees to disobey illegal orders, be ethical, and resist fraud, waste, and abuse.”

“Taking those away creates a cadre of people who are either too intimidated by or loyal to a politician instead of the rule of law and the Constitution,” he said. “That’s the goal here.”

It's why I've been advocating declaring that Trump was an illegitimate president and that everything he did is null and void-- a kind of modern day Damnatio Memoriae. That's a job for progressives, not careerist centrists.

Audrey isn't the candidate I spoke to about the New Dem phone call but I just saw her new TV ad and thought it fit--exactly what a DCCC consultant would tell her not to run:

Any Blue Will Do? Screw That!

Thursday night during the debate Biden accidentally answered "yes" when asked if he favored closing down the oil industry. He had had a senior moment and he didn't mean that, explaining to journalists a short time later that "We’re not going to get rid of fossil fuels. We’re going to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels." A step in the right direction. But two worthless, reactionary Blue Dogs-- Kendra Horn (OK) and Xochitl Torres Small (NM) immediately distanced themselves from his statement. [Note: the DCCC has already spent over $10,000,000 on these two worthless corporate shills, money that could have gone to electing actual Democrats.]

Blue Dogs and New Dems-- the pro-corporate Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- have shredded the Democratic Party's brand starting... when? When Bill Clinton embraced Wall Street in 1992? When Jimmy Carter was sworn in in 1977 or when JFK became president in 1961? When the conservatives in the party establishment forced FDR to remove Vice President Henry Wallace from the ticket in 1944?

Leaving the Senate aside, let's start with House incumbents. Over 100 of them have "F" grades from ProgressivePunch. 17 have voted more frequently with the GOP against progressive roll calls than with the Democrats! From terrible to worse:

• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- 48.00% with the Democrats
• Conor Lamb (PA)- 47.33% with the Democrats
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- 44.44% with the Democrats
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- 44.27% with the Democrats
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 43.21% with the Dems
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)- 41.98% with the Dems
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- 41.25% with the Dems
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- 40.74% with the Dems
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 40.02% with the Dems
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 39.11% with the Dems
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 39.08% with the Dems
• Jared Golden (Blue Dog-ME)- 34.57% with the Dems
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 28.40% with the Dems
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- 28.40% with the Dems
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 27.16% with the Dems
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 24.69% with the Dems
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 23.46% with the Dems

And in case anyone forgot the 2018 DCCC star recruit from New Jersey, Blue Dog shit-eater Jefferson Van Drew, he flipped to the GOP in the middle of the year and has a record of having voted 17.50% of the time with the Democrats.

Post-primary season, the Blue Dogs have 8 anti-worker/pro-corporate candidates they have endorsed. Under no circumstances should you support any of them, not with volunteer hours, not with campaign contributions, not even with votes:

• Eugene DePasquale (PA-10)
• Gretchen Driskell (MI-07)
• Margaret Good (FL-16)
• Jackie Gordon (NY-02)
• Christina Hale (IN-05)
• Josh Hicks (KY-06)
• Brynne Kennedy (CA-04)
• Sri Kulkarni (TX-22)

And the New Dems have 31 putrid candidates they are backing, each and every one of them having passed the test to prove they will make America worse. This is the list of the 31 candidates to be avoided-- unless you support the idea of corrupt, corporate governance:

• Alyse Galvin (I-AK)
• Hiral Tipirneni (AZ-06)
• Christy Smith (CA-25)
• Qualcomm heiress Sara Jacobs (CA-53)-- opposing progressive Democrat Georgette Gomez
• Margaret Good (FL-16)
• Carolyn Bourdeaux (GA-07)
• Betsy Dirksen Londrigan (IL-13)
• Christina Hale (IN-05)
• Hillary Scholten (MI-03)
• Dan Feehan (MN-01)
• Jill Schupp (MO-02)
• Deborah Ross (NC-02)
• Kathy Manning (NC-06)
• Pat Timmons Goodson (NC-08)
• Amy Kennedy (NJ-02)
• Nancy Goroff (NY-01)
• Jackie Gordon (NY-02)
• Kate Schroder (OH-01)
• Eugene DePasquale (PA-10)
• Wendy Davis (TX-21)
• Sri Kulkarni (TX-22)
• Gina Ortiz Jones (TX-23)
• Cameron Webb (VA-05)
• Carolyn Long (WA-03)
• Marilyn Strickland (WA-10)- opposing progressive Beth Doglio

(the New Dem "watch list")

• Ammar Campa-Najjar (CA-50)
• Kathleen Williams (MT)
• Desiree Tims (OH-10)
• Hillary O'Connor Mueri (OH-14)
• Christina Finello (PA-01)
• Sima Ladjevardian (TX-02)

I know half a dozen of these people personally. They all seem... nice. They just have strange idea about what a Democrat is. I've watched Congress long enough to know for sure that I wouldn't vote to put a single one of them in office. That's how toxic it is to be a member of the Blue Dogs or New Dems.

In the next 10 days the DCCC and Pelosi's SuperPAC will spend millions of dollars helping to elect these conservative candidates-- and not much helping progressives. (The ones in blue are the progressives.) These are the candidates that these groups had spent the most (over a million) on before this weekend:

• Rep Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)- $7,866,938
• Christy Smith- $7,728,919 Includes the spending in the special election she lost)
• Rep Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)- $7,621,687
• Rita Hart (IA-02)- $5,896,987
• Sri Kulkarni- $5,749,664
• Rep TJ Cox (New Dem-CA)- $5,320,109
• Carolyn Bourdeaux- $5,126,518
• Rep Xochitl Torres Small- $4,988,768
• Rep Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)- $4,978,578
• Amy Kennedy- $4,830,590
• Candace Valenzuela- $4,533,197
• Rep Anthony Brindisi- $4,396,328
• Kate Schroder (OH-01)- $4,371,004
• Rep Kendra Horn- $4,165,196
• Rep Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $4,155,685
• Dana Balter (NY-24)- $4,131,598
• Rep Ben McAdams- $4,068,280
• Rep Andy Kim (NJ)- $3,973,965
• Jackie Gordon- $3,649,928
• Kara Eastman (NE)- $3,510,587
• Betsy Dirksen Londrigan- $3,500,820
• Gina Ortiz Jones- $3,464,091
• Dan Feehan- $3,437,352
• Jill Schupp- $3,434,612
• Rep Joe Cunningham- $3,354695
• Hiral Tipirneni- $3,383,888
• Eugene DePasquale- $3,188,406
• wealthy socialite Rep Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- $3,056,114
• Rep Abby Finkenauer- $3,003,170
• Rep Abigail Spanberger- $2,876,863
• Kristina Hale- $2,839,768
• Wendy Davis- $2,818,222
• Kathleen Williams- $2,729,430
• Rep Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)- $2,310,273
• Rep Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- $2,227,113
• rich lottery winner Rep Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)- $2,192,622
• Hillary Scholten- $1,985,694
• Rep Cindy Axne- $1,911,390
• Christina Finello (PA-01)- $1,686,457
• Nancy Goroff- $1,641,713
• Rep Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- $1,563,736
• Diane Mitsch Bush- $1,525,481
• Rep Elaine Luria- $1,336,672
• Rep Pete DeFazio (OR)- $1,287,300
• Joyce Elliott (AR-02)- $1,173,133
• Cameron Webb- $1,073,021
• Rep Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI)- $1,054,635

So many millions of dollars wasted on worthless incumbents who no one likes! And spending on progressives who really need the money-- next to nothing other than for Kara Eastman, Joyce Elliott and Dana Balter. What about Jon Hoadley, Mike Siegel, Julie Oliver, Audrey Denney, Nate McMurray, Adam Christensen, Liam O'Mara to name a few. "Too progressive for the district" is what the DCCC always says (off the record).

I spoke to Liam O'Mara, a professor of the history of ideas, who is also a candidate running in Riverside County's CA-42-- with no recognition from the DCCC whatsoever. "The idea that I am 'too progressive for the district' is rubbish," he told me yesterday. "The most progressive prior candidate out here also happens to have done the best against Calvert. We currently have the best early return rate of any Democrat in recent memory, and that follows a primary cycle that saw more votes to the Dems than any previous primary in ages. Right now FiveThirtyEight gives my campaign a better chance of flipping the district than they've seen yet, and a higher chance of flipping the seat than quite a few candidates in the long lists above. Progressive-populist leaders used to dominate in the most socially conservative corners of the country, because more people vote their wallets and their hopes than anything else. To say that we are out of touch with the needs and wishes of the electorate is to surrender preëmptively to Republican control and Republican arguments... when what we ought to be doing is standing out there and winning over hearts and minds. The Democratic party needs to stop focussing on safely blue seats and start trying to win people over... and we can't do that with tepid, half-baked conservatism."

Let me make a suggestion: click on the 2020 ActBlue congressional thermometer above and show Liam O'Mara some love. Unlike most of the DCCC candidates, he would actually make Congress a better and more productive place.

Amy Kennedy Is Besting New Jersey Turncoat Jeff Van Drew. Is That Any Reason To Celebrate?

What's worse? This or supporting another dynast?

 

The New Dems, even more so that the withered and impotent Blue Dogs, are the heart of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. They are Wall Street and corporate-America sell outs and have more in common with Eisenhower-era Republicans than they do with progressive Democrats. They vote badly but, worse yet, they prevent progressive legislation from ever getting to the floor, even in a Democratically-controlled House.

DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos quietly resigned from the Blue Dogs to become a New Dem when she decided to work towards become Speaker. She has worked diligently and successfully to knock out progressives where ever possible to make sure Democratic Party nominees would be New Dems. The New Dems themselves have endorsed 25 candidates so far this cycle-- and have 6 others on their website as "Candidates to watch." They may be better than Republicans-- but only because the GOP has moved so far right that they can now be classified as a fascist party. The New Dems today are what the Republicans were previously-- not racist, misogynistic or homophobic, but virulently pro-corporate and anti-working class.

The new Dem leadership, chaired by Derek Kilmer (WA), is basically putrid: Ann Kuster (NH), Scott Peters (CA), Terri Sewell (AL), Suzane DelBene (WA), corrupt coke freak Pete Aguilar (CA), Kathleen Rice (NY), Ami Bera (CA), Chrissy Houlahan (PA) and Mikie Sherrill (NJ). These are cowardly careerists, not leaders. There can be no progress as long as they dominate the Democratic House caucus.

Here's dozen of their worst recruits this cycle: the Democrats who will guarantee-- along with Biden's White House and Schumer's Senate-- that there is a massive red wave in 2022.

The worst of the New Dem recruits have also been endorsed by the Blue Dogs: Eugene DePasquale (PA), Margaret Good (FL), Jackie Gordon (NY), Christina Hale (IN) and Sri Kulkarni (TX), a future Pete Aguilar pal. Both organizations are very careful with their endorsements. Believe me-- no progressives, none, never. So... when people were rejoicing at the Monmouth poll released yesterday showing former Blue Dog/New Dem/DCCC recruit, NRA hero Jefferson Van Drew-- now a devoted Trumpist and officially a Republican-- being defeated by Amy Kennedy, I wondered how many Democratic voters know what to expect from her.

Oh, she'll be a bit of an improvement over Van Drew for sure. But I would suggest you use your psychic energy to help elect these men and women, not another New Dem.

Obama won NJ's 2nd district with around 53.5% both times he ran. In 2016, Trump beat Hillary 50.6% to 46.0%. The seat opened up in 2018 and the DCCC and Blue Dogs and New Dems recruited the absolute worst member of the New Jersey state legislature, Jefferson Van Drew. He ran against a clown the GOP didn't support, Seth Grossman. Grossman spent $299,475 to Van Drew's $1,877,531. The DCCC and it's allies spent another $1.1 million bolstering Van Drew and attacking Grossman.

This cycle, Kennedy has raised $1,529,882, most of which she spent in the primary, to Van Drew's $2,548,688. But... the DCCC and it's allies have already spent nearly $2 million on Kennedy, while a Trump PAC has spent around $260,000 defending Van Drew.

Monmouth reported that "Among all registered voters, Kennedy is supported by 49% and Van Drew is supported by 44%. Another 1% say they will support a third party candidate and 5% are undecided. Among likely voters in a high turnout scenario, Kennedy holds a 50% to 44% edge. She maintains that lead in a lower turnout model with 51% supporting her to 44% for Van Drew. It should be noted that these leads are all within the survey’s margin of error. Kennedy holds a 94% to 1% advantage among Democratic voters while Van Drew has an 89% to 8% lead among his now-fellow Republicans. Independents prefer Kennedy by a 50% to 40% margin... In the presidential election, Joe Biden holds a small lead over Donald Trump in the district-- 48% to 45% among all registered voters, 50% to 45% among likely voters in a high turnout election, and 49% to 45% in a low turnout election."

Meanwhile... this powerful, incredibly well-articulated and unprecedented video by a former First Lady may upset a White House occupant trying to keep his blood pressure from spiking and killing him. All the worst of luck, Pig Man!

Biden Isn't The Only Conservative Democrat Being Embraced By Republicans-- The Chamber Of Commerce Just Pulled The Trigger For Lots Of Blue Dogs And New Dems

Last week, we noted that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was preparing-- with some partisan pushback from the GOP Establishment-- to endorse a gaggle of freshmen Democrats who have records of being sufficiently anti-working class congressional Democrats and who, generally, are part of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. And now they have now so: 23 Democratic freshmen and 29 Republican freshmen-- all representing the interests of Wall Street and anti-family, corporate governance. Trump-Republican Eric Esshaki-- a sore loser, pissed off that he didn't get the Chamber's endorsement for Michigan's 11th congressional district-- summed it up well when his New Dem opponent Haley Stevens was endorsed. Esshaki dismissed the Chamber as "the swamp lobbyists swimming with Haley Stevens" and said that "Congresswoman Stevens being endorsed by another set of lobbyists in Washington, D.C., is not news. These lobbyists care about backroom deals with Nancy Pelosi. Every lobbyist knows Stevens blindly follows the Nancy Pelosi agenda. Haley Stevens is bad for jobs, bad for working families and bad for health care."

Trump won MI-11 in 2016-- 49.7% to 45.3%-- but in 2018, Stevens beat millionaire self-funder Republican Lena Epstein, who had been endorsed by the Chamber, 181,912 (51.8%) to 158,463 (45.2%), winning in both the Wayne and Oakland counties parts of the suburban Detroit district. Epstein had put $1,168,790 of her own money into the race and spent $2,636,898 in all. Stevens was able to out-raise her significantly and spent $4,149,627. The DCCC and it's allies spent around $5.8 million bolstering Stevens and GOP groups only ponied up about $1.3 for Epstein. So far this cycle Stevens has raised $3,858,939 to Esshaki's $418,369, $100,000 of which was self-funded and most of which he has already spent in an ugly primary battle. It doesn't look like any significant outside money will be spent in MI-11 this cycle and that Stevens will breeze to reelection.

These are the 23 Democratic freshmen who have been endorsed by the Chamber-- each with their progressive punch first year grade next to their name:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- F
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- F
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- F
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- F
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- F
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- F
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)- F
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- F
• Andy Kim (NJ)- F
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- F
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)- F
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- F
• Antonio Delgado (New Dem-NY)- F
• Greg Stanton (New Dem-AZ)- D
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- F
• TJ Cox (New Dem-CA)- F
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)- F
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)- F
• David Trone (New Dem-MD)- F
• Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI)- F
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- F
• ean Phillips (New Dem-MN)- F
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- F

The 5 Democrats with the very worse voting records in Congress-- all Blue Dogs-- are also all Chamber of Commerce endorsees. Here's the list, from horrible to worst and the percentage next to each name indicates how often they have voted for anything even vaguely progressive:

• Kendra Horn (OK)- 29.11%
• Abigail Spanberger (VA)- 29.11%
• Ben McAdams (UT)- 27.85%
• Anthony Brindisi (NY)- 25.32%
• Joe Cunningham (SC)- 24.05%

For comparison's sake, there are only 8 freshmen with "A" grades, Andy Levin (100%), Joe Neguse (97.47%), Ayanna Pressley (96.20%), Chuy Garcia (94.94%), AOC (94.94%), Rashida Tlaib (94.94%). Lori Trahan (93.67%) and Ilhan Omar (92.41%). Needless to say, the Chamber certainly didn't consider endorsing any of them. In fact, this cycle the Chamber has spent 6-figure amounts against AOC, as well as $200,000 to bolster Blue Dog Henry Cuellar against progressive primary opponent Jessica Cisneros.

The Chamber had endorsed and spent money for Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party before, but it's odd this time seeing them working to elect Democrats who they worked hard against in 2018. For example, now they're all for conservative Democrat Sharice Davids but they spent $200,000 against her just two years ago. This year they love conservative Democrat Joe Cunningham; last cycle they endorsed Republican fringe nut Katie Arrington against him. In California's Central Valley, there is a re-match between incumbent TJ Cox and former incumbent David Valadao. In 2018, the Chamber was all for Valadao. This cycle they're backing Cox. On receiving their endorsement, Cox boasted about how frequently he votes with the Republicans against the working class. "Small businesses are the backbone of our Central Valley communities and the work our local Chambers of Commerce have done to help keep Main Street weather the storm of this year is nothing short of a lifesaver,” Cox said of his new best friends. "As a businessman myself, I’m proud to work with anyone and every one to deliver for the Central Valley, which is why I have backed pro-small business legislation that supports shared prosperity through good-paying jobs, even bucking my own party to get results."

A scumbag like Cox knows he can count of Democrats to vote blindly for the "D" next to his name, regardless of his shitty voting record and irrespective of his Republican-orientation when it comes to policy. The Fresno Bee also reversed positions. Having backed Cox in 2018, they have now endorsed Valadao, primarily, they wrote, because of his unscrupulous business dealings: "Not paying workers their wages. Not paying taxes. And, with the razor-thin victory two years ago, not a mandate for Cox to represent the 21st."

The Fox channel in Oklahoma City seemed delighted for their favorite conservative congresswoman. "Earlier this year, Congresswoman Kendra Horn received the Chamber’s highest bipartisanship score among the Oklahoma congressional delegation. Congresswoman Horn ranks higher with the U.S. Chamber for her legislative record than Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, Senator Lankford, Congressman Hern, and Congressman Mullin."

Horn, who beat an unfunded progressive Democrat in the primary said she is "honored to have the endorsement of the U.S. Chamber because it means I’ve delivered on my promise to bring both parties together in support of Oklahoma’s businesses and economic opportunity in our state. I fought to save small businesses during the pandemic and hosted a job fair to connect Oklahomans with dozens of local employers. In Congress, I work with business and industry leaders from aerospace to health care to oil and gas to support our diverse economy. My support for pro-growth policies, like USMCA, set our businesses, workers, and families up for success. We don’t have to choose between policies that are good for our people and policies that are good for our pocketbooks."

If you'd like to support candidates for Congress who have not ever been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce-- or any other Republican front groups-- I've included a thermometer on the right that goes to the Blue America Act Blue page with Democratic congressional candidates whose agendas are in the best interests of working families in their districts, like, for example, Cathy Kunkel in West Virginia. "In our campaign," she told me yesterday, "we are unapologetically for working class West Virginians: Medicare for All universal healthcare, negotiating to bring down prescription drug prices, $15/hour minimum wage and more. We support cutting the military budget and forcing wealthy corporations to pay their fair share in taxes so that we can invest in healthcare, education and infrastructure to combat poverty here at home. Our campaign is not taking any corporate PAC dollars exactly because I'm not going to be the kind of politician who goes to DC and immediately sells out their constituents to wealthy campaign donors."

Civil War Breaking Out Among Both Congressional Parties

Pelosi made a very big mistake a couple weeks ago. She endorsed Joe Kennedy III in his bid to unseat and replace Massachusetts progressive Ed Markey. Pelosi's endorsement immediately turned the race around. Kennedy had been substantially ahead and Pelosi's kiss of death, brought a tidal wave of momentum into the race-- for Markey. Since Pelosi's endorsement there have been two public polls. Suffolk University's Massachusetts Senate poll shows Markey beating Kennedy by an astounding 10 points and the Data for Progress poll a few days ago has Markey up 7 points. This is quite the turn-around from the 17 point lead Kennedy began the race with!

Incumbents usually try to stay out of primaries, especially primaries that involve incumbents. But as all DWT readers are well aware, the only accountability for incumbents in deep blue (or deep red for that matter) districts comes through primaries. Pelosi wasn't attempting to give Ed Markey an accountability moment-- although she opposes the Green New Deal legislation he and AOC wrote-- but was instead trying to cultivate the Kennedy Clan for one reason or another. Same with 2022 Wisconsin Senate hopeful, Mark Pocan, who also endorsed Kennedy against the much more progressive Markey, even though Pocan is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Yesterday Melanie Zenona and Heather Caygle, reporting for Politico wrote that the congressional primary taboo is breaking down. They speculated that "lawmakers, aides and strategists in both parties say the pattern will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. It’s a shift that reflects the ideological-- and anti-establishment-- churn taking place in the Donald Trump era, and it’s sparking concern among the old guard about rising intraparty warfare."

"More and more members of Congress are going to look and say 'rules are rules' but if in fact there’s a district that’s suffering… we’re going to see a lot more members of Congress supporting challengers,” said Marie Newman, who knocked off longtime Illinois Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski earlier this year with the backing of several prominent Democrats.

Even as leaders in both parties have tried to paint any decision to wield influence in primaries as a “special” case, younger firebrands are interpreting their leadership’s involvement as a green light to show support and spend money on the challengers they prefer.

“If the establishment is going to start shooting at the outsiders and the pro-Trump elements of our caucus, then the bullets aren’t only going to be flying in one direction,” said Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, who backed the successful GOP challenger to Rep. Ross Spano (R-FL) after a member of GOP leadership targeted one of his other colleagues.

Playing in primaries has long been looked down upon in both the Republican and Democratic Party, where leaders deploy multi-million-dollar campaign arms to shield incumbents and squash any potential challengers. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took it a step further this cycle-- enforcing a “blacklist” of vendors who work for candidates seeking to oust sitting lawmakers, a move that outraged progressives and motivated them to get even more involved in primary campaigns this cycle.

“These places operate on members’ dues,” said Brendan Buck, a GOP strategist, referring to the parties’ campaign arms. “To be able to get members to contribute, they need to convince them it’s an incumbent protection operation.” Otherwise, he added, “that trust is eroded” and “the money stops coming in.”

Plus, it’s dangerous to take a shot and miss. Leadership used to even shy away from open primaries amid fears of picking the wrong candidate and alienating a future colleague.

“It’s a risky play, no doubt,” said Buck, who served as a top aide to former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI). “You better be damn sure it’s gonna work if you’re gonna do it. People have long memories.”

But now, insurgent lawmakers angry with the establishment and tired of abiding by the kind of decorum that once governed Washington are looking to flex their muscles in primaries — and put leadership on notice.

“No one gets to complain about primary challenges again,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response to Pelosi’s endorsement of Kennedy. The freshman lawmaker, who has won the ire of some colleagues for her openness to supporting primary challenges, also called on the DCCC to get rid of its vendor blacklist. “It seems like less a policy and more a cherry-picking activity,” she wrote.

This is hardly the first time rank-and-file lawmakers have engaged in primaries-- although many more are openly doing so this year-- but it’s now easier than it was a decade ago to actually wield influence through the use of grassroots fundraising and social media.

“The old ways of Washington empower leadership through money. But we’re starting to see that the message and movement may be more important than money,” said Gaetz, who swore off PAC funding. “In today’s world of social media, digital communication and wall-to-wall cable television, the leadership no longer has a stranglehold on the brand or the messengers.”

The 2022 cycle may offer further opportunity for insurgents, as incumbents may be facing entirely new constituencies after the latest round of redistricting.

Allies of Pelosi have defended her decision to back Kennedy, arguing the speaker did not undermine her policy of fiercely protecting House incumbents since she was weighing in on a Senate race. Progressive lawmakers and strategists have dismissed that explanation.

“What we’re seeing right now is the Democratic establishment really being honest in public about what they’re doing. What’s not a change is them taking sides in primaries-- they have long done it for years and years and years, they’ve just been more private about it,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.

Ocasio-Cortez, who declined to be interviewed for this story, shot to prominence after toppling one of the most powerful Democrats in the House: Joe Crowley, the Democratic Caucus chair who was often mentioned as a potential future speaker. A fellow member of her liberal “squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), took down longtime Rep. Mike Capuano in 2018 and has since backed other primary challengers.

Progressive challengers have already unseated several long-entrenched Democratic incumbents this year, including Lipinski, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel in New York, and Rep. Lacy Clay in Missouri.

If Neal is defeated by Holyoke mayor Alex Morse, it would be a huge victory for Ocasio-Cortez and a disappointment for Pelosi. The speaker spent several minutes praising Neal’s progressive bona fides at a news conference Thursday and said his district would suffer “a tremendous loss” if he’s ousted.

...But both Gaetz and Ocasio-Cortez have serious sway on the right and left, respectively, so if they do decide to get more involved next cycle, things could get messy. Several other Gaetz-backed candidates sailed to victory in open Florida GOP primaries last week, including far-right activist Laura Loomer who has been banned from Twitter and Facebook for racist comments and attacks on Islam but who has little shot at winning in November.

“One of the jobs of leadership is to keep the peace amongst your team. A real quick way to have your team fall apart is if there is suspicion that certain members are trying to unseat other ones,” Buck said. “Politics is a team sport. And if your team devolves into this type of fighting, it’s really hard to put that back together.”

As I pointed out yesterday, the increasingly dominant and uber-corrupt corporate-backed New Dem caucus has been given the keys to the DCCC. Their endorsement list is basically the Red-to-Blue program this cycle. Two of their most recent endorsements are in jungle primary states-- California and Washington-- where November elections can pit two members of the same party. Vile corporate conservative Sara Jacobs is running against progressive Georgette Gomez in San Diego and another corporate conservative, Marilyn Strickland is trying to defeat state Rep Beth Doglio for the congressional seat in Thurston (Olympia) and Pierce (Tacoma area) counties that Denny Heck is giving up. Jacobs and Strickland are both being backed by the New Dem PAC, while Gomez and Doglio are being backed by the Progressive Caucus. I'm guessing that unless the House Dems dump Pelosi as leader-- and pronto-- this kind of intra-party fighting will accelerate into all-out civil war. (NOTE: You can contribute to both Gomez and Doglio here.)

Most 2018 DCCC Recruits Are Being Endorsed By The Chamber Of Commerce-- Meet Next Year's Chamber Endorsees

2018 DCCC recruit Jeff Van Drew is honest enough to be running for reelection as a Republican. Other 2018 DCCC recruits are being endorsed by the US Chamber of Commerce. Maybe someone needs to change the DCCC-- drastically

ProgressivePunch has awarded grades of "F" to 108 Democrats in Congress. 35 of them are part of the the most right-wing freshmen class in the history of the modern Democratic Party. Some of them-- like Steny Hoyer and Cheri Bustos-- are among top party leadership. All of them are extremely conservative and would have been considered Republicans before the GOP took a turn towards fascism in Reagan-era politics. Many of them, in fact, were Republicans.

I had to laugh yesterday because one of the "ex"-Republicans, a super-rich, utterly worthless bucket of slime from California, Gil Cisneros-- who was a potato chip taster who won a lottery and bought off the Democratic Party for a House seat-- was extolled as a hero of the revolution by none other than... Elizabeth Warren. Maybe she's getting bad advise, but Cisernos doesn't support anything Warren stands for. (By the way, Progressive Punch rated her record "A.") She wrote yesterday that she often talks "about the big, structural change that I believe is necessary to ensure the sanctity of our democracy, to hold our government accountable to working for the people and not corporations, and to bring bold action on the issues that matter most - like access to affordable health care, protected social safety programs, and attention to local economies." Yep she does work hard for those things. Cisneros works against them.

She wrote that "systemic change relies in part on the action of good public servants-- those who hold themselves accountable to hard working families, those who are committed to fighting for justice. It depends on people like Gil Cisneros." Did someone slip some ayahuasca into her tea? Cisernos didn't earn an "F" because he's a good public servant-- he's not-- or because he holds himself accountable to hard working families-- be doesn't-- and especially not because he's committed to fighting for justice; he isn't.

"That is why," she continued, absurdly and damaging her own brand, "for his righteous fights, for all that he brings to our Congress, for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents and Americans everywhere-- I am proud to endorse my friend Gil Cisneros in his reelection bid for Congress."

Friendships can account for a lot, I guess. Cisneros spent $9,252,762 to buy his seat in 2018. And that doesn't count these contributions:

• $47,300 to the DNC (July 7, 2016)
• $33,400 to the DNC (Sept. 9, 2015)
• $33,400 to the DNC (March 31, 2016)
• $32,4000 to the DNC (Feb. 11, 2014)

Warren wasn't done. "I’m proud to endorse Gil because, to me, he’s the exemplar of the type of fighters we need in Congress: those who offer more than just empty talk and actually lead with their actions. Who keep the promises they’ve made to people who elect them, who don’t sell out to special interests-- and who won’t back down from protecting working families’ right to quality, affordable health care and social safety nets that the President is trying desperately to rip away. Gil listens to his constituents, he stands with hard working Americans, he’s committed to doing right by those in California’s 39th-- and I’m committed to ensuring that Gil is reelected to Congress in November... [A]t this crucial point in the campaign cycle, Gil’s campaign is laser-focused on doing all that they can to spread his message of progress. But the only way that they’ll be able to talk to more voters, hire more staff, and shore up their media operation is with donations today from folks like us."

No shame. Like when she savaged her friend Bernie.

That was a tangent I didn't mean to get into. What I wanted to talk about was the blurring on the lines between Democrats and Republicans in Congress, not a new topic around DWT. Using their lifetime crucial vote scores as the determinant, these are the worst Democrats in the House-- the ones who have voted less than 50% of the time for progressive positions-- along with their district's PVIs:

• Conor Lamb (PA)- 48.06% [R+1]
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- 47.98% [even PVI]
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- 44.30% [R+4]
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 44.30% [R+6]
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- 44.27% [D+9]
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- 42.31% [R+3]
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)- 41.77% [D+1]
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- 40.51% [R+1]
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 39.95% [D+9]
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 39.10% [R+12]
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 39.01% [R+3]
• Jared Golden (Blue Dog-ME)- 35.44% [R+2]
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 29.11% [R+10]
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- 29.11% [R+6]
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 27.85% [R+13]
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 25.32% [R+6]
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 24.05% [R+10]

Many of these right-of-center faux-Democrats-- what people call the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- are about to get rewarded for their consistent anti-progressive stands and for preventing the congressional Democratic Party from even taking up issues opposed by corporate America. The Chamber of Commerce, despite furor in the GOP-- is going to back them for reelection. According to Politico reporter Alex Isenstadt, two dozen freshmen Blue Dogs and New Dems are about to get the reelection nod from the U.S. Chamber, although Isenstadt's point is that this is "triggering a revolt within the right-leaning organization and drawing fierce pushback from the group’s powerful GOP donors. The decision represents a sharp departure for the traditionally conservative Chamber, which has spent over $100 million backing Republican candidates during the past decade, and it threatens to further complicate the party’s prospects in the November election while driving a split in the business community." Yeah, yeah... but it's hardly unknown for the U.S. Chamber to back right-wing, anti-progressive Democrats. Like the NRA, they reward the worst scum inside the Democratic Party, despite wing nut special interests flipping out and huffing and puffing. Some of the fake Dems up for Chamber endorsements include Kendra Horn, Elaine Luria, Andy Kim and Joe Cunningham.

Chamber leaders-- including President Suzanne Clark, Chief Executive Officer Tom Donahue and Executive Vice President Neil Bradley-- have been pushing the proposal ahead of a Thursday committee vote to finalize a slate of 2020 endorsements.

But the group’s donors and members are up in arms, with some threatening to pull funding and others openly venting their frustration. Some are raising the prospect that Chamber board members will quit in the weeks to come.

There is particular concern the Democrats in question do not have the pro-business record an endorsement would convey. State Chamber of Oklahoma President Chad Warmington wrote a letter Tuesday to national Chamber leaders fervently opposing the proposal to back Rep. Kendra Horn, perhaps the most vulnerable House Democrat in the country.

Citing the Oklahoma congresswoman’s voting record on energy issues, Warmington wrote, “I question how the U.S. Chamber could endorse a candidate who consistently voted against the largest industry in Oklahoma, employing over 90,000 workers throughout the state. That is hardly a pro-business record. I am also concerned the U.S. Chamber would endorse a congresswoman that voted in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats who are not pro-business nearly 90 percent of the time.”

Warmington added: “I don’t believe an endorsement of Congresswoman Horn is warranted at this time and certainly not justifiable based on the current record of consequential votes impacting Oklahoma businesses.”

...The clash also provides a window into a growing rift in the business community over its place in the Donald Trump-dominated Republican Party, which has at times embraced policies the corporate world opposes. While the Chamber has almost exclusively endorsed Republicans over the past decade, it has collided with the president over everything from tariffs to immigration.

Clark told the Washington Post last year that “if anybody here ever thought of themselves as working for a partisan place, they should stop.”

Thomas Wilson, chairman of the Chamber’s executive committee, said in a statement that "the Chamber’s board has actively and successfully supported more bipartisanship in Washington since 2016 so we can create jobs and economic prosperity,” adding that “our priorities cut across party lines.”

“We are excited about the positive impact our enhanced endorsement criteria is having on creating better solutions for America," Wilson added.

The Chamber’s shift toward Democrats has deeply worried Republican officials, who long regarded the Chamber as a key piece of their campaign infrastructure. And it comes as two other prominent Republican-aligned political organizations, the National Rifle Association and Koch political network, pare back their electoral activity.

The Chamber has typically endorsed a handful of House Democrats each election year, though people familiar with the group say it hasn't endorsed so many at a single time. It rarely gets behind freshmen members, who are especially vulnerable in their first reelection race.

The DCCC has also tended to add the most conservative Democratic candidates to its endorsement list (the much-distrusted red to blue program, once notoriously run by Debbie Wasserman Schultz to benefit her own Republican cronies!) This morning, a progressive Democrat meeting all the supposed criteria for a DCCC endorsement asked me if I could help her figured out why she still wasn't on this list. I laughed and suggested she could join the New Dems or Blue Dogs and Cheri Bustos would have her on the list in 48 hours. Of the 33 mostly right-of-center candidates on the Red-to-Blue list, 25 have also been endorsed by the Blue Dogs and/or New Dems who Bustos has allowed to act as Red-to-Blue gatekeepers this cycle.

The Blue Dogs have found the 8 most Republican-like Democratic candidates to get behind for 2020, none of whom should be considered Democrats when it is time to go to the polls-- unless you want to make sure no progressive legislation ever even reaches the floor:

• Eugene DePasquale (PA-10)
• Gretchen Driskell (MI-07)
• Margaret Good (FL-15)
• Jackie Gordon (NY-02)
• Christine Hale (IN-05)
• Josh Hicks (KY-06)
• Brynne Kennedy (CA-04)
• Sri Kulkarni (TX-22)

The New Dems have endorsed 30 anti-working class candidates so far. Their list is is where the Red-to-Blue list comes from. This is the new crop of neo-liberals. Red-to-Blue endorsees are in red:

• Alyse Galvin (AK-AL)
• Hiral Tipirneni (AZ-06)
• Christy Smith (CA-25)
• Margaret Good (FL-16)
• Carolyn Bourdeaux (GA-07)
• Betsy Dirksen Londrigan (IL-13)
• Christina Hale (IN-05)
• Hillary Scholten (MI-03)
• Dan Freehan (MN-01)
• Deborah Ross (NC-02)
• Kathy Manning (NC-06)
• Pat Timmons Goodson (NC-08)
• Jackie Gordon (NY-02
• Kate Schroder (OH-01)
• Eugene DePasquale (PA-10)
• Wendy Davis (TX-21)
• Sri Kulkarni (TX-22)
• Gina Ortiz Jones (TX-23)
• Carolyn Long (WA-03)
• Sara Jacobs (CA-53) who is running against a progressive Democrat in November, Georgette Gomez (who you can contribute to here)
• Jill Schupp (MO-02)
• Kathleen Williams (MT-AL)
• Amy Kennedy (NJ-02)
• Nancy Goroff (NY-01)
• Desiree Tims (OH-10)
• Hillary O'Connor Mueri (OH-14)
• Christina Finello (PA-01)
• Sima Ladjevardian (TX-02)
• Cameron Webb (VA-05)
• Marilyn Strickland (WA-10) who is running against a progressive Democrat in November, Beth Doglio (who you can contribute to here)

Figuring Out Who To Vote For Down-Ballot-- Let's Look at PA-01, Bucks County

The New Dems don't just endorse anyone who asks them for an endorsement and they don't sell endorsements as part of a protection racket the way certain other caucuses do. They vet their candidates very carefully and if they detect any fiscal progressive streak-- BOOM!-- it's over. The New Dems are the dominant part of Congress' Republican wing of the Democratic Party. They're not as bad as Republicans but they are corporately financed and tend to vote with Republicans on economic issues. In other words-- if 2 gays want to get married, it doesn't bother them any more than a woman getting an abortion does, when when it comes to making the rich pay their fair share of taxes or regulating the banksters... that's where we have a little problem. Actually, a big problem-- of the 10 Democrats with the worst voting records in Congress, 8 of them-- all Blue Dogs Collin Peterson (MN) and Jared Golden (ME)-- are New Dems. Most of them are also Blue Dogs. Almost every Blue Dog has joined the New Dems-- makes it easier to access Wall Street bribes.

There are currently 104 New Dems in the House, making it the biggest Democratic caucus in the House. Of the 104 New Dems, only 21 do not have "F"-graded voting records-- an even dozen with "D" scores (like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Greg Schiff, Darren Soto and Juan Vargas), 5 with "C" scores, although that includes Eliot Engel who was recently dispatched by his constituents and replaced by a Democrat with real progressive values, Jamaal Bowman, and 3 with B scores and just one with an A, Lori Trahan (who is also a member of the Progressive Caucus).

When I was looking for information about Christina Finello, the hand-picked DCCC/EMILY's List candidate for the Bucks County congressional district (PA-01), I went to her website first and saw her proudly displaying the New Dems endorsement meme. She's one of the 27 candidates conservative and amenable to corruption enough to make the grade. But there was no AFL-CIO endorsement; which went to the pro-union Republican incumbent Brian Fitzpatrick.

She's running in Pennsylvania's penultimate swing district with a PVI of R+1, but with a record of having voted for Obama both times he ran and even having given a 2 point win to Hillary over Trump-- 49.1% to 47.1%. The so-called "Blue Wave"-- and an attempt to buy the seat by a wealthy Democrat who put an obscene and offensive $12,756,892 of his own money in-- didn't take out Fitzpatrick in 2018, when he beat Scott Wallace 169,053 (51.3%) to 160,745 (48.7%). Bucks County (90% of the district) performed very strongly for Fitzpatrick, while voting even more strongly for progressive Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Wolf (58.5%) and for Democratic Senate incumbent Bob Casey (56.2%), both of whom were running against crackpot Trumpists.

As of the June 30 FEC reporting deadline, Fitzpatrick had raised $2,741,797, spent $1,029,695 and had $1,828,737 cash on hand. Finello raised $501,826, spent $205,703 and had $296,123 cash on hand. There hasn't been a lot of outside spending yet, but I expect there will be, for both candidates. Looks bad for the New Dem, Finello. Maybe. Why maybe? Trump. Trump may pull all down-ballot Republicans down with him. Finello is just a nothing careerist candidate with nothing to offer but she's in the right place at the right time. 92,308 Democrats voted in the primary, 71,571 of them for Finello. And just 75,895 Republicans voted on the same day-- and just 48,017 of them for Fitzpatrick. Fighting the Trump anti-red headwinds, it's going to be very hard for Fitzpatrick to stave off a defeat, although he'll easily beat Finello in a 2022 rematch when the Democrats have spent 2 years accomplishing nothing important to anyone, primarily because of status quo candidates like Finello (and Biden) getting swept into office.

Fitzpatrick's lifetime ProgressivePunch crucial vote score in 27.35. Only one Republican, Thomas Massie-- and by less than one percentage point-- has voted more frequently for progressive legislation. In fact, Fitzpatrick is basically tied with Utah Blue Dog Ben McAdams and has a more progressive voting record than two Blue Dog/New Dems, the detestable Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Joe Cunningham (SC). Fitzpatrick uses his score to insist he's a "moderate" and "independent," his biggest selling points back home. Will voters hear his pleas over the Trump din though? Last week, Philadelphia Inquirer reporters Andrew Seidman and Chris Brennan asked if Fitzpatrick really is a moderate, which isn't how either party paints him. The right wing of the GOP dismisses him as a RINO and Democrats desperately try to tie him to the despised Trump. Fitzpatrick has a tightrope because if he is seen as too close to Trump he will lose independent voters who are the ones who decide elections in Bucks County. But if he's too unsupportive of Trump, he'll hemorrhage the Republicans who are devoted to Trump and Trumpism.

Seidman and Brennan wrote that "Democrats narrowly outnumber Republicans in the district, a solidly middle-class swath of suburbia that includes part of Montgomery County. And heated debate over whether a Fitzpatrick deserves the moderate tag is familiar ground for local voters, dating back to when his late brother, Mike Fitzpatrick, represented the district. Whether Brian Fitzpatrick survives what’s likely to be a challenging reelection campaign while Trump continues to repel suburban voters will offer clues about if and how Republicans can hold on to power in the suburbs.

“Anybody that claims I’m not a moderate and not an independent thinker is living on another planet,” Fitzpatrick said in an interview Thursday, touting his involvement with the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus.

Rick Bloomingdale, president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, said the success of moderate politicians in the region dates back to the late 1970s. Pete Kostmayer, a Democrat, served seven terms in the House, followed for six terms by Republican Jim Greenwood. They weren’t ideological warriors. The district didn’t expect-- or want-- them to be. The same could be said for the men who followed: Mike Fitzpatrick and Democrat Patrick Murphy.

The AFL-CIO this month endorsed Fitzpatrick, the only Republican the labor group backed for U.S. House in Pennsylvania and just one of eight GOP endorsements out of 189 overall. Bloomingdale cited Fitzpatrick’s support for unionized federal employees’ rights, dredging jobs on the Delaware River, and protections for union organizing.

All that made it “pretty easy to endorse” Fitzpatrick, Bloomingdale said. To do otherwise would be the act of a “fair-weather friend,” he said.

Fitzpatrick’s moderate bona fides have been a source of frustration among progressive groups eager to retake a seat held by Republicans for a decade. Fitzpatrick withstood the 2018 Democratic wave that washed out Republicans in the Philadelphia suburbs.

In an interview, Finello rattled off positions taken by Fitzpatrick that she said show he’s no moderate, starting with his support for Trump’s 2017 tax cuts-- which disproportionately benefited wealthy Americans and swelled the federal budget deficit.

She condemned Fitzpatrick for voting against the Heroes Act, a second coronavirus economic relief package the House passed in May. The Republican-controlled Senate didn’t advance the bill, and negotiations between the White House and congressional Democrats have gone nowhere.

Finello said Fitzpatrick’s vote means he opposed oversight of federal aid to make sure it “went to struggling small businesses rather than corporations.” The bill also included money for state and local governments, continuing supplemental unemployment benefits, and extending moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures.

“We’re talking right now in August, the fourth straight month where roughly a third of Americans have missed a housing payment, voting against things people need,” she said.

Fitzpatrick noted that 14 Democrats voted against the bill. He said he supports more funding for state and local governments, the Postal Service, small businesses, and unemployment benefits. But he opposed a provision in the bill that aimed to reduce the prison population to fight the spread of the virus.

He also opposes Trump’s call for a payroll tax cut, saying it would “jeopardize Social Security and Medicare.” And on a day when Trump openly admitted that by withholding funding for the Postal Service, it would be unable to handle an anticipated surge of mail voting, Fitzpatrick said the USPS should be “fully funded.”

And Fitzpatrick noted that he backed “major policy initiatives” advanced by Democrats after they retook the House, including Democratic priorities like strengthening protections for voting rights, closing the gender pay gap, and expanding antidiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people.

“That’s union rights, environmental rights, gun safety, LGBT rights,” Fitzpatrick said. “These are major, major initiatives.”

In June, he was one of just three Republicans who voted for the police reform measure passed by the House after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

It all adds up to a record the Lugar Center and Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy rank as the most bipartisan of any member of the House. The center’s index is based on “how often a member of Congress introduces bills that succeed in attracting cosponsors from members of the other party, and how often they in turn cosponsor a bill introduced from across the aisle.”

Fitzpatrick has voted with Trump 64% of the time on legislation on which the president has a clear position, according to the website FiveThirtyEight. Just two House Republicans have voted with Trump less frequently, according to the analysis.

Democrats counter that Fitzpatrick, a former FBI agent, has failed to deliver on a defining issue: standing up to Trump.

“You can’t deny the fact he’s been complicit with Donald Trump on his most important initiatives, and has been silent as a lamb when his own FBI directors have been attacked, when our military leaders have been attacked by this president,” said Murphy, who unseated Mike Fitzpatrick in 2006 but lost the seat back to him in 2010. (Mike Fitzpatrick died in January.)

Murphy, asked if he thought there were any moderate Republicans in Congress, pointed to Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, the only one who voted to convict Trump at his impeachment trial.

“Where was he on that vote?” Murphy said of Fitzpatrick.

Fitzpatrick said he will wait until the election to decide whether to vote for Trump or presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

The debate over Fitzpatrick’s independence is something of a redux of his 2018 campaign against Democrat Scott Wallace.

Progressives were incensed then when Everytown for Gun Safety, the antigun violence group cofounded by Mike Bloomberg, endorsed Fitzpatrick. Everytown cited Fitzpatrick’s vote against a bill backed by the National Rifle Association that would require states to recognize concealed carry permits from other states-- but progressives questioned his commitment to the issue.

The Bucks County branch of Moms Demand Action, an arm of Everytown, dissolved in protest.

Ali Glickman, of Solebury Township, cofounded Orange Wave for Gun Safety along with other former Moms Demand Action volunteers. She said that Fitzpatrick is no moderate, and that regardless, voting for Republicans won’t help on issues like gun violence. The only way to advance the cause is to elect Democrats like Finello, she said.

“If we don’t have the majority, it doesn’t really matter, period,” Glickman said.

While Finello’s campaign frequently mocks Fitzpatrick’s claims of independence, Finello said she doesn’t focus on labels.

“I’m focusing on what people are talking about right at this moment,” she said. “People are concerned right now about how they’re going to pay their rent when they’ve lost their job. They’re worried about what’s happening when they have to send their kids back to school.”

That ad didn't work-- at least not enough to flip the district-- in 2018, but that's basically the campaign again this cycle. It's all a matter of how skilled Fitzpatrick is in walking his tightrope-- distancing himself from Trump, but not so much as to offend Trump supporters enough to watch them decide to skip the vote-- or vote for the Libertarian on the ballot in November..

Still, Finello may win. If she does, her voting record will be slightly better than Fitzpatrick's. She's not for Medicare-for-All and She doesn't back a Green New Deal. Her website issues page is basically DCCC pablum-- sounds good/means nothing. Is she better than Fitzpatrick? Yes, a bit. Can she hold the seat in a bad wave year for Dems? No way. Incumbents like her always lose the seats. This is the kind of thing-- made by Republicans-- that will sweep Finello into Congress: