Real Democrats Stand Strong For Social Security-- The Others Are Little More Than Republicans In Disguise

I asked one of the sharpest minds I know on Capitol Hill if there's a single issue facing Congress right now-- just one-- that separates conservatives from progressives. He didn't miss a beat: the Social Security Enhancement and Protection Act and the Strengthening Social Security. Act. Yesterday we had a guest post from the progressive candidate for the Maine Senate seat, Shenna Bellows, on the topic. Today I caught up with a few of the Blue America-endorsed House candidates and asked them about the bill, which is quietly being buried in the House Ways and Means Committee by anti-Social Security fanatic Dave Camp (R-MI).

Friday, when Ari Rabin-Havt interviewed Third Way Co-founder Jim Kessler about why the Wall Street-backed group he heads had attacked Elizabeth Warren a few days earlier in the Wall Street Journal, Kessler admitted it was because he and his circle fear that Warren is too effective a voice against Third Way's and other conservative group's plans to dismantle Social Security on behalf of the banisters that pay their salaries and finance their miserable careers. Kessler didn't admit his career is miserable. What he said was that Elizabeth Warren's "Social Security plan was the final moment for us. That Social Security plan had been out there but really languishing-- because Senator Warren has such a powerful compelling voice, she started talking about it, and it suddenly it became much more talked about and viable alternative… She is a very compelling elected official and national figure. Her involvement in that particular bill, we just looked at it and said 'okay, this seems to be starting to get out of hand'." And they attacked.

But the attack backfired. Three Third Way honorary co-chairs, conservative Democrats Allyson Schwartz (New Dem-PA), Joe Crowley (New Dem-NY) and Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), denounced them and their attempts to undermine Social Security. And now progressive candidates are coming out in force against Third Way's very Republican goal of decreasing benefits. Although the DCCC has an anti-Social Security shill, Pete Aguilar, in the race, the progressive running in CA-31, Eloise Reyes is a strong backer of strengthening Social Security:

Social Security was never meant to be a static program. It was designed to span across generations, with the expectation that the circumstances impacting the financial needs and economic security of Americans would undoubtedly vary from one decade to the next. Right now, middle class families are reeling from the impact of the recession. They have seen the value of their homes, their savings and their retirement accounts plummet, and they are depending on Social Security, more than ever, to avoid the impending retirement crisis that so many Americans see on the horizon beyond their working years. Our Social Security program must constantly evolve to adapt to these changing realities.

That’s why HR 1374 is such a critical piece of legislation. Not only does it account for the fact that more and more people are using Social Security benefits later into life, but it more fairly values the work of low-wage workers and childrearers who are currently at a disadvantage when it comes to accruing retirement benefits. Even as it expands Social Security benefits, HR 1374 extends the life of the program by at least 35 more years by eliminating the cap on payroll contributions. These are all fair and commonsense reforms that reflect the essential purpose of Social Security and its very critical role in the lives of millions of Americans.

Our Social Security program reflects our values, our duties and our commitment to ensuring that our elders, the disabled and those struggling through difficult times do not fall through the cracks. And HR 1374 makes it possible for us to continue keeping that promise to one another.

Pennsylvania state Senator Daylin Leach-- in a tough battle for Congress against Marjorie Margolies who admits she is eager to cut benefits for retired seniors and disabled vets-- is, like Eloise, backing the Social Security Enhancement and Protection Act approach: "Social Security has literally lifted entire generations of seniors out of poverty. But at a time when pensions are shrinking or going away and people are living longer, we must do better if Social Security is going to fulfill its promise of a reasonable life for retirees. H.R. 1374 reafirms that this nation won't let seniors go hungry or wanting for the basics of life."

Same for Tom Guild in Oklahoma City, who is running for the seat occupied by one of the primary plotters against Social Security, GOP extremist James Lankford. "If the national government funded just two programs adequately, they would be Social Security and national defense," Tom told us yesterday. "There is a proposal to adequately fund Social Security. It would protect and enhance benefits, and increase the revenue stream supporting this vital program by abolishing the cap on income subject to the tax dedicated to Social Security, and increase the dedicated tax by 1/20th of 1% for six years. This would secure Social Security for additional decades. Since 2/3 of today’s retirees receive more than half of their income from Social Security, and about 1/5th are completely dependent on this source of income, this proposal would greatly enhance tens of millions of Americans’ retirement security.  It would ensure that seniors’ cost-of-living would not continue to outpace benefits received by recipients, who paid into the Social Security fund for their entire working lives. Sometimes we should just do the right thing for those who spent their lives building our country. That time has arrived."

Rob Zerban, the progressive Democrat going up against the architect of the GOP plan to undermine Social Security, Paul Ryan. Yesterday, he told us that "Republicans and corporate Democrats have sold their souls by pandering to corporate interests. By allowing corporations to pay meager wages, provide no health insurance, and to abandon or not fully fund defined benefit retirement plans, Congress has once again implemented structural corporate welfare system paid for by the tax payers. Now they don't want corporations to pay their fair share. By allowing huge corporations to skip out on their obligations, by not holding them accountable to care for their workers by paying a livable wage, providing health insurance or a decent retirement plan, they put even greater stressors on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Seniors and children benefit the most from Medicaid. Before Social Security, 1 in 3 seniors lived in poverty. Before Medicare many seniors did not receive healthcare.  Now after giving big corporations a free pass they want to destroy the only help many people rely on to eat and receive much needed health care. We must not allow them to further erode these safety nets so many rely upon. We need to increase the efficiencies and efficacy of these programs so they can do the greatest good for the greatest number and I will support any and all efforts to accomplish this goal."

Pat Murphy was the Speaker of the Iowa House and today he's running for the open Iowa House seat Bruce Braley. He has a phenomenal record backing up his claims that he's the bets and most effective progressive running. When it comes to protecting Social Security, I can't think of better hands to put it in. “My parents," he told us, "raised me to keep my word and stand up for what’s right. We’ve made a promise to seniors who have worked hard and paid into Social Security for decades that their benefits will be there when they need them, and I intend to keep that promise. It’s the right thing to do. We need to find long-term solutions to the solvency issues that are facing Social Security, but these can't be unfair measures, like chained CPI, that cut benefits and threaten the quality of the program. By raising the cap on the Social Security tax we can extend solvency and create a tax system that fairly taxes income, whether you make $50,000 or $500,000 a year.”

Paul Clements is running for the Michigan seat that Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee holds. Unlike Upton, Clements is a strong supporter of a vibrant social safety net. "Rising income inequality among Americans, as President Obama addressed in a recent speech," he told us, "represents a threat to American democracy. Until we all have a real chance to participate in community and political life, we don’t yet have full democracy. As America’s economic resources are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, so is political power.

"For the elderly and disabled, participation requires having the means to live in dignity, not to be left by the wayside or dependent on the good will of others. The Social Security Enhancement and Protection Act protects and extends this dignity, and it does it fairly, reducing income inequality.

"It secures benefits for women who have stayed home with children and for people who have held low income jobs. It helps ophans attend college. And it defends Social Security overall by addressing its impending funding crisis.

"It increases funding for Social Security mainly by removing the cap on Social Security payroll contributions. This makes sense. Our common security is paid for by those who have the means to do so, and the threat of rising income inequality is reduced."

Nick Ruiz, the Florida professor and author running against John Mica just north of Orlando would go even further. A huge proponent of expanding the New Deal protections for ordinary working families, he worries that, while well-intentioned, HR 1374 needs more work. "My role in the 114th Congress," he explained this morning, "will be to shed light on where these sorts of efforts fall short, to disclose what is truly needed, and to offer better legislation that actually accomplishes a significant component of a New Deal safety net fit for our era and circumstances. For example, lifting the FICA cap is great-- but benefits should be extended by at least 20% across the board to account for the massive erosion of middle class wealth of the past three decades. Likewise, retirement should be available earlier, in whole or in part, by 55 years of age. And as for ACA, for example, it must be revamped to simply offer universal care to anyone with a social security number across the board without exception, and such universal care afforded must be comparable to that of any federal employee, such as a U.S. representative. It's time to move beyond antiquated discriminatory concepts like Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance-- all of these programs are by definition exclusionary and discriminatory. The same is true for Social Security-- I would propose the 'American Retirement Act' in its place, that extends and broadens the concept of what social security actually is and does for our people."

Ruiz also pointed out that most Americans want to see unfair corporate loopholes closed as part of any budget deal, something Paul Ryan adamantly opposes. "Do you know anyone who's against closing offshore tax loopholes, aside from Mica and Ryan and a gaggle of congressional Republicans? That poll I sent you shows that by a margin of 62% to 36% people favor closing corporate loopholes designed to allow corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying U.S. taxes by shifting income to offshore tax havens.” Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) proposed legislation, HR 3666 to stop tax haven abuse but House Republicans won't allow it to come to a vote. If voters want to see Congress close corporate loopholes, they should replace corporately-backed candidates, like John Mica, with independent progressives… like yours truly."

Under House Republicans The War On Poverty Has Morphed Into A War On The Poor

House Republicans may not have "the time" to vote on important measures with wide popular support like comprehensive immigration reform, ending workplace discrimination against the LGBT community (ENDA) or raising the minimum wage-- none of which Boehner will allow onto the 2013 schedule-- but they do have time to further attempt to steal the food out of the mouths of children by more chopping from the food stamp program. House Republicans look at the weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas and what they see is another chance to pass a bill to accelerate their endless class warfare against working families going through hard times because of the GOP ideological economic agenda that wrecked the economy. Lobbyists are drooling at the thought of their big Farm Bill payoff.

The top leaders of the House-Senate farm bill have come close to a framework during several tense negotiating sessions in the past two weeks, raising hopes on K Street that legislation could squeak through Congress by the end of the year. The four negotiators spoke via conference call Tuesday and reported no new developments.

“Everyone is still working hard to bring this together, which is what you want to see,” said lobbyist Tom Sell of Combest and Sell, who as a staffer was instrumental in crafting the 2002 Farm Bill.

“I’m in the optimist camp,” said Chandler Goule of the National Farmers Union. “There is plenty of time to get this done. Every time there is a meeting, there has been progress.”

House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), House Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Senate Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) failed to resolve their differences in a Monday conference call.

The biggest sticking points are cuts to food stamps, and work requirements in the House farm bill for recipients of that aid.

The House bill cuts $39 billion from food stamps, while the Senate's cuts $4 billion.

The White House is pushing to limit the food stamps cuts, and on Tuesday released a report that shows how many dependent families are on the program.

Food stamps were automatically cut by $11 billion on Nov. 1, when extra money provided under President Obama’s stimulus law expired.

Stabenow wants to count the $11 billion for the farm bill and is arguing against cuts that go beyond what is in the Senate bill. Republicans say that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cannot credit the farm bill with that deficit savings since it already happened.

Reaching an agreement on food stamps is key to resolving the two main problems in the farm subsidy title. Bigger cuts to food stamps gives negotiators more wiggle room to deal on the farm subsidies and still get a sizeable deficit-cutting score that could win over fiscal hawks.

“There is a lot of work left to do,” said Dale Moore, executive director for public policy of American Farm Bureau. “They need to make the decisions at the top end of the decision tree and then the rest will fall into place.”

On commodities, the House farm bill calculates subsidies by relying more on actual planted acres than what farmers planted historically.

That can be said to more accurately reflect risk, but at the same time it can distort the market by encouraging more production. The House bill offers more generous subsidies but forces producers to chose between price supports and revenue-based margin insurance.

The rift on farm subsidies can be bridged more easily than the one on food stamps, as was evident when corn, soy and canola producers floated using a rolling average of recent planted acres.

The cuts that already began this month translate to 20 fewer meals per month for every child and every vet who is struggling to survive on food stamps. This conservative class war against the poor has got to stop. But it will only stop if voters want it to stop enough to refuse to vote for Republicans and refuse to vote for New Dems, Blue Dogs and other right-wing Democrats. And it isn't just religionist hypocrites like Stephen Fincher (R-TN) who are guilty. Democrats in Congress should refuse to vote for the Farm Bill if it includes any cuts to food stamps until unemployment gets to 3%. Only 15 Republicans, almost every one of them cowering in blue-leaning districts, crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats against more draconian cuts. 217 Republicans voted for more draconian cuts. Almost all are Republicans the DCCC is running against. There are plenty of Republicans in blue-leaning districts who the DCCC isn't challenging and who all voted for the cuts.

Among those Republican class-war extremists who can be defeated but whom the DCCC gives immunity are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John Kline, Buck McKeon, Fred Upton, Mike Rogers, John Mica, Dave Reichert and, of course, Paul Ryan, who cynically insists he's fighting poverty even while he votes to cut food stamps. Paul Upton's and John Mica's constituents have been polled recently and in both cases, there is a clear willingness to end their careers and replace them with Democrats. But Steve Israel is protecting each of them and refuses to back either Paul Clements in Michigan or Nick Ruiz in Florida, their opponents.

Paul Clements told us that this class war jihad by Republican congressmen like Upton against working families is "deeply un-American. He voted for a bill that kicks 3.8 million people out of the food stamps program by 2014. Michigan still has 9% unemployment, many people have used up their unemployment benefits, and our food banks can’t keep up with demand. Many children in Fred Upton’s district already struggle with hunger. I wonder how much time Fred Upton has spent with children who don’t have enough to eat? We do not need more hunger in America. Mr. Upton, in America we can afford to feed our people."

Nick Ruiz is running against a worthless old hack, John Mica and he and Clements are on the same page. "In voting to cut food aid to citizens who need it most," asked Nick, "what exactly does John Mica hope to prove? That he's heartless? That he doesn't care about the health of citizens who are having difficulty providing basic nutritional food for themselves or their families? There's no greater sign of weakness and dishonor than to prey upon the weak or downtrodden: today John Mica has proven his worthlessness as a representative of all American families."

Help Blue America replace these class warriors like Upton and Mica, with leaders who want to solve the hunger crisis, not exacerbate it. You can find Paul Clements and Nick Ruiz here on our ActBlue page, as well as the other Blue America candidates, each of whom wants to deal equitably with families who have fallen on hard times.

All Through History Conservatives Have Been The Anti-Science Party-- And That Fits The GOP Perfectly

In The Atlantic on Monday, Mischa Fisher, a GOP operative, tried making the case that Republicans aren't really the anti-science party. Really? Tell it to the victims of Global Warmiong in the Philippines-- or to the 5.6 million residents of Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe and Palm Beach counties in South Florida who may have to decide between moving inland or drowning. Incredulously, The Atlantic gave Fisher the space to make the case that people see the GOP as the anti-science party, not because they are, but because Chris Mooney and Bill Maher tell people they are. Georgia Congressman and GOP Senate candidate Paul Broun aside, "Republicans, conservatives, and the religious," he writes, "are no more uniquely 'anti-science' than any other demographic or political group. It’s just that 'anti-science' has been defined using a limited set of issues that make the right wing and religious look relatively worse." So what, he insists, if they don't believe in evolution and global warming! After all, there are also Democrats who don't believe in evolution and global warming either. And Democrats, he insists, believe in astrology! "Left-wing ideologues also frequently espouse an irrational fear of nuclear power, genetic modification, and industrial and agricultural chemistry-- even though all of these scientific breakthroughs have enriched lives, lengthened lifespans, and produced substantial economic growth over the last century."

Let's forget for the sake of argument, though, that the anti-global warming and anti-evolution Democrats don't control their party and don't keep the U.S. from moving towards simple societal self-preservation. Nowhere in his column does Fischer mention the Koch brothers and the role their self-serving targeted contributions-- legalistic bribery, plain and simple-- play in preventing the country from going off the environmental/climate change cliff. Fisher's solution to climate change: a GOP-friendly proliferation of nuclear energy. And, yes, he mentioned Fukushima exactly as frequently as he mentioned the Koch brothers. Nor, did he bring up the prospect of Orlando becoming beach front property.

In the most dire predictions, South Florida’s delicate barrier islands, coastal communities and captivating subtropical beaches will be lost to the rising waters in as few as 100 years.

Further inland, the Everglades, the river of grass that gives the region its fresh water, could one day be useless, some scientists fear, contaminated by the inexorable advance of the salt-filled ocean. The Florida Keys, the pearl-like strand of islands that stretches into the Gulf of Mexico, would be mostly submerged alongside their exotic crown jewel, Key West.

“I don’t think people realize how vulnerable Florida is,” Harold R. Wanless, the chairman of the geological sciences department at the University of Miami, said in an interview last week. “We’re going to get four or five or six feet of water, or more, by the end of the century. You have to wake up to the reality of what’s coming.”

…“People tend to underestimate the gravity here, I think, because it sounds far off,” said Ben Strauss, the director of the Program on Sea Level Rise at Climate Central, an independent organization of scientists. “People are starting to tune in, but it’s not front and center. Miami is a boom town now, but in the future that I’m very confident will come, it will be obvious to everyone that the sea is marching inland and it’s not going to stop.”

The effects on real estate value alone could be devastating, Mr. Strauss said. His research shows that there is about $156 billion worth of property, and 300,000 homes, on 2,120 square miles of land that is less than three feet above the high tide line in Florida.

At that same level, Mr. Strauss said, Florida has 2,555 miles of road, 35 public schools, one power plant and 966 sites listed by the Environmental Protection Agency, such as hazardous waste dumps and sewage plants.

The amount of real estate value, and the number of properties potentially affected, rises incrementally with each inch of sea-level rise, he said.

Professor Wanless insists that no amount of engineering proposals will stop the onslaught of the seas. “At two to three feet, we start to lose everything,” he said.

The only answer, he said, is to consider drastic measures like establishing a moratorium on development along coastal areas and to compel residents whose homes are threatened to move inland.

Nick Ruiz, a professor in Orlando and a former Green Party candidate who is running for Congress as a Democrat has a platform that promises to protect the environment and deal seriously with Climate Change. Blue America endorsed him. This morning he told me that "There's probably not a single scientist on the planet that has good news about the threat global warming presents to Florida. So why do Rep. John Mica and Sen. Marco Rubio continue to bury their heads in the sand on the issue? Who wins if we do nothing now on climate change? Well, the easy answer is: many of their contributors. No one wants to spend money, or lose potential money in real estate development, because of global warming - which is sure to be one of the most expensive projects Florida has faced due to the rising ocean. We're going to lose land. Alot of it. That's a fact. Will we continue to develop shoreline, when we know this to be the case? We probably shouldn't. Is Florida's stormwater management infrastructure sufficient for what is going to come, year by year? Probably not. These are the hard conversations that Mr. Mica and Mr. Rubio aren't keen to have with constituents, but we absolutely must have this discussion now."

On the left, the Democrats' Florida; on the right is the GOP Florida

Politicians Seek To Stab Veterans In The Back On-- What Else?-- Veterans Day

John Mica (R-FL), no friend of veterans

Today, every candidate and every congressmember who ever managed to get their grubby paws on my e-mail address-- both parties-- sent out Veterans Day greetings. They were all pretty much the same pious ass-kissing, many from conservatives who expect the most from the military and who had actually voted against veterans over and over again. A Daily Kos diarist, War on Error, delineated 7 bills to benefit veterans that conservatives killed in Congress:

H.R. 466-- Wounded Veteran Job Security Act-- This bill would actually provide job security for veterans who are receiving medical treatment for injuries suffered while fighting in defense of their country. It would prohibit employers from terminating employees who miss work while receiving treatment for a service-related disability.

H.R. 1168-- Veterans Retraining Act-- This bill would provide for assistance to help veterans who are currently unemployed with their expenses while retraining for the current job market.

H.R. 1171-- Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization-– This bill would reauthorize programs in support of homeless veterans, to assist them with job training, counseling, and placement services through the Department of Veterans Affairs through 2014.

H.R. 1172-- Requiring List on VA Website of Organizations Providing Scholarships for Veterans which does nothing more than direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to include information about scholarships for veterans.

H.R. 1293-- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009-- Here’s another bill in support of those who have fought for their country, passed by House Democrats and blocked from becoming law by Republicans.

This would increase the amount paid by the VA to disabled veterans for necessary home structural improvements from $4,100 to $6,800 for those who are more than 50% disabled, and from  $1,200 to $2,000 who are less than 50%, disabled. This means, if a veteran lost the use of his legs in service of his country, the country will pay for the wheelchair ramp so that he can live at home.

By the way, the last time this ceiling was lifted was in 1992. There isn't even a fiscal reason for being against this bill, as the total cost of this bill, according to CBO estimates, would be a “whopping” $20 million. That's about a quarter (25 cents) per family of four.

H.R. 1803-- Veterans Business  Center Act--  This bill would set up a Veterans Business Center program within the Small Business Administration, which would specialize in such programs as grants for service-disabled veterans, help them develop business plans and secure business opportunities. In other words, folks, it would create jobs and offer opportunities those who have fought in defense of our country.

H.R. 2352-- Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act-- This bill essentially combines a number of other bills that Republicans had blocked in the Senate previously, and adds a few elements. The bill would again establish a Veterans Business Center Program;… it would establish a Military Entrepreneurs Program

Or let's look at the SNAP program, through the eyes of Jonathan Capehart, and how the drastic cuts conservatives are pushing are disastrous for almost a million veterans.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), “in any given month, a total of 900,000 veterans nationwide lived in households that relied on SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] to provide food for their families in 2011, a previous analysis of Census data estimated.” The cuts to that benefit result from the expiration of a temporary increase in the food-stamp program through the Recovery Act of 2009. CBPP translated the economic impact of the benefit reduction into jaw-dropping dollars and cents.

The coming benefit cut will reduce SNAP benefits, which are already modest, for all households by 7 percent on average, or about $10 per person per month.  Without the Recovery Act’s boost, SNAP benefits in fiscal year 2014 will average less than $1.40 per person per meal.

That CBPP analysis highlighted the importance of SNAP for veterans.

Many veterans returning from service face challenges in finding work.

While the overall unemployment rate for veterans is lower than the national average, the unemployment rate for recent veterans (serving in September 2001 to the present) remains high, at 10.1 percent in September 2013. About one-quarter of recent veterans reported service-connected disabilities in 2011, which can impact their ability to provide for their families:  households with a veteran with a disability that prevents them from working are about twice as likely to lack access to adequate food than households without a disabled member.

Veterans who participate in SNAP tend to be young, but their ages range widely: 57 percent of the veterans in our analysis are under age 30, while 9 percent are aged 60 or older.

Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee-- a dedicated warmonger and the recipient of the second most bribes from military contractors and arms makers than anyone else in Congress ($1,456,600), was one of the 217 Republicans who voted for draconian cuts to veterans on food stamps. Same for his pal, John Mica in Florida, who has taken $238,604 from arms makers and war contractors.

Instead of sending out the same sappy, pious Veterans Day greetings that every other person running for Congress sent out, Mica's opponent, Nick Ruiz, took a real departure. Unlike just "the men and women from this district are an incredible national resource-- leaders with the convictions to fight for our ideals," Ruiz called out Mica for his unwillingness to support what veterans really want and need:

"On Veterans Day, I think it bears mentioning that while Rep. Mica and the GOP are offering their lovely wishes for veterans and their families-- behind their backs, Rep. Mica and the GOP are plotting the very worst pro-poverty agenda America has ever seen, that specifically insults veterans and their families by kicking them when they are down. Hundreds of thousands of veterans rely on SNAP funding-- the House Republican version of the farm bill removes millions of people from SNAP-- including 170,000 veterans. For the House GOP and Mr. Mica to act as if they care about veterans and their families, while literally voting to take food out of their mouths is disingenuous and Anti-American. We must do better than that for veterans and their families."

Help Nick replace Mica in the House of Representatives. Central Florida deserves better.

House Democratic Party Inside Baseball

Becerra, Grayson, Ellison-- actual leaders, not money-grubbers

I'm never really comfortable with a corrupt out-of-touch Beltway committee parachuting into an American congressional district and telling the Democrats there who their candidate for Congress should be. In the old days, even the worst DCCC chairmen-- think Rahm Emanuel-- used to tip-toe, at least publicy, around interfering in primaries. Not so the cloddish, reptilian Steve Israel. He's interfering in more Democratic primaries-- and pretty much always on behalf of the more conservative and more corrupt candidates-- than any other DCCC chairman in history. Yes, Steve Israel is worse than Rahm Emanuel! Emanuel, at least, knew how to win races. Israel is a congenital loser.

I wasn't thrilled to see the DCCC come thundering into the FL-13 special election on behalf of Alex Sink with the intention of burying Jessica Ehrlich. FL-13 is a blue district that the DCCC has mishandled for years. Obama beat McCain there in 2008 and Romney there-- even with a Republican-friendly gerrymander!-- in 2012. But the willfully incompetent Florida Democratic Party and an even lamer DCCC never effectively went after the GOP incumbent, Bill Young. A two-cycle strategy, anathema to all DCCC chairmen, could have easily taken him out. This year, before he announced he would retire-- and before he died-- a MoveOn poll by PPP showed a generic Democrat would have beaten him 48-43% and that after voters were made aware that Young backed the harmful Republican government shutdown, he would have lost 51-42%. Only 33% of respondents said they approved of the job Young was doing.

Last year, Jessica Ehrlich ran against Young and lost, 189,552 (58%) to 139,671 (42%). She raised about half the money Young did. The DCCC refused to back her candidacy and didn't spend a nickel on her campaign. This year, it looked like the DCCC might back her-- at least until former gubernatorial candidate alex Sink jumped into the race. There was never any question who would win that primary but the DCCC couldn't resist now that they've declared they intend to interfere with primaries whenever they want to. They immediately set about to drive Ehrlich out of the race. (Another fair-weather friend, EMILY's List, withdrew it's endorsement of Ehrlich and endorsed Sink.) Yesterday the DCCC strategy succeeded and Ehrlich, bitter and frustrated, gave up and went home.

A poll released Wednesday morning confirmed what everyone already suspected: FL-13 voters are ready to elect Sink and they she would have won a primary against Ehrlich and will win a general election against any of the third tier candidates the GOP is putting up. None of the GOP candidates got above 31% against Sink. And in a Democratic primary, Sink was crushing Ehrlich 69.6-10.6%. Sink and Ehrlich are both moderate Democrats. Neither appeared more or less progressive than the other and both fit nicely into DCCC centrism. So why would the DCCC come in so heavily?

In CA-31 I've been watching what Steve Israel is doing to push his empty suit loser of a candidate, Pete Aguilar against progressive attorney, Eloise Gomez Reyes. This is the bluest district in America (D+5) with a Republican incumbent-- in this case, extreme right-wing multimillionaire Gary Miller-- and the only reason Miller won the open seat last year was because the DCCC screwed up the election by getting behind Aguilar, who came in third, behind two Republicans! Refusing to even speak with Eloise, Israel immediately endorsed Aguilar again and has been pressuring California congressmembers to back him. I've spoken to half a dozen of them who are not pleased that Israel lied to them about Aguilar and about Eloise. But that's how he rolls-- and Democrats in Congress don't do anything about it. Progressives, especially, are so policy-oriented that they avoid power struggles-- which inevitably involve fundraising-- even though those power struggles are what keep them from accomplishing their policy goals.

With just a few exceptions, I've almost given up on current Members to do anything about the caucus leadership. Open positions always seem to go to the most corrupt Members, the Steve Israels, the Joe Crowleys, the Rahm Emanuels, Steny Hoyers and Debbie Wasserman Schultzes. I asked some of the Blue America candidates who they would like to see replace Pelosi is she steps aside, as she has indicated she plans to. Conventional wisdom is that the job would fall to someone unsavory, a virtual Hobson's choice between Hoyer and Wasserman Schultz. But I asked them to not even think of those kinds of realities and instead just imagine an ideal world, not a corrupted one. Most of the candidates said they're not familiar enough with the DC players to make a rational choice. But several did have something to say that made some sense. Tom Guild, for example, said that he's "not familiar with some of the current members of the U.S. House" and added that "since I’m an Okie, I don’t spend much time in the nation’s capital. I’m open to consider any number of possibilities as the next Speaker of the House. The one person who I met when he spoke to the Oklahoma Delegation to the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, and visited with when he came to Oklahoma City to speak at our state party headquarters, is Keith Ellison. Congressman Ellison is intelligent, well spoken, and principled. Those would be the three things I would consider in voting for leaders in the U.S. House. Keith would be a good chief spokesman for House Democrats. I’m open to others who are also intelligent, well spoken, and principled who would also be good spokespersons for House Democrats." Good instincts there.

Nick Ruiz has a lot of skepticism about current leadership and he wasn't eager to comment. Coming from an academic background he approached the question theoretically at first: "Leadership requires serious risk-taking and a sort of fearless preoccupation with social inclusivity and solidarity, and an almost uncanny sense of attention and effort paid to the sphere of possibility-- all while often sacrificing your own political hide. Leadership has an ability to tolerate isolation and social discomfort. Leadership is lonely. Leadership makes mistakes. But its resolve is never questioned. I don't see any leaders in the House today." But in the end he posited that if Pelosi really does step aside, "I think we should have a serious conversation about Alan Grayson becoming leader of the Democratic caucus. No present member is better equipped or more effective at channeling the kind of change of pace and energy needed to push the Democrats into their own light. Nobody's perfect. But we're better than the present caucus suggests; much better. Stay tuned for the 2014 election, because we're about to prove just who Democrats are again, and what we can do to represent the best interests of America's working families and individuals. Alan Grayson is an integral part of that future equation."

Let me finish up by going back to Eloise Reyes, the progressive candidate in Southern California who Steve Israel is trying to stiff. "Under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, we have begun a new and vibrant tradition of electing a Speaker of the House who defies the odds and brings a wealth of bold, progressive values to the Democratic Caucus. Years and even decades down the road, our model of House leadership will continue to be shaped for the better by Nancy Pelosi’s legacy as a trailblazer and true public servant. We have seen these same qualities of integrity and determination in other members of the California delegation, and it is my hope that amongst our future Speakers of the House will be Latino pioneers, like Representative Xavier Becerra, who reflect the changing face and values of our country."

If you'd like to help Eloise, Tom and Nick win seats in the next Congress, you can do that on this ActBlue page.

ENDA Passed The Senate But Boehner Wants To Kill It In The House. Can He?

Yesterday we looked at the lead-up to last night's historic Senate vote for ENDA. The anti-gay filibuster was shut down 61-30, every Democrat plus 7 Republicans voting for equality. 30 Republicans-- though not one was willing to go on the record with a speech during the debate-- voted against equality. But all the regular suspects-- bigots like Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (R-AL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), closet case Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY)-- voted against what their own constituents want.

Now comes the hard part. Boehner has already announced he's against it. Many of his caucus, ones in non-Confederate, hate-obsessed districts, say they would vote for it if it gets to the House floor. But Boehner has no intention of letting that happen. Nancy Pelosi says "all options" are on the table to get it passed. And that means: discharge petition. If a majority of Members sign a discharge petition, the bill gets to the House floor for a straight up-or-down majority vote, regardless of what obstruction Boehner and Cantor put up. If Charlie Dent (R-PA), who claims to support the bill, is correct and there are as many as three dozen Republicans for it, Pelosi could get a discharge petition though… IF she can persuade her homophobic Blue Dog members to not queer the deal.

Boehner has cock'n'bull excuse that LGBT equality may put a financial burden on business. Many of America's top business leaders, however, have been very supportive and are urging the GOP to stop obstructing equality. Greg Sargent in yesterday's Washington Post:

[A] handful of House Republicans who happen to agree with the RNC autopsy into what went wrong in 2012, which prescribed that the GOP should project a more tolerant aura on gay rights. One such House Republican is Rep. Charlie Dent, who comes from a moderate Pennsylvania district-- and is one of around five House Republicans to come out for ENDA so far.

“I believe the Speaker should allow a vote on this bill,” Dent told me in an interview today. “I believe that the American public wants to make sure people are not discriminated against, based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.”

Dent, who also broke with the House GOP shutdown strategy, said he thought around three dozen Republicans in the House would support ENDA. He referred back to the previous House vote on a version of ENDA, in 2007, which passed with 35 Republicans in support (it died in the Senate).

“I suspect there would be a similar number now,” Dent said, though he conceded he hadn’t done a head count.

Boehner’s office is justifying his opposition by claiming ENDA “will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs.” However, as Sam Stein points out:

Top business leaders have begun pushing for the bill’s passage. And in July 2013, the Government Accountability Office issued a report concluding that in states with LGBT workplace protections, “there were relatively few employment discrimination complaints based on sexual orientation and gender identity filed.”

Dent similarly rejected this concern. “Much of American industry has already moved in this direction,” he said. “They have their own anti-discrimination policies.”

Dent said he had not written off the chances of passage, pointing out that Boehner had not yet said whether he would prevent a committee vote on attaching ENDA as an amendment to another bill, such as a Defense Authorization bill. “I hope he will allow the Rules Committee to consider an amendment on the subject,” Dent said.

But as the New York Times notes this morning, this would require House GOP leaders to risk a conservative revolt. Indeed, this is another issue where conservative opposition is explicitly impeding the GOP from doing what Republicans themselves say is necessary for the party to keep pace with shifting demographics and the evolving culture. The RNC autopsy specifically said the GOP should evolve on gay rights to appear more tolerant to young voters, who view this as a gateway issue.

Dent agreed. “Younger voters would be much more accepting of the Republican Party if we were to adopt legislation of this type,” he said.

The last time ENDA came up in the House, November 7, 2007, it passed 235-184. At the time, Dent was one of 35 Republicans, who crossed the aisle and voted for the bill. Only 10 of those Republicans are still serving in the House, including Paul Ryan (R-WI)-- who says he may back it again this year-- and NRCC Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR).

Ironically, Steve Israel has been prancing around DC all week boasting how he's following "Rahm's Playbook" and recruiting conservative Democrats, many of whom are vehemently anti-Choice and rabidly homophobic, like his prize recruit from OH-06, Jennifer Garrison. Will Democrats like Garrison join Boehner to vote against LGBT equality? Of course they will; they always do. In 2007 fully 25 Democrats voted against ENDA, and of them, most were subsequently defeated… but these 4 bigots are still in Congress and still voting against equality:

• John Barrow (New Dem-GA)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Mike McIntyre (New Dem-NC)
• Nick Rahall (WV)

Israel made sure other homophobes would slip into the Democratic caucus while the Members who largely pay for its operations, were't paying attention-- another page from the Rahm Playbook. Pete Gallego (New Dem-TX), for example, is a hard, boastful core gay hater-- one of Israel's personal recruits last year.

Meanwhile Israel is refusing to allow the DCCC to get behind almost any progressives who are real fighters for LGBT equality. In a state like Florida, where nearly three-quarters of the voters favor ENDA, an on-the-record bigot like John Mica, would be vulnerable to a well-financed challenge by a progressive. Israel refuses to give the Democratic candidate, Nick Ruiz-- not a millionaire, a college professor-- the time of day. And here's what Ruiz said just before yesterday's ENDA vote:

"Speaker Boehner and his proxy Rep. Mica are on the wrong side of history. Laws that ban discrimination are always castigated by those quickest to discriminate on such a basis. History is littered with stories of GOP opposition to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. The GOP was wrong then, and they're even more wrong now, with their opposition today standing as evidence that they've learned nothing about the great American civil rights and social justice movement in this country. The great majority of Americans, myself included, support ENDA and its goals. Speaker Boehner, Rep. Mica and company are simply missing in action when it comes to these vital protections for Americans."

Another Blue America-endorsed candidate, Tom Guild in Oklahoma City, who's challenging James Lankford an ex-minister who seems to be devoted to some form of Christianity that has cut out Jesus' message. Lankford is a dedicated hate-monger and bigot. Tom: “I strongly support ENDA that is currently under consideration in Congress.  Every Oklahoman and American deserves the opportunity to be free from unfair discrimination in the workplace. This is the kind of issue that should bring us together-- arbitrary discrimination in the workplace is wrong and the time is past due to eliminate this injustice.  We need leaders who are listening to fair minded Oklahomans and Americans who are calling for protection against unfair workplace discrimination.”

John Kline (R-MN), another bigoted Republican who opposes equality on principle and has voted against LGBT rights every time he's had the opportunity, has drawn a strong and progressive fighter for equal employment rights, Mike Obermueller, who Israel sabotaged last time he ran against Kline. Yesterday he said "I strongly support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Every American deserves the opportunity to be free from discrimination in the workplace. This is exactly the kind of issue that should bring our legislators together-- this discrimination is wrong and we are long overdue in resolving this injustice. We need leaders that are listening to their constituents calling for protection against discrimination… The passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the Senate would be a historic step towards eliminating discrimination in our country. Congressman Kline is part of the problem in Washington-- he’s choosing inaction over action and he’s looking past the overwhelming support of the people. We need leaders that can come together to eliminate discrimination and ensure a fair, safe workplace for all Americans."

And we need a DCCC Chairman who recruits candidates with Democratic values like Mike, Tom and Nick, not conservatives and reactionaries like himself and like Jennifer Garrison, widely known in her own state as "the Sarah Palin of Ohio." That's the kind of garbage you're supporting if you give money to the DCCC.

Garrison beat a Republican incumbent in 2004 to win a state house seat from Southeast Ohio, by ATTACKING HER GOP OPPONENT FOR BEING TOO PRO-GAY. Yes, you read that right. From the Gay People's Chronicle: Garrison already has a rocky relationship with the LGBT community. She won her House seat by gay-baiting her predecessor, Nancy Hollister, in 2004.

Earlier that year, Hollister was the only Republican to vote against the so-called “defense of marriage act.” It was considered a courageous vote.

Garrison sent out mailings that read, “If you believe marriage is between one man and one woman, there’s something you should know about Nancy Hollister.”

The other side of the card said, “DOMA was enacted precisely to protect Ohioans from having to accept ‘marriages’ or ‘unions’ entered into in other states. Despite the value of DOMA, Nancy Hollister voted against it. Jennifer Garrison believes marriage is between one man and one woman and will fight to protect our values.”

In 2006, as a member of the House Education Committee, Garrison helped to kill an amendment that would have required Ohio schools to protect students from bullying for their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The anti-bullying bill passed without the LGBT protections.

An attorney, Garrison opposed EHEA last year, saying it is wrong to single out classes of people for protection. This is a common talking point that anti-gays use against equality laws, and is legally flawed.

Think about that the next time Steve Israel or one of his minions comes begging you for money to "help the gays."

Why Would Congress Let Wall Street Gamble With Our Families' Futures?

Fred Upton's Monkey Court

On Wednesday, the House voted 292-122 to gut a significant portion of the Dodd-Frank Consumer Protection law. Irresponsible banksters addicted to risky gambling will once again be able to take those risks knowing that if they get into trouble, the taxpayers will be forced to pick up the tab. As we saw on Thursday, Wall Street's own political parties-- the Republican Party and the New Dem Party-- forced the dangerous legislation through. I asked the congressional candidates endorsed by Blue America who are running against opponents who voted for the amendment how they see the situation and why their congressman was willing to disregard the best interests of his own constituents in favor of Wall Street. Nick Ruiz, who's running for the central Florida seat occupied by conservative Republican John Mica, didn't shy away from drawing the connection between big campaign contributions and a willingness to forget about his own district. Nick:

"When Rep. Mica isn't busy voting to gut Social Security, he's voting against minimum wage COLA increases; if he's not busy deregulating polluters and pollutants so fracking, drilling and surface runoff can destroy our environment for five minutes worth of energy and profit, then he's wasting money on interstate toll roads to gouge consumers and busy trying to privatize public train routes and airport security; when he's not stealing money from retirees, veterans, the disabled and the poor through fake conservative Social Security schemes, or cracking jokes on immigration reform-- then he finds time for another favorite pastime: the further enrichment of Wall Street tycoons by allowing them to offer shoddy investment advice to retirees, or to trade derivatives however Wall Street wants, so long as they give him tidy contributions in return for these bank bonanzas, all while giving ordinary working families and individuals the shaft. Mr. Mica, voters say your time is up-- it's time for you to go."

Tom Guild in Oklahoma City saw it much the same way and has no fear in saying so in clear, stark terms. "Mr. Lankford," he told us, "as they say in the furniture business, can’t be bought but can apparently be rented for long periods of time. In his recent Federal Election Commission report, Lankford received a majority of his campaign funds from Wall Street PACs and the Koch Brothers. His Wall Street overlords have his vote in their hip pocket, and he receives fat campaign checks from Wall Street and their PACS. It seems that 'free enterprise' in Lankford’s lexicon means that Lankford’s buddies on Wall Street are guaranteed all the profits, but taxpayers bear all the risks. And he says he is against taxpayer bailouts? What a scam!"

Last week we all saw Fred Upton's pathetic "monkey court" in action, as Upton carried water for the extreme right in another effort to take away health insurance from millions of working class families. His "court" duty certainly didn't prevent Upton from repaying his debt to the Wall Street elites who help fund his miserable political career. He voted for the amendment. His progressive Democratic opponent, Paul Clements, didn't let it go by unnoticed. "We the American people bailed out banks that lost their shirts in the 2008 crash because they were 'too big to fail,' but now we once again have four mega-banks too big to fail. We also have a bill,  H.R. 992, that supports more taxpayer insurance for the kinds of risky deals that led to the crash. We should be going in the opposite direction, doing more to ensure that banks pay the price for their mistakes. We need to make sure that average Americans are not providing insurance for risky bets by high flying financiers." Bingo!

Blue America is backing two candidates in California, Eloise Reyes and Lee Rogers and both are running against hard core Wall Street shills, respectively Gary Miller and Buck McKeon. Reyes and Rogers say would have voted against the bill. Eloise: "Anyone who wants to see the effects of the harmful lending practices of Wall Street just needs to visit the Inland Empire. Empty homes and foreclosure signs can be found on nearly every street. There is no other region of the country where subprime loans accounted for a larger proportion of the overall mortgage market. It is deplorable that any Member of Congress would vote in support the type of predatory practices that put families at risks so that Wall Street and K Street can increase their profit margin. We have already seen what happens when Wall Street is left to regulate itself. Why would anyone support legislation that promises to lead us down the same path again?"

Rogers is an an especially odd situation here because the man he's running against, McKeon, is personally a severe gambling addict so sees nothing against banksters exhibiting the same behavior. Rogers told us after McKeon's latest vote for Wall Street that "Americans are tired of bailing out the big banks when their risky trading goes South. This bill puts taxpayers on the hook if traders lose out on bad bets. We shouldn't be insuring their gambling."

Steve Israel and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, respectively the conservative Big Business shills who run the DCCC and the DNC, are not supporting any of these candidates. Neither wants to see progressives in Congress. Israel absented himself from the vote and Wasserman Schultz voted with the Republicans. If you'd like to help make sure we get a better Congress in 2014, please consider contributing what you can to the candidates who want to go to Washington to represent average working families, not corrupt Wall Street predators. You can do that here.

New Dem shill voted with the GOP for Wall Street banksters

And speaking of the wretched Wasserman Schultz, David Sirota has a superb article in yesterday's Salon everyone should read. The topic is best summed up in the subtitle: "Here's why plutocrats control our politics: Corporate America knows both parties are up for sale." Sirota writes that "Similar to green washing or so-called 'gay washing'/'rainbow washing,' liberal washing is all about wrapping corporate America’s agenda in the veneer of fight-for-the-little-guy progressivism, thus portraying plutocrats’ radical rip-off schemes as ideologically moderate efforts to rescue the proles… If corporate America cooks up a scheme to rip off the middle class, Republicans will provide the bulk of the congressional votes for the scheme-- but enough establishment-credentialed liberals inevitably will endorse the scheme to make it at least appear to be mainstream and bipartisan. Yes, it seems no matter how venal, underhanded or outright corrupt a heist may be, there always ends up being a group of icons with liberal billing ready to drive the getaway car."

The most reliable way to liberal-wash something is to get a famous Democrat to support it. This is because even though many Democratic politicians, party officials, operatives and pundits are neither liberal nor progressive, the media nonetheless usually portrays all people affiliated with the Democratic Party as uniformly liberal on all issues.

The famous examples of liberal washing come from the White House. A few decades ago, Democratic President Bill Clinton liberal-washed corporatist schemes like NAFTA and financial deregulation. Today, it is Democratic President Barack Obama liberal-washing the insurance industry’s healthcare initiatives and now joining with a handful of Democratic legislators to liberalwash-- and legitimize-- the right-wing crusade to slash Social Security benefits.

…Out on the campaign trail, it is often the same kind of liberal washing. As just the most famous example, then-Newark Mayor Cory Booker used his billing as a liberal hero to famously liberal-wash the private equity industry’s predatory business model and its anti-public school agenda. In return for his efforts, he was showered with Wall Street cash, which helped him then buy his state’s Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate-- and, ultimately, the U.S. Senate seat itself.

At the municipal level, this kind of thing can be even more shameless, and it involves not only Democratic politicians but also leaders of traditionally liberal organizations. A few years ago, for example, some (but not all) prominent union leaders helped liberal-wash Rahm Emanuel. Those union leaders endorsed the former investment banker in his run for Chicago mayor, despite Emanuel being the architect of the union-crushing NAFTA and calling liberals “fucking retarded.” Once elected, Emanuel used his manufactured liberal credentials to then liberal-wash a full-scale war on organized labor. That war has included school closings and efforts to privatize municipal services-- aka policies designed to undermine public-sector unions.

…Until liberal washing becomes anathema to more of the genuine left, there is little chance of combating today’s plutocratic politics. It is a politics that manufactures the parameters of economic debates so that only corporate-friendly outcomes are possible. It is a politics that relies as much on money and votes as on permissive semiotics-- the kind that permits labels like “liberal,” “progressive” and “left” to include those who shill for the right. Only when those labels start meaning something and liberal washing is defanged can we hope to get, in the words of Gourevitch, “something more than the economically stagnant, politically oppressive” culture we’re currently stuck with.

A little reminder-- these are the 20 current House members who took the biggest legalistic bribes from Wall Street in the last election cycle-- and all of them supported gutting Dodd-Frank this week (very "bipartisan," right?):

• John Boehner (R-OH)- $1,445,575
• Eric Cantor (R-VA)- $923,900
• Scott Garrett (R-NJ)- $542,020
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $525,928
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $315,750
• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)- $304,250
• Dave Camp (R-MI)- $290,550
• Spencer Bachus (R-AL)- $286,677
• Joe Crowley (New Dem-NY)- $284,349
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $275,400
• Nita Lowey (D-NY)- $234,250
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $230,010
• Ed Royce (R-CA)- $229,100
• Peter Roskam (R-IL)- $213,100
• Steve Israel (Blue Dog-NY)- $211,507
• Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-Mafia)- $209,982
• Aaron Schock (R-IL)- $199,999
• Pat Tiberi (R-OH)- $197,198
• Erik Paulsen (R-MN)- $166,700
• Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)- $162,100

Slew Of New Polls-- All Devastating For The Party That Shut Down The Government

Time to say good-bye

CNN's latest polling was all bad news for the Republican Party, but in a general kind of way. The PPP/MoveOn district-by-district polls released this morning, though, are what terrorizes the hostage takers and cowards in the GOP who just cost tax-payers $24 billion with their right-wing temper tantrum. We'll get to those results in a moment.

Just over half the public says that it's bad for the country that the GOP controls the House of Representatives, according to a new national poll conducted after the end of the partial government shutdown.

…According to the survey, 54% say it's a bad thing that the GOP controls the House, up 11 points from last December, soon after the 2012 elections when the Republicans kept control of the chamber. Only 38% say it's a good thing the GOP controls the House, a 13-point dive from the end of last year.

This is the first time since the Republicans won back control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections that a majority say their control of the chamber is bad for the country.

…And the CNN/ORC International survey also indicates that more than six in 10 Americans [63%] say that Speaker of the House John Boehner should be replaced.

The most likely way to replace John Boehner is to elect a Democratic majority in the House next year. And that's what the new MoveOn polls in 25 districts are all about. So adding to the polling earlier in the month that show Republican incumbents like Buck McKeon (R-CA), Fred Upton (R-MI), Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R-FL), Mike Rogers (R-MI), David Reichert (R-WA) and several others very beatable, we now see equally dismal results for Republicans who went along with shutting down the government like Darrell Issa (R-CA), John Mica (R-FL), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Scott Tipton (R-CO), Ed Royce (R-CA), Dennis Ross (R-FL), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Justin Amash (R-MI), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Mike Turner (R-OH), Steve Stivers (R-OH), Jim Renacci (R-OH), Robert Hurt (R-VA), Tom Petri (R-WI), as well as several others.

Former Rove lackey Tim Griffin, a 2-term Republican backbencher from Little Rock, announced he's retiring to "spend more time with the family." Former Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter is a likely Democratic nominee. With a Democratic wave forming against GOP excess, Griffith apparently knew when to head for the exits faster than some of his careerist colleagues who have worn out their welcomes. Like John Mica in the Orlando-area district just north of Alan Grayson's district. Blue America has endorsed independent-minded progressive Nick Ruiz for the seat. The DCCC is ignoring the race and the district. If you want to help Nick beat Mica, you can do it here. Keep in mind, if the election were held today, Nick would lead Mica 46-43%. After voters are made aware that Mica backed the government shutdown, the race shifts even more in Nick's favor-- 49-41%.

After the polls were released, we reached Nick by phone. Encouraged, he told us that "This latest MoveOn/PPP poll of our district makes it crystal clear to naysayers that it's imperative we seek to change the narrative of our government from that of what's 'impossible,' to a narrative that is more optimistic in terms of what we can achieve, if we simply, decide to. We have to turn the page on the 20th century model of a government that's always one step or two behind the social justice curve, and seems to excel only at warmaking. We can get ahead of the curve, but we need reps. to advocate for that vision. Austerity is choking the middle class world to death. For the middle and working class to continue, we will have to reinvoke that New Deal middle class spirit, and there will have to be investment. John Mica is not prepared to do it. The private sector is not prepared to do it. For that reason and others, voters will not re-elect Rep. Mica, and instead will elect me, because I am prepared to do it." And we agree. Again, please chip in for Nick's race here; the DCCC never will.

Republican Cowards' Appeasement Policy: Hope Yes/Vote No

Mica & Lankford: 2 ugly right-wing faces of GOP nihilism & cowardice

While unreconstructed Confederate nihilists like Louisiana's John Fleming were boasting this morning that they're ready to force another government shutdown in January and another default crisis in February, many Republicans from normal parts of America were breathing a sigh of relief after last night's Pelosi-led 285-144 vote to reopen the government and step back from the brink of default. Charlie Dent (R-PA) explained the cowardly strategy of most Republicans in this nifty aphorism floating around Capitol Hill: "Hope Yes/Vote No."

Most people recognize that for what it is: grotesque political appeasement to the Tea Party Confederates-- and it will come back to hurt Republicans who voted NO while representing districts where independent voters are needed for reelection. In the House, 16 who may have wrecked their chances for reelection by going along with the Hope Yes/Vote No strategy:

• Justin Amash (MI)
• Kerry Bentivolio (MI)
• Jeff Denham (CA)
• Sean Duffy (WI)
• Scott Garrett (NJ)
• Steve King (IA)
• John Mica (FL)
• Stevan Pearce (NM)
• Joe Pitts (PA)
• Tom Reed (NY)
• Dana Rohrabacher (CA)
• Ed Royce (CA)
• Paul Ryan (WI)
• Steve Southerland (FL)
• Mike Turner (OH)
• Tim Walberg (MI)

Problem here, of course, is that the DCCC hasn't bothered finding candidates to run in many of these races or isn't backing the grassroots local candidate who is running or is putting up some less-of-two evils hack who many voters won't bother going to the polls to support.

Let's take John Mica. His central Florida district, FL-07, stretches from the suburbs just north of Orlando, like Winter Park and Altamonte Springs and then up through Longwood, Geneva, Deltona and Orange City. The district has a PVI of R+4 but Obama nearly beat McCain in 2008 (50-49%) and held Romney to 52% last year. There's a growing Hispanic community-- 20% now-- and voters are getting tired of Mica's sleazy dishonesty and cowardice. Wednesday night he voted with the minority of Congress to send the country into default and keep the government shut down. That isn't what central Florida residents wanted to see. The DCCC isn't supporting Mica's progressive and independent-minded Democratic opponent, Nick Ruiz. Blue America is. This morning, Nick wasn't feeling all that charitable towards Mica and said flat out that he "has no business being in representative government. He doesn't want government, clearly evinced by his repeated votes to shut it down. Rep. Mica doesn't want to cooperate and represent the district and the nation. What Mr. Mica wants is total control of the lives and circumstances of the district and the nation. There's a word for this, but it isn't 'representation.' It's megalomania."

Another Blue America-endorsed candidate, Tom Guild, is in a much tougher district. Oklahoma has been a conservative Republican bastion for decades. And Tom is a progressive Democrat, not a Blue Dog or New Dem type. The DCCC is ignoring his race but Oklahoma City may not be as set against change as many Inside the Beltway assume it is. After the vote last night, Tom drew a clear distinction between where he stands and how his Tea Party-oriented opponent, Jim Lankford, voted:

The good news is that the our long national nightmare is temporarily over. The government will reopen, and the country won't default, at least until February. However, radical Rep. James Lankford recklessly voted against reopening the government, and irresponsibly voted against the bill that kept the country from defaulting on our obligations. Once again, he proved that he is totally disconnected from reality. He had already cost us 900,000 jobs, and $24 billion in economic activity by his penchant for repeating failed policies and approaches. He proves Sen. Manchin's view that the biggest threat to the American economy is the American Congress, particularly the radical and completely out of touch GOP House.

If we wait for action from the DCCC, we'll never get rid of barnacles like Lankford or Mica. If you'd like to help Nick Ruiz and Tom Guild bring their cases to the voters, you can do so at this link.


UPDATE: Not Waiting For The DCCC

Grassroots progressive, Leslie Endean-Singh, the Democrat running against GOP right-wing extremist Stevan Pearce, told us this morning that last night her opponent "affirmed his reckless and selfish policies that continue to hurt Southern New Mexico families. He voted to continue a government shutdown that was costing the US economy over $1.5 billion per day and voted to let the United States default on its national debt, all the while keeping our national parks closed and postponing crucial border guard training here in New Mexico. It's time for new leadership in Southern New Mexico! While Steve Pearce is focused on shutting down the federal government, I am focused on shutting down Steve Pearce."

And on the other side of the country, Shaughnessy Naughton, the grassroots candidate opposing Mike Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania's Bucks County, exposed the strategy of Republicans like Fitzpatrick who helped cause and prolong the shutdown but then voted against continuing it last night.

“Mike Fitzpatrick stood around doing nothing effective or proactive for sixteen days. During that time, the U.S. economy lost 100,000 jobs and, according to Standard and Poor’s, we cut about 0.6 percent off of our gross domestic product. That’s equivalent to $24 billion in lost productivity.

“I’m sure Congressman Fitzpatrick would like to be welcomed home a hero, but I refuse to applaud someone for putting out a fire he started.

“The shutdown was a malicious, self-destructive act designed to undermine a law that was passed by Congress, signed by the president, and approved by the Supreme Court. And Congressman Fitzpatrick was complicit in its execution. He ought to be ashamed of himself. He owes the entire Eighth Congressional District an apology.

“Not once did he hold a town hall meeting or explain himself to his constituents. Not once did he take a principled stand on behalf of the people he represents. He timidly stood on the sidelines, doing what Tea Party leaders in the house told him to do, never once thinking about the impact he was having back home.

“If ever there was a reason to evict Congressman Fitzpatrick, this was it. People have had it with his brand of do-nothing politics. Leadership is needed and it’s time for him to go.”

When will Mike get to unpack his costume?

Although Fitzpatrick didn't attend his own planned fundraiser last night-- and will have to save his Stevie Nicks drag costume for a future event-- his campaign was raising money in New Hope by portraying him as a non-teabagger, even if he did vote with them every time he could while this mess unfolded. The ridiculous $250/head fundraiser featured entertainers dressed up as Cher and Lady Gaga. Joshua Morrow, Naughton’s campaign manager, said, “Everything that went on last night was fake. Entertainers in New Hope pretended to be real celebrities, and Fitzpatrick was pretending to be a real leader. It was the night of the living impersonators.”