Can You Really Learn More From Fiction Than From Our Political Media? Do I Even Need To Answer That Question?

"We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president...We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons...we like non-fiction, and we are living in fictitious times."

This is how Michael Moore put it during his acceptance speech for Best Documentary for Bowling for Columbine at the Academy Awards in March of 2003. He was right, of course. But did he even know the level of fiction our political process could become when a foolish, clown-like, thoroughly corrupt, carrot-colored man with cotton candy hair made of piss (thanks Penn Gillette) became the Republican nominee? Probably not.

That is why, in a strange way, we need good fiction today. Written by progressives who've gone up against the corruption. Seen the disgustingly dirty-underbelly of the worst of corporate America and the white nationalist party once known as Republicans.

Luckily, there are two great books out there right now that give you more insight into our broken political system than our careerist, crap-store elite media ever will.

In Law And Disorder, Mike Papantonio, early investor and show host on Air America, president of the National Trial Lawyers and current host of the nationally syndicated Ring of Fire radio show, gives us a peek into his world of mass tort lawsuits taking on the likes of big tobacco, large pharmaceutical companies and Big Oil.

In the book, main protagonist Nicholas “Deke” Deketomis has to take on a cabal of forces that will look familiar to anyone who’s read the news the past decade. There is Bekmeyer Pharmaceuticals and their dangerous product Randol, S.I. Oil, which is run by the wealthy, right-wing Swanson Brothers, who’ve never met a body of water or breathable air they couldn’t pollute.

There’s also country prosecutor Darl Dixon and Pentecostal Pastor Rodney Morgan, rounding out the “tea party” supporters who form a rich cast of characters. With this story, as in real life, Papantonio is not only unafraid to challenge these forces, but indeed seems to go after them with relish. The book will remind you of some of the better works of John Grisham, one of those reads you pick up with the intention of skimming for an hour at 11 p.m., but find yourself going over line after line until 2:30 a.m., and only then turning in reluctantly.

Meanwhile, in his debut novel, The People’s House, David Pepper, former Hamilton County, Ohio Commissioner and Chair of the Ohio Democratic Party, does what Law & Order once achieved, ripping his storyline from the headlines (but with a twist). A worn down journalist at the Youngstown Vindicator, Jack Sharpe, comes across a story initially hard for him to believe, which a threat to the very fabric of our democracy. In this clever plot, which has been compared to Joe Klein’s Primary Colors, Pepper invites us into a world where those who game the system have figured out a new way to corrupt American democracy.

Why does one need to attempt the higher profile takeover of the presidency when, in a gerrymandered Congress, you need only control the 30 or so swing seats to ensure legislation you like passes and gets its day in the Senate and on the president’s desk for his signature. Sharpe, in one of those districts, notices the irregularities, and then the plot really takes off, with congressman Lee Kelly getting his hands on proof of what occurred in this Northeast, Ohio district, and Monroe Country Democratic Ernie Rogers also questioning vote tabulations.

As with Papantonio’s oeuvre, Pepper isn’t looking for the false balance of the New York Times political page, he reminds us who is the party of Big Energy (Republicans), who has recently tampered with elections via voter suppression (Republicans) and/or re-routing large gobs of dark money through charitable organizations (take your pick, Donald Trump and Pam Bondi? Scott Walker and the Koch Bros?). In this election, calling out regressive forces without subtlety or “both sides do it” is refreshing to say the least.

The pulse-pounding thrill of what will happen next, as the congressman with evidence of wrongdoing becomes a victim of not just this national, but international conspiracy, keeps you turning pages until the very end. We even come up against a Russian oligarch’s involvement in these nefarious activities, which Pepper created before the recent hacking shenanigans, making the novel that much more timely.

Need a break from all that is unholy in this election? Need to learn more about what is really going on behind the scenes than power-humping harlots like Chris Cillizza or Joe Scarborough can ever provide. Read Law & Disorder and The People's House.

The Corrupted Democratic Party Follows The Republican Party Further And Further To The Right

This morning, we quoted GOP billionaire Mike Fernandez, from his OpEd endorsing Hillary Clinton, that party loyalty should never come before cores values and principles: "No longer can we hide behind the excuse that party loyalty is paramount, and that a bad candidate of our own is always better than any candidate of theirs. Blind loyalty in this case is the ultimate definition of disloyalty to our beliefs." Gauis mentioned to me that any #BernieOrBust true believer could have written the same thing. Yesterday Thom Hartmann had Mike Papantonio on his show to talk about how it was possible for the Republican wing of the Democratic Party sweep the Florida Democratic primaries Tuesday, picking anti-working family reactionaries like Patrick Murphy, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Garcia, Randy Perkins, Val Demings, Darren Soto, and Scott Fuhrman over progressive candidates. (ConservaDem Al Lawson's win over a liberal but criminally indicted Corrine Brown was a separate kind of case.) Ironically, the one congressional primary where a progressive beat a conservative, in the next-to-impossible 2nd district, it now looks like the margin has narrowed to 136 votes and progressive Walter Cartland may actually lose out to Steve Crapps, a crap Democrat every bit as bad as Murphy or any of the other garbage that won Tuesday. It'll be up to provisional ballots to determine which Democrat wins the nomination in this deep red district.

Papantonio's explanation is important to for progressives to hear and important to try to deal with-- because it isn't only about Florida. Bernie's movement, despite Bernie's pleas, turned in the direction of a cult-of-personality. It should never have been allowed to move in that direction because it made it too easy for supporters to ignore the issues that have animated Bernie's entire career. "The corporatist wing of the Democratic Party won the day; progressive candidates were sent packing, Papantonio told Hartmann. He blamed lazy progressive voters for not showing up for being willing to talk the talk but not walk the walk. "These are Republicans that won. Twenty years ago these characters would never have shown up in the Democratic Party. They are elitist, insider, Wall Street Democrats-- certainly they are insider, elitist DC Democrats. Reid and Pelosi have done everything they can to purge the party of anybody who looks different from that Wall Street Democrat, that Third Way Democrat. Think bout how active Reid was in going after Grayson. Thank about how active Pelosi has been in trying to say we have to stay with the establishment, which is the Wall Street Democrats. Progressives lost all over the country... this was the wish of the Democratic Party... Tim Caona, Alan Grayson, even Bernie Sanders were labeled the fringe candidates and they represent the real beliefs of what the Democratic Party used to stand for all the way back to FDR. But that party is no more. This Democratic Party is something I don't even recognize anymore."

I call that one compelling cri-de-coeur! I hope Papantonio isn't planning on buckling under to that blind party loyalty Fernandez was writing about above. Is he going to vote for Hillary and the boatload of shit Democrats corrupt insiders like Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Steve Israel, Wasserman Schultz, Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi are trying to use to turn the Democratic Party into it's Republican wing. Speaking of which... Here's a current list of the House candidates-- not incumbents-- who are running as Republican wing Democrats, Each one of these worthless candidates has gone to the Blue Dogs and/or New Dems for an endorsement and each one was examined and deemed worthy of being allowed into the Republican wing. If you vote for them, Social Security and Medicare won't last beyond 2030. First the Blue Dogs:

• Lou Correa (CA)
• Gretchen Driskell (MI)
• Brad Schneider (IL)
• Shelli Yoder (IN)
• Josh Gottheimer (NJ)
• Gail Schwartz (CO)
• Kim Myers (NY)
• Pete Gallego (TX)
• Lon Johnson (MI)
• Doug Owens (UT)
• Tom O'Halleran (AZ)

And these are the New Dems who are masquerading as Democrats, every bit as bad as the New Dems and, in many cases, as you can see, identical:

• Isadore Hall (CA)
• Lou Correa (CA)
• Darren Soto (FL)
• Matt Heinz (AZ)
• Salud Carbajal (CA)
• Val Demings (FL)
• Monica Vernon (IA)
• Brad Schneider (IL)
• Emily Cain (ME)
• Josh Gottheimer (NJ)
• Pete Gallego (TX)
• LuAnn Bennett (VA)

Looks an awful lot like the DCCC's Red-to-Blue List, doesn't it? So while the DCCC has refused to back progressives like Mary Ellen Balchunis (PA), Mary Hoeft (WI) and Tom Wakely (TX), they have backed virtually all of the sewerful of candidates the Blue Dogs and New Dems are backing. You can still help progressives overcome this right-wing onslaught from within the Democratic Party that is making the party over as a quasi-GOP comfortable for ex-Republicans like Patrick Murphy and Hillary Clinton, by tapping on the thermometer on the right and giving generously to as many of these candidates as you can. And a little good news about two of these horrible candidates. In California, extraordinarily corrupt Blue Dog Lou Correa and even more corrupt Isadore Hall aren't up against Republicans in November, but against dedicated progressives, respectively, Bao Nguyen and Nanette Barragan, both of whom you can contribute to here.

Wednesday Michael Sainato, reminded his readers what an utterly contemptible den of corruption the Democratic Party has become under the hopeless and vile leadership in power today. "Despite the corruption Wasserman Schultz perpetuated at the DNC-- and her resignation-- Democratic Party leaders flocked to South Florida to assist her reelection campaign," he wrote. "President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton all formally endorsed Wasserman Schultz, ensuring the Democratic Party system that rigged the primaries for Clinton stays rigged and corrupt. Wasserman Schultz’s victory against Canova is not only a demoralizing defeat for Sanders supporters, but another step backwards for restoring democracy in America. Wasserman Schultz embodies all that is wrong with the current state of politics. The interests of her constituency invariably falls by the wayside in favor of the Democratic Party leadership’s will, and the wealthy, corporate influences that fund them." I disagree with only one word-- Sainato's first: "despite" should be "because of." They support her because of the corruption because corruption is their life's work. All of them.

No Labels-- Further Stinking Up The Sewer That DC Already Was Without Them

Yesterday we looked at how Steve Israel's "bipartisan" conservative group, the Center Aisle Caucus, so dear to the heart of Establishment imbeciles like David Broder, destroyed any chance the Democrats had to retake the House (in 2012 and again this year). So brilliant of Pelosi to appoint a bipartisan with his chains to so many vulnerable Republicans to head the post that should be the most partisan in the Democratic conference!

Previously, we talked about Big Business shills Patrick Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema working with teabaggers to undermine Democratic values in Congress in their United Solutions caucus. That helps why Israel calls Murphy's race the top race in the country (even though Murphy has no plausible GOP opponent) and why Debbie Wasserman Schultz is already pushing Murphy for statewide office. Poor Florida, barely even has a Democratic Party any longer thanks to Wasserman Schultz. They're running a Republican for governor and Murphy is also a Republican who conveniently calls himself a Democrat.

A few days ago, while we were laughing at Schumer's Wall Street whine about partisanship, Meredith Shiner was covering another one of these slimy, self-serving "non-partisan" Beltway groups, No Labels. She also exposed the secret donor list of shady multimillionaires who finance the operation, a list (above) that has never been seen before. It sounds so high-minded; they all do. But none of them ever work out that way. And No Labels sure hasn't. If anything, No Labels is even more corrupt and more disgusting than its predecessors. It's no coincidence that No Labels uses the empty term "problem solvers" to describe its members-- just like Steve Israel tells the idiots he recruits for the DCCC Red to Blue program.

In 2010, a group of political veterans who said they were tired of the extreme partisanship paralyzing Washington created an organization to advance their new cause. The founding mission of No Labels was "to move America from the old politics of point scoring toward a new politics of problem-solving." Through a combination of congressional engagement in Washington and grass roots organizing around the country, No Labels’ lofty aspiration was to promote bipartisanship by providing political cover for lawmakers to work across the aisle and creating incentives to slowly erode the culture of polarization and intransigence in Congress. But four years later, it appears the group designed to combat the insidious habits of the Washington establishment has been engulfed by it.

Like many other outside political groups, No Labels spends a disproportionate part of its budget maintaining and promoting its own organization, trying to keep its profile high while ensuring a steady flow of fundraising dollars, whose donors they keep secret, in a cluttered nonprofit environment. As part of its efforts to gain legitimacy and grow its membership, No Labels has also occasionally waded into congressional contests in ways that have raised suspicions among Democrats about the group’s own commitment to bipartisanship.

And though No Labels has positioned itself as a warrior against gridlock, an internal document obtained by Yahoo News suggests the group is banking on more political dysfunction in an attempt to find “opportunity” and relevance for itself.

The confidential document, distributed at No Labels’ May executive board meeting, outlines a “break through strategy” for the group, which despite raising millions and a buzzy-for-cable-news-talk launch, has struggled to find a foothold on the campaign trail or in the halls of Congress. The first point in that strategy is a “balance of power shift in the U.S. Senate,” an awkward position to outline, if not advocate, given No Labels’ aim of bipartisanship and that one of the group’s co-chairs, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, currently sits in the majority caucus.

“Should the balance of power in the U.S. Senate flip following the 2014 midterm elections and Republicans gain control, No Labels sees an opportunity to bridge the gap between Congress and the White House,” the document reads in its “Break Through Strategy” section. “With Republicans holding control of both chambers in Congress and a Democrat in the White House, the likelihood of gridlock will be higher than ever before.

“We have already begun back door conversations with Senate leaders to discuss this increasingly likely scenario,” the document continues.

This privately stated position exacerbates an already publicly spoiled relationship with Senate Democrats, who are still fuming from an April incident in which the group supported conservative Republican Cory Gardner in Colorado over Manchin’s colleague, incumbent Democrat Mark Udall. The endorsement, which No Labels later tried to clarify by saying that any candidate could be backed by the group if they just agreed to be a member, was touted by Gardner in press releases and caused the few Senate Democrats involved with the group to threaten to pull their membership, according to Democratic sources.

“It's wrong to read the memo suggesting there is a greater opportunity coming out of Republican [vs.] Democratic leadership in the Senate. We are a bipartisan group-- whose problem-solving seal is carried by both Democrats and Republicans,” No Labels co-founder and chief operating officer Nancy Jacobson said. “We are happy to work with whoever the voters choose. The memo was just a ‘what if’ document preparing if there was a change.”

But to openly discuss its role in a future, hypothetical Republican-led Congress is especially unusual, given that of the 10 senators who belong to No Labels, three-- Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Warner of Virginia-- are embroiled in difficult re-election races and might have to lose in order for the GOP to take back the Senate. Asked about “back door conversations” with Senate leadership cited in the memo by the group, aides to the five Senate GOP leaders told Yahoo News that their bosses have not discussed a Republican majority with No Labels, though No. 2 Republican John Cornyn of Texas did attend a May campaign event with the group in New York City and No. 3 Republican John Thune talked taxes and Obamacare in a meeting last month.

Though a flip of the Senate majority is a key expectation in the group’s strategy, officials at No Labels told Yahoo News they are more focused on the 2016 presidential race than the 2014 midterm elections. The group’s memorandum briefly addressed its “role” in the midterms in a bullet point that indicated No Labels provided $300,000 “in financial support through direct candidate contributions” at a May forum.

The group failed to carve out much of a niche for itself in the 2012 presidential contest. Its backing of a 12-point “Make Congress Work!” action plan and promotion of a bill that would “withhold congressional pay if members of Congress fail to pass spending bills and the budget on time” went nowhere.  Since then, its focus on fostering bipartisanship in Congress has not gone far, except to the extent that there is now bipartisan stagnation and gridlock so severe some members report becoming depressed and hating their jobs. Members of Congress seem all too eager to accept the mantle of civic responsibility offered by No Labels, only to return to partisan warfare.

In July 2013, No Labels held a rally where lawmakers of both parties crowded a park outside the Capitol, stood on a grandstand and one by one declared themselves “problem solvers.” The government shut down a few months later as Republicans, including some who appeared on that stage, refused to allow a budget to pass unless it defunded the president’s health care law.

Even in its own May document, No Labels claimed only one legislative victory: a bill that passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee by voice vote, but which never came up for a vote in the House or became law.

It turns out that for a group that consistently bills itself as above the partisan politics and the corrosive culture of Washington, No Labels has come to exemplify some of the most loathed qualities of the town’s many interest groups.

Much of the group’s budget goes toward sustaining or promoting itself. According to No Labels’ confidential document, the group employed 22 paid staffers and eight consultants as of May. Of its projected $4.5 million budget for 2014, only 4 percent-- or $180,000-- of spending was slotted for “Congressional Relations.” By contrast, administrative and operational expenses got $1.035 million over the same time period. Another 5 percent was set for travel. A further 30 percent ($1.35 million) was earmarked for digital growth and press, and 14 percent for fundraising.

It’s unclear how the group’s budget broke down in previous years, as No Labels is not obligated to fully disclose its finances or donors because of its 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status. But many of the organization’s biggest detractors question why a group advocating for a better Washington would embrace the same practices as the groups profiting from dividing it.

Outside groups have become a cottage industry inside the Beltway, where they pay lush salaries to staffers and consultants while talking loudly and doing little to achieve their missions in this age of legislative stasis.

“The reality is that No Labels is a front group to raise money and pay consultants,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “They should release a full disclosure of not only how they’re raising their money but also how they’re spending it.”

…No Labels’ judgment, however, of which politicians are best suited to reduce congressional gridlock is perhaps what makes the group the most vulnerable to attack from its detractors. And it has diminished its credibility with those it needs the most: the people who actually influence and make decisions on policy. Multiple Senate Democratic aides characterized the relationship between No Labels and Senate Democratic leaders as “hostile,” and said that the current distance stems from the controversy surrounding Gardner and the Colorado Senate race.

In April, No Labels gave its “Problem Solver Seal” to Gardner, the GOP challenger to the Senate Democratic incumbent Udall. Gardner touted the seal as an endorsement from No Labels, a situation that incensed members of the Senate Democratic caucus.

Gardner and No Labels then were forced to clarify the meaning of the seal after Democratic members threatened to leave the group and multiple No Labels board calls were held to discuss the matter. While a group spokesperson told a local Denver Fox affiliate that the seal is an “implied endorsement," No Labels co-founder Mark McKinnon, a former George W. Bush and John McCain strategist, said that anyone-- even Udall-- would be eligible for such a seal were they join the group.


The Problem Solver Seal granted by No Labels to lawmakers requires nothing of those members from a policy perspective, aside from agreeing to be part of No Labels, and to attend meetings with other No Labels members to discuss broad principles of bipartisanship. To be a member of No Labels, a politician needs to pledge to not take any pledge but the oath of office and the Pledge of Allegiance.

“The Seal can be awarded both to incumbents and challengers. It is distinct from a traditional political endorsement in that candidates running against one another might both qualify for the Seal,” said Bill Galston, a No Labels co-founder and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “The criteria are simple: to qualify, candidates must agree-- if elected or re-elected-- to attend meetings with their colleagues to work toward creating a National Strategic Agenda, and they must endorse the four goals.”

Gardner was among the top 10 most conservative members of the House in 2012 and the 98th in 2013, according to rankings by the National Journal. But the group has also given the seal to Reps. Peter Welch and Jared Huffman, who were among the top 20 most liberal members of the House in 2013, according to National Journal. It’s not that No Labels has shifted rightward ideologically and deliberately, it’s that its initial design to provide cover to politicians on both sides to work in a bipartisan way also gives cover to politicians who won’t but want to have lapel pins on their jackets saying they do.

No Labels’ critics question the seriousness of a group that includes a number of Republicans whose conservative bent and heated rhetoric have more of an outsize influence on their party than does the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The No Labels website talks about “unprecedented, even dangerous” tactics from the right in trying to defeat health care, but the group also includes some of the most outspoken members on this issue. Democratic critics ask what it says about the group that its “problem solvers” could vote to shut down the government or against raising the debt ceiling but maintain their “problem solver” status by attending No Labels meetings.

Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Diane Black of Tennessee and Jack Kingston of Georgia are No Labels “Problem Solvers,” and ranked among the top 17 most conservative members of the House in 2013. Just this month, it was revealed Kingston spoke to a conservative radio show about Congress looking “very seriously” into impeaching President Barack Obama.

As for the big donors, John Arnold gives mostly to conservative Democrats from the Republican wing of the Party like John Barrow, but also donated to John McCain, Tom Coburn and Ted Cruz. Josh Bekenstein, a Bain guy, has been giving to conservative Democrats like Blanche Lincoln (+ Mitt Romney, of course). Mark McLarty likes Hillary Clinton and Chuck Grassley. One of the half million dollar donors, John Muse of Texas gives pretty much only to right wing Republicans with a scatterings of conservative Democrats. Another half million dollar No Labels donor, Wendy's Chairman Nelson Peltz, is a huge political donor, but primarily to conservatives, regardless of party, like Rahm Emanuel (D), Joe Lieberman (I), Max Baucus (D), Herman Cain ®, Pete Wilson ®, Bob Corker (TN), Charlie Crist (?), Al D'Amato ®, Pat Toomey ®, John Boehner ®, etc. Similarly Marc Rowan of Apollo Management gives a lot of money to a lot of candidates, mostly Republicans and conservative Democrats (think Tom DeLay and Harold Ford, "Mikey Suits" Grimm and Ben Nelson… the real garbage of American politics. So $500,000 from him to No Labels makes total sense.

It's worth listening to this from the Member of Congress who has passed more legislation-- which means working across the aisle-- than anyone else in the House. He understands what bipartisan means… and it isn't the same thing as selling working families down the river-- not ever.