What's the Cost to the American People of Keeping Senators Like Patty Murray in Office?

Democrats (!) who voted with Big Pharma and against prescription drug importation, along with "the amount they have taken from drug companies since being elected to federal office" (details here). How much longer should any of these "enemies of the people" be in office? Or do they get at pass because they're our "enemies of the people"?

by Gaius Publius

The answer to the headline question is — across all industries and monopoly protection schemes regulated and allowed by Congress, easily more than $100 billion per year. That's the dollar price of keeping "fake progressives" like Cory Booker and Patty Murray well-fed and happy in Washington, D.C. Over $100 billion. Per year.

Can Progressives Afford to Protect and Defend "Fake Progressive" Senators?

Let's look at the cost to the American people of supporting "fake progressives" like those listed above by looking at just one industry, one monopoly protection scheme — prescription drugs prices.

Readers of DWT recently learned that:

Cory Booker helped the Republican predators kill his drug reimportation bill, a bill killed by Cory and a dozen other Democrats putting their donors before their constituents. Matt Taibbi has been on fire lately. His newest Rolling Stone essay, Republicans and Democrats Continue to Block Drug Reimportation-- After Publicly Endorsing It, makes the not so subtle point that "the one true bipartisan instinct in Washington is caving to rich industries."

The piece accurately calls Booker a "fake liberal." That label also applies to several more on the list above. Patty Murray, for example, is a "fake liberal." So is Maria Cantwell. Both were instrumental, for example, in getting Fast Track, the needed precursor to the horrible TPP trade deal, passed in the Senate.

The question has to be asked. At what price do progressives defend corrupt senators like this and protect their Senate positions, simply because they are our corrupt senators— corrupt Democratic senators? At what point do progressives say No to people like these?

As Matt Taibbi points out in the referenced article (all emphasis mine):

In 2015, for instance, the 20 largest drug companies made a collective $124 billion in profits.

All the industry needs to protect those sums is the continued cooperation of Congress.

So naturally it spends money-- not a lot by industry standards, but a ton by the standards of the ludicrously cheap dates we call federal politicians-- to make sure they always have just enough dependable people in office to block change.

Most of that $124 billion — profit, mind you; not revenue — came out of our pockets. Taibbi again:

The entire pharmaceutical industry is floated by a protectionist racket. Drugs that are in fact very cheap to make are kept artificially expensive-- we have drugs that cost $1,000 a pill here in America that sell for $4 in India, for instance.

This is the price you pay ... per year ... to keep Patty Murray and her kind in office. Do you feel you're getting a fair return for your own investment in her career?

The ROI on Corruption — Are Politicians Like Patty Murray "Ludicrously Cheap Dates"?

Let's look at what Big Pharma gets from us in return for our keeping Patty Murray and her like in office. Taibbi's characterization of the people named in the graphic at the top was "the ludicrously cheap dates we call federal politicians."

Cheap dates indeed. The top dollar figure in the graphic above is "fake progressive" Patty Murray's $900,000. The aggregate number in the graphic is about $5-6 million. That's not even a per-year bribe to these people, but a "for the life of their time in federal office" bribe.

To the industry, these people are for sale for pennies on the dollar, or more accurately mils on the dollar, plastic coins worth less than a penny.

Consider: The return on industry lobbying — let's round up and call it $10 million across several Senate terms — is $124 billion in protected profit per year. Looking at the drug price mark-up in the Taibbi article — from $4 to $1000 — gives a profit increase of 250 times the original (and still profitable) $4 price in India. Let's lower that increase, since I'm sure Taibbi picked an extreme example. Let's say that, on average, the protected U.S. profit is "just" a 100-times increase over what's profitable overseas.

If this is true, it's very safe to say that of that $124 billion in profit, at least $100 billion is bought by lobbying Congress for price protection.

So what's the ROI to the drug companies on its $10 million in bribes (sorry, entirely legal campaign contributions)? If it's $100 billion ... again, per year ... the ROI on campaign contributions is at least $10,000 in profit for each $1 spent to protect it, or more than 10,000 to 1.

If I'm off by a factor of 10, the ROI is ... 1,000 to 1.

Very cheap dates indeed. Corrupt Senators like Patty Murray need a better agent, or at least a union. After all, real agents get 10 percent. Acting as their own agents, politicians like Murray can't manage to squeeze one percent out of one of the most profitable industries in the world.

And her failure to extract more feathers for her nest is worse when you consider that Congress is the sole source for price protection at the national level. Corrupt Senate votes like Murray's can't be acquired anywhere else in the country.

Corrupt Democrats Keep Drug Prices High in Connecticut

Now comes David Sirota to tell a similar story (emphasis mine):

Why Are Drug Prices Going Up? Democratic Power Players Help Pharmaceutical Industry In Connecticut Battle

Wide majorities of voters want public officials to reduce American medicine prices, which are the highest in the world and have become a key driver of skyrocketing healthcare costs. And yet as politicians including Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have continued to call for a crackdown, corporate power players have successfully blocked even minimal reforms — with the help, at times, of industry-connected Democrats, whose party portrays itself as a consumer-defending critic of the healthcare industry.

As Congress holds more hearings on the issue, the fight over drug prices has moved to [state] legislatures — and an intense debate in Connecticut most starkly illuminates the battle lines. There, the House, the governorship and all constitutional offices are controlled by a Democratic Party that has long criticized the pharmaceutical industry for its pricing practices. Connecticut, though, also has America’s highest number of insurance jobs per capita, and a cadre of powerful public officials with financial and familial ties to the insurance industry — a situation that adds to the influence the industry already wields through its campaign cash and lobbyists.

The situation:

Fresh off a presidential campaign that saw both parties’ candidates promising to make prescription medicine more affordable, Connecticut lawmakers in January introduced legislation to bring more transparency to drug prices. The bill, which mirrors similar initiatives in other states, also aims to stop insurance companies from effectively forcing their policyholders to pay more for medicine than it actually costs — a lucrative scheme that critics say allows insurers and their affiliated pharmaceutical benefit managers to pocket the difference.

Despite the pharmaceutical industry’s opposition, the Connecticut legislation initially seemed headed for approval: It was sponsored by the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders and was backed by high-profile officials like the Democratic state comptroller.

Who could make this go wrong? Industry-connected Democrats:

But a few weeks ago, bill proponents say, Connecticut’s insurance commissioner Katharine Wade pressed for changes that would weaken the penalties in the legislation and leave enforcement of its provisions to the healthcare industry itself.

Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy, who appointed Wade, came to her defense. “We must take much greater care in considering the impact our actions have on Connecticut insurers,” he said. House Majority Leader Matt Ritter, a Democrat, suggested lawmakers were not sufficiently listening to insurers — and then sponsored an amendment to implement Wade’s proposals. He also backed an amendment to strip out a separate provision in the bill designed to compel insurers to more explicitly disclose all their fees to policyholders.

It goes on from there. Please read Sirota's good work for the rest. Among the revelations, you'll find a web of interconnected, industry-connected relationships among the Democrats that can only be described as corrupt, considering the outcomes.

For example, "As Wade’s department regulates Cigna and its PBM, her husband is an in-house Cigna attorney and her father-in-law, James Wade, is a partner in a law firm working for the PBM, OptumRX, named as a defendant in the Connecticut price-gouging suit. That same law firm lobbies for Cigna and for the health insurance industry’s trade association in the state."

Also, that Malloy "is the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, which raised more than $6 million from donors in the health insurance and drug industries during the 2016 election cycle," and much much more.

Malloy is good on many issues (read about him here), but he works for people who want to rob you blind when you most need help — when you're sick and need medicine.

"Do You Want Nice Things, or Do You Want Democrats?"

That's a trick question. You can have Democrats or Republicans, but you can't get nice things like reasonably priced prescription drugs from either of them.

Until the Democratic Party is forced to kick corrupt politicians like "fake progressive" Patty Murray and industry lackey Dannel Malloy (and dozens and dozens more) to the curb, you can't have most nice things — Medicare for All, reasonable prescription drug prices, student debt relief, fair internet and telecom prices, all the rest — with or without the Democrats.

The choices are these: Corrupt, political-shipwreck-causing Republicans who will rob you blind — or corrupt, politically competent Democrats ... who will rob you blind.

Did someone say "brand new Congress"? The next chance is 2018.

In the meantime, it's up to you to decide if control of the Senate is important enough to keep the Senators listed above well-fed and free to swan about in D.C. like they own the place. They may indeed own the place, but they're buying it with your money — and in the case of sky-high drug prices, with many of your lives as well.

("Oh, it's you, Senator. Let me take you to your table — the best, of course, as you requested. Allow me to take your coat. Three people died in your state last week to finance how I'm greeting you now. Would you like to see the wine list, or should I decant your usual?")

Of the names listed at the top, only five are not up for re-election in 2018 — Bennet, Booker, Coons, Murray (unfortunately), and Warner. All the rest, including "fake progressive" Maria Cantwell, are vulnerable. If you live in one of the states they represent, their future is in your hands.

GP
 

Democratic Senators Who Need to Be Lobbyists in 2017

Each of these Democrats need to be turned into lobbyists at the earliest opportunity. For three of them, that's January 2017 (click to enlarge and share).

The Senate held its final cloture vote on Fast Track, and after a lot of wheeling and dealing over amendments — whose will get a vote and whose won't — the Democrats above voted to help grease the next NAFTA treaty's passage into law.

Pro-TPP writer Alex Rogers, in the National Journal (Ex-Im means "Export-Import"; my emphasis throughout):

Ex-Im Bank Deal Gets Trade Bill Moving

Last-minute floor trading on reauthorizing the bank secured the votes to proceed on fast-track measure.

The Senate advanced a major trade bill Thursday, after a last-minute deal on a vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank prompted Sen. Maria Cantwell and others to break away from a powwow on the chamber floor to say, "Aye." ...

The vote, 62 to 38, came over the objections of [anti-TPP] senators, who claimed that the Senate GOP leadership—President Obama's strange bedfellows on free trade—had throttled debate, allowing only two votes so far despite around 200 amendments filed.

"The last time we did fast-track legislation on the Senate floor it was three weeks of debate," said Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown. "This is about three days."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had set up the procedural vote Thursday despite other time-sensitive deadlines determining the National Security Agency's bulk-collection authority and highway funding. But he seemed aware of the possibility of failing on Wednesday afternoon. "Well we're going to grind on and finish TPA," he said, "if those who say they're for it end up voting for it."

Those members included Washington state Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray as well as Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who formed a tight circle with McConnell on the floor to hash out an agreement for a future vote on authorizing the Export Import bank, whose charter expires at the end of next month.

What's the Export-Import bank? A slush fund for companies like Boeing and the CEOs who draw their pay from them:

The bank, which helps finances U.S. businesses' exports, is synonymous with "crony capitalism" by conservatives and many House Republicans who wish to kill it. But the bank is also popular with many Senate Republicans, including Graham, who—like the Washington state senators—represents a state with a significant stake in the success of Boeing.

Fast Track is as good as done in the Senate. On to the House.

The Democrats' Trade — Your Rich People for Mine

So here's the trade Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray and the other pro-TPP Democrats made. They will vote to give money to rich people who will benefit from TPP. In exchange other senators will vote to give money to rich people who run companies like Boeing. There were a bunch of trades like this in the Yes-on-TPP camp. Who said there's gridlock in DC?

What did we get? If Fast Track passes the House, we get TPP, the next NAFTA, and the one after that, TPIP, the same bad deal on the Atlantic side. These senators, of course, will do quite well in any case.

A Tale of the Rich and the Rest

The TPP story isn't about the U.S. and the world. It's about the rich and the rest, also known as "capital and labor," as this excellent piece by Harold Meyerson explains:

A trade deal at what cost?

So what gives with the American people? Don’t they realize, as my colleague Charles Krauthammer argued last week, “that free trade is advantageous to both sides”?

The sides to which Krauthammer referred, of course, are nations. But perhaps those who’ve experienced such free-trade consequences as factory closings and lower-paying jobs are thinking about two entirely different sides — capital and labor. ...

When advocates make the case for Congress expanding free trade with Pacific Rim nations by passing the “fast-track bill” currently before it, they cite the U.S. industries that the deal will benefit. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial, for instance, acknowledges that, while U.S. exports to South Korea have hardly increased since we signed a trade accord with that nation in 2011, our service-sector growth there has been substantial. Our international law firms can now practice there, the Journal proclaims, and “American investors can now own telecom operations in that country.”

A great deal for international lawyers and investors — two groups of embattled U.S. proletarians who clearly needed our government’s help.

For other American workers, not so great. The treaty was promoted as benefiting the U.S. auto industry, but since its enactment Korean auto imports to the United States have boomed while sales of U.S.-made cars to South Korea remain all but nonexistent.

Is it any wonder, then, that virtually the entire base of the Democratic Party opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the fast-track bill that would ease its enactment? From coast to coast, Democrats are doing their damnedest to raise the very wages that globalized capital has depressed.

But what about restraining the power of China? Meyerson delivers the knockout blow:

Of all the developments that led to the increase in China’s power and the diminution of ours, the one that definitively did both was Congress’s enactment of permanent normal trade relations with China in 2000. That led to a flood of U.S. companies shuttering their domestic plants and shifting production to China. When Beijing insisted that the price of doing business there was the transfer of proprietary high-technology techniques to China, many of those companies complied.

So a trade deal benefiting U.S. investors at the expense of U.S. workers created the rise in Chinese power, and now, we’re told, a trade deal benefiting U.S. investors at the expense of U.S. workers will help us keep Chinese power in check.

"A trade deal benefiting U.S. investors at the expense of U.S. workers" — an apt description in both cases. A tale of the rich and the rest (meaning us).

If Democrats Want to Lobby for Rich People, They Should Register

And you can help by moving them out of their current job and putting them on the labor market. These TPP Democrats are up for reelection in 2016:

▪ Patty Murray — 202-224-2621 — Now deep in Senate "leadership" and apparently hungry for more of that Schumer-Murray magic.

 

▪ Michael Bennet — 202-224-5852 — Mr. Bipartisan. As chair of the DSCC, he oversaw the 2014 election losses, then afterward said he worried that Republicans would be mad at him.

 

▪ Ron Wyden — 202-224-5244 — The worst. As Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, he was lead perp in the Senate, patient zero for the fatal infection. He deserves an expensive lobbyist office filled with very uncomfortable chairs — soon.

Their phone numbers are above. Do you vote in Washington, Colorado or Oregon ? Are you a donor to senatorial campaigns? Feel free to pick up the phone and speak your mind. They've certainly spoken theirs, or the minds of their "investors," to borrow Meyerson's phrase.

But What About the Senate?

But what about "the Senate," you ask? First, is this a Senate worth fighting for? Second, with votes like these, do you think candidates like these are more likely or less likely to continue the party debranding that led to the 2014 results?

U.S. trade deficit since 1960. That "steep NAFTA slide" starts in 1994, one of Bill Clinton's signature accomplishments.

Frankly, if you really want a better Senate (I do), abandon all twelve names on the graphic above — let their "investors" take care of them — and elect Blue America candidates like Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards, Russ Feingold and P.G. Sittenfeld. You can help by contributing here.

GP

Schumer Organizes Democratic Collapse on TPP

Chuck Schumer in the 1960s, competing for James Madison High School on the It’s Academic television quiz show (source)

by Gaius Publius

Here's the Washington Post's headline:

Schumer at Center of Democrats’ Trade Drama

But as the article makes clear, "Schumer is at the center of Dem trade drama" is easy code for "Schumer is lead perp for Dem trade collapse." Sen. Chuck Schumer, soon-to-be Leader, got his wish, a Fast Track bill that would pass the Senate, plus a separate currency bill that "pro–billionaire-controlled trade" senators can use for ground cover.

The telling quote:

Of course, the likely outcome is the separate measures will pass out of the Senate, but the currency-related measure faces a rough road in the House and at the White House.

Pro-trade Democrats, though, will be able to say they voted to get tough on trade even as they voted for a six-year fast-track trade bill.

Nice job, Mr. Schumer. Notice both pieces. First, as a separate bill the currency restrictions will pass, but can be vetoed separately from Fast Track. A win for Fast Track. Second, passing the currency bill allows pro-TPP Democrats to brag about how they "tried," useful fog for the campaign trail. Again, nice job, Mr. Schumer.

Now the rest of the Wash Post piece, which contains a fascinating look at the back-and-forth, and the lead architect of that back-and-forth, which will lead to Fast Track passing in the Senate. That lead architect is Chuck Schumer:

Senate Democrats’ epic trade revolt against President Barack Obama’s fast-track bill — and the furious efforts to salvage it — had one senator at the center of it all: Charles E. Schumer.

The New York Democrat, who has become the heir apparent to Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, found himself in an awkward position, to say the least. A provision he authored to get tough on countries that manipulate their currencies was threatening to bring down the White House’s entire trade agenda; its absence on the Senate floor was why Democrats filibustered Obama’s fast-track trade package Tuesday.

By the end of the day Wednesday, the crisis — what White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest kept calling a “procedural snafu” — had been averted, with Schumer helping to seal the deal.

Although the New Yorker has opposed the trade bills — he voted against fast track in committee — as the caucus’ future leader, he has to balance the anti-trade sentiment among the vast majority of Democratic senators with his loyalty to the White House and the desires of a sizable number of pro-trade Democrats, such as Sen. Patty Murray of Washington.

In short, it’s a sign of the kind of leader Schumer will be.

Don't forget to notice "progressive" Patty Murray's role in this. As a member of Democratic leadership, she seems to have had to choose between "following the neo-liberal leader" — in this case, Barack Obama on TPP — and standing with all other progressives in the "Democratic coalition," including every labor union. Murray is choosing to play ball with Senate leadership against progressives. Watch her carefully going forward. This looks a lot like the victory of careerism over principle.

Confirmation that Schumer is playing both sides — pro-billionaire, pro-"progressive" — comes later in the article:

Schumer all along — both in committee and at the microphones Tuesday — said his goal was not to use his currency proposal as a poison pill to kill fast track, which is why he offered it as an amendment to the separate customs bill last month.

The main reason for the explosion of popular joy after the vote that upheld the filibuster was that poison pill. Schumer and the White House (via its late-night meeting with 10 named Democratic senators) re-energized the pro-TPP senators, restiffened their pro-TPP spines. In the end, those ten plus four others (see below) should be more than enough to defeat the next Democratic filibuster.

Who Are the Pro-TPP Democratic Senators?

Wyden has claimed he has 14 senators on his side (Politico Pro; subscription required):

Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said earlier today that 14 Democrats were prepared to vote for cloture if there was a clear path for approval of the customs bill.

Ten Democratic senators were named in the White House's press announcement of its post-filibuster meeting. (Politico wrote up the importance of that action here. Note that Politico also serves to turn up that heat on those Democrats with this article as well.)

If Wyden is right, who are the other four? The Hill has named two senators, Feinstein and McCaskill, who were siding with Wyden on "trade." Their names didn't appear on the White House invitation. I think we can add two more names (explained below) to complete the TPP Gang of Fourteen.

So here are your 14 Democratic pro-TPP senators, as I see it. First, from the White House press report, "[t]he following senators attended the meeting":

• Michael Bennet (D-CO)
• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
• Ben Cardin (D-MD)
• Tom Carper (D-DE)
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
• Tim Kaine (D-VA)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Bill Nelson (D-FL)
• Mark Warner (D-VA)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Second, from The Hill:

• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
• Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

Finally, these two more-or-less obvious names:

• Cory Booker (D-NJ) — who declined to vote on the filibuster
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — who helped collapse the resistance

With 54 Republican senators voting Yes to end a filibuster, it would be hard to uphold it when 14 anti-progressive Democrats are willing to vote with them.

JUST IN: The roll-call vote for the second filibuster has been released. The filibuster was defeated 65–33 with two Republicans not voting.

New names on the pro-TPP list: Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH). Since Fast Track proponents had five votes to spare (threshold: 60 votes), I take both as voting as they wished. Booker and Schumer voted No, but their votes weren't needed. Since the floor vote threshold will be a simple majority, I don't expect either to have to show his hand publicly yet.

GP

Reid Surrenders His Sword to Schumer; Caucus Concurs

Harry Reid (left, in red) surrenders control of Senate Democratic
caucus to Chuck Schumer (right, back to the camera)

by Gaius Publius

This is what happens when "party unity" or "caucus unity" trumps policy. We get Chuck "Wall Street" Schumer as the next Minority Leader — because Harry "But I promoted Elizabeth Warren" Reid helped put him there. So did "progressive" Patty Murray. And according to reports, so did nearly every other Democratic senator. (Does this mean Jeff Merkley? Sherrod Brown? Al Franken? Who knows — they haven't raised their heads.)

Washington Post a few days ago (my emphasis throughout):

Harry Reid endorses Chuck Schumer to succeed him as Senate Democratic leader

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has endorsed Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to succeed him after he retires at the end of 2016.

"I think Schumer should be able to succeed me," Reid said in a Friday morning interview at his home in Washington's West End.

Reid predicted that Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat in leadership and a close friend, would win the Democratic leader post without opposition. He said that the other likely contender, Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), would stand down for Schumer. ...

But what about that "Warren Wing"?

Seemingly comfortable with his decision to not run for re-election, Reid said the liberal wing of the Democratic Party should have faith in Schumer, whose ties to Wall Street fueled his fundraising prowess and helped Democrats win the majority in 2006 and expand it to a super-majority in 2009. Those ties have some liberals questioning whether Schumer should lead the party, but Reid said that Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would serve as the torch bearers for the populist wing and hold the caucus's feet to the fire.

No snark from me; it's already in the quotes (look for the word "faith"). Reid wants to elevate the enemy of economic populists so the populists can be "torch bearers." But not to worry; they can "have faith" in Schumer while they hold those torches — and Schumer looks the other way.

Durbin and Murray Also Endorse Schumer

Dick Durbin is the ostensible number-two person in the caucus, after Reid, which means he's getting leapfrogged. Apparently he's fine with that:

But by mid-afternoon, Reid had endorsed New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, no. 3 in the current hierarchy, as his chosen successor — and Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin’s office made it clear that the Illinois senator would also back his colleague and former Capitol Hill roommate. ...

Durbin, according to his spokesman, also has the support of Reid to seek another term as the party’s whip.

What about Patty Murray? She's the only woman in the Senate in a strong leadership position, and a senator who sometimes votes progressive (and sometimes not; she's an anti–Glass-Steagall senator after all).

[D]uring the budget session, Reid, for a time or two, appeared to be looking on as his three longtime lieutenants —Durbin, Schumer and Patty Murray of Washington — worked through the process of wrangling over amendments.

Turns out Murray is also a Schumer-enabler; she endorses Schumer and will not run against him:

Patty Murray Backs Schumer for Leader

Having won the backing of the entire leadership team, New York’s Charles E. Schumer might become the next Senate Democratic leader by acclamation.

Conference Secretary Patty Murray, D-Wash., has joined in endorsing Schumer for the top job when Nevada Democrat Harry Reid retires at the beginning of 2017, according to a Murray aide.

“Senator Murray spoke to Senator Schumer several times over the past few days and told him that she planned to support him for leader next Congress and looks forward to continuing to be his partner in Senate Democratic leadership,” the aide told CQ Roll Call.

Murray has long had a large portfolio within the Democratic caucus, and she’s likely to only expand on those responsibilities in the next Congress.

Thus Murray makes three. Any objection from anyone else? Hearing none — done deal. Don't worry about Murray, though. She has "long had a large portfolio" within the caucus, is "likely to only expand on those responsibilities." So there's that. Fair trade perhaps? She'd likely say yes.

Where's the Rest of the Caucus?

But don't let the rest of the Democrats off the hook. The same piece linked at the top tells us that Schumer "might become the next Senate Democratic leader by acclamation." And the Post earlier told us that Schumer "already has secured overwhelming support of members of the caucus." So it's on them all until one of them raises her objecting head and says, "But ... wait."

Party Capture by Insiders, Thanks to Harry Reid

This is what we get when we vote for Democrats. Party unity and hyper-"collegiality" way too much of the time. Women and men eager to sell out progressives and play "Follow the Neo-Liberal Party Leader." So long as their "personal portfolio" is expanded, of course. Good for Patty Murray. Not so good for us.

Democratic Senator Patty Murray (WA)
playing "Follow the Neo-Liberal Leader"

Color me pained to be saying this, but there it is. Insiders helping insiders keep outsiders out — meaning us. It feels like progressives have just lost the Senate, thanks to Harry Reid. Is this "our" party? Doesn't look like it from here.

GP

The Senate Candidate The DSCC Is Ignoring

Patty Murray (D-WA) made running the DSCC look like apiece of cake. She and her team practically swept the field last year, winning nearly every impossible race the pundits had already awarded to the GOP-- replacing Wall Street fave Scott Brown with Elizabeth Warren, beating back popular Wisconsin ex-Governor Tommy Thompson with an openly progressive lesbian from Madison, Tammy Baldwin, and winning in red states like Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and purple Ohio, Florida and Virginia. The only close contest the DSCC lost was in Nevada where the Democrats were saddled with a fatally flawed candidate, a corrupt New Dem that grassroots Democratic voters just did not want to come and to vote for. (Obama took 528,801 votes in Nevada and won handily; almost 85,000 of them refused to pull the lever for Shelley Berkley. Who could blame them?

Anyway, running the DSCC looked so easy that this year they gave the job to ConservaDem Michael Bennet (CO). He's failing already and Democrats are wishing Murray would have taken the task on for a second cycle. Bennet had his tiny conservative heart set on recruiting former-- like in defeated by voters who couldn't stand her-- Blue Dog Stephanie Herseth Sandlin to run for the South Dakota Senate seat Tim Johnson is giving up. She agreed to run, but only if Bennet could guarantee her no primary. Bennet was responsible for then driving Johnson's son out of the race. All that work came to naught when independent-minded Democrat Rick Weiland jumped in in his place. Herseth Sandlin, fully realizing how disliked she is by grassroots Democrats, announced she wouldn't run. So what does Bennet do? Angrily ignores Weiland, playing as though he's willing to discount the seat. The Democrats can't afford to discount any viable seats; not one. Reid should have replaced Bennet immediately. But he didn't... and the DSCC still hasn't gotten behind Weiland. Benent could cost them control of the Senate. This is the lame message about the South Dakota Senate race on the DSCC website:

Senator Tim Johnson recently announced his decision to retire from the Senate at the end of his term in 2014. Senator Johnson has been a strong advocate for South Dakotans and America’s farm families. Democrats and the DSCC are committed to holding Senator Johnson’s seat next year and will devote all of the resources necessary to elect a new Democratic senator in South Dakota. Recent polls have shown that Democrats are in a strong position to hold the seat. This is another state where a likely divisive Republican primary could force the eventual nominee to the far right. A Tea Party group, the Senate Conservatives Fund, has already pledged to support a Tea Party candidate to take on the GOP establishment candidate, former Governor Mike Rounds.

This week Sen. Johnson, politely reminded South Dakota voters to ignore a corporate-oriented Beltway jackass and get behind Weiland.

It was almost 28 years ago that I announced my candidacy for South Dakota's only seat in the U.S House of Representatives. One year away from completing my third term in the US Senate, there remains one piece of unfinished business-- who will replace me.

I am proud to support Rick Weiland for Senate.

Most pundits believe that former Republican Governor Mike Rounds is a virtual cinch. Just like my first opponent Dale Bell was in 1986, just as Senator Larry Pressler was in 1996, just as Congressman John Thune was in 2002. But the pundits were wrong in all three of those races, and I believe they will be wrong in 2014 once again.

I've known Rick Weiland and his family for decades, starting when he was a student at USD, and got to know him better during the fifteen years that he spent working as a top aide to Tom Daschle. He is smart, hard-working, and perhaps most important, unafraid to take on the powerful special interests that have far too much influence in Washington, D.C.

I believe that folks are ready for a new direction in this country, one that places a much higher priority on addressing the needs of everyday people, rather than the greed of special interests.

Trust me, we can win this race. We MUST win this race. And with your help, we will.

Sounds like he was aiming that right at the tone-deaf Bennet. Meanwhile, Weiland hasn't been losing any sleep over Beltway machinations. He's been taking it to the people of South Dakota directly, working to visit every one of South Dakota's 311 communities over this year. Earlier this summer I found an article by Emily Niebrugge in the Yankton News about his visit there.

Weiland visited Yankton Thursday afternoon at Yesterday’s Cafe as part of a day-long listening tour.

“If there’s one thing we could do to take our country back, it would be to drive big money into the black hole that it crawled out of when it took our country away from us,” he told those in attendance.

Weiland said his message is not a Democratic or Republican message, but an honest message that he has seen people respond to during his campaign.

“I’m still talking about big money, and I’m going to keep talking about big money throughout this entire campaign,” he said. “Big money writes our energy policy in this country, it writes our farm policy in this country, it writes our healthcare policy in this country and it’s got a grip on our government and it’s ruining our country.”

The message is fueling Weiland’s “Take it Back” outreach program, which is taking him to the South Dakota communities.

“I’ve decided to spend 80 percent of my time on the road talking to people,” Weiland said.

During the next few months, Weiland is hoping to travel to more than 100 communities and hold more 57 meetings like the one held in Yankton. Earlier on Thursday, Weiland visited Irene, Centerville, Beresford, Canton and Alcester.

“A lot of this work is walking up and down the main streets and talking to shoppers and storefront owners, and then we’re having our meetings,” Weiland said. “When people run for government, run for Congress, run for the United States Senate, because of these extensive campaigns, they have to raise millions of dollars. ... Where’s the money coming from? Why does General Electric pay very little in taxes and have 600 tax attorneys on its payroll working the halls of Capitol Hill?”

During Thursday’s meeting, Weiland also addressed the issues of healthcare, maintaining a highway program in South Dakota, alternative energy and a national energy policy, ethanol and Big Oil, student loans and reforming the tax code.

Weiland said he is receiving push-back on the Affordable Care Act and knows it’s not perfect. But he said he does like the fact that young adults can stay on their family’s health insurance policy until they are age 26.

He also likes the fact that pre-existing conditions can no longer be used to deny health insurance coverage, along with the fact that lifetime caps have been lifted on medical expenses.

His main concern, he said, lies in the number of people who do not have insurance.

“At times, we’ve had anywhere between 40 and 50 million people in this country without healthcare,” Weiland said. “They still get sick, and when they get sick they end up going to the emergency room.

“When you go to the emergency room, that’s the most expensive healthcare you can use and not pay for. When you are going into the emergency room because you don’t have any insurance, and you’re getting healthcare and you’re not paying for it, what’s the hospital going to do? They’re going to pass it on.

“That’s really unfair to all of us who have private insurance. That happens all the time. We have to figure out how to take care of those folks in the middle.” Weiland also suggested allowing more people to buy into the Medicare program to aid with the nation’s healthcare problems.

“You’re going to pay with Obamacare, you’re going to have to pay an insurance company a premium, or you could have it taken out of your check and have the same healthcare that 65-70 of the people in this room have. What would be so bad about that?” he asked the Yankton audience.

“Big insurance didn’t want that to happen. There’s no money in that. They want to insure young people, because they don’t get sick, and that’s how the Affordable Care Act works. You have to get everybody into the system."

...Ultimately, Weiland said his devotion will be to the people of South Dakota and not to big business or special interests.

“I need to be accountable to the people of South Dakota,” he said. “If the people who come to me fall into the category of big business or special interest, there’s the door. If we can get big money out of politics, they aren’t going to have that access.

“That’s why this grass roots campaign is so important at this time in our political system. We need to get back to the grass roots. We need to have more meetings like this. This will make a difference.”

Meanwhile, the NRSC recruit, former Governor Mike Rounds, has been rejected by the Tea Party and will have at least two primary opponents, including far right extremist Stace Nelson, a state Rep who famously described himself as "probably the most conservative elected official in the state of South Dakota." Rounds is conservative. Nelson is a hard core reactionary or, less politely, a neo-fascist. Even the South Dakota GOP tossed him out of the party for a spell! That's going to be a fun primary to watch!

OMG, I have a chance to win tix to the Inaugural Ball with what's-their-names!

No, nothing will happen if you try to click on the above button. But here's where the button would take you.

by Ken

You know that post title -- I'm just kidding there. My first response is like with all those breathless e-mail announcements that I have a chance to win some presumed treasure: No, I don't. More than that, though, I don't have any interest in going to the Inaugural Ball. Besides, I'm going to be busy then. (When was it again? Oh, of course, Inauguration Day -- January 21. No, I'm going to be busy then. Doing what exactly, I forget, but definitely busy. I'm thinking maybe I have to feed the llamas.)

These inaugural blahs aren't at all what I was feeling the last time we had a presidential Inauguration Day. I've gotten over it. Still, don't let me stop you from exercising your chance to win tickets. You probably got this e-mail, right?

Friend,

Imagine going to the Inaugural Ball next Monday with President Obama and Michelle. That'd be pretty great, right?

But what if you got to meet the new Democratic senators too? Even better!

Well today is your chance to make it happen. Enter the DSCC's Grand Inaugural Contest and you and a guest could win:

• Tickets to the Inaugural Ball with President and Michelle Obama
• Passes to a private reception with all the new Democratic senators
• Airfare and hotel accommodations in Washington, D.C.

Democrats won the White House and Senate because of grassroots supporters like you. And that's why you deserve to celebrate the Inauguration with them!

So what are you waiting for? The contest ends Sunday at midnight -- enter now for your chance to win!

Thank you,

Sen. Michael Bennet
Chair, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

[I've left out the links in the e-mail; the one in the caption up atop this post will have to suffice. There's a limit to how much promotion we're here to do for Senator Bennet. -- Ed.]

If you do win the tickets, though, and you get a moment with what's-his-name, assuming his recent appointments are still pending, you can tell him what you think about this Brennan guy, Dr. Death Drone, and some of the other outstanding folks he's been stocking his second-term administration with.

And by the way, if you run into your "friend" Senator Bennet, after you thank him for the tickets you might ask if Sen. Patty Murray is around so you can thank her for the fine job she did running the DSCC in the last cycle. And ask him if he's really going to do as lousy a job at the DSCC as people are saying. (See Howie's recent post "Watch Conservative Michael Bennet Crap All Over Patty Murray's Outstanding Record At The DSCC.")

#

Random Notes Du Noir: NutMeg, Vitter, Alaska, Heath Shuler, Bachmann v Boehner

We tried buying cable TV spots in Alaska but there's nothing available in the whole state, not one 30-second spot, until next Wednesday. We're looking into dirigible and light planes with trailing banners. But with McAdams nosing into a winnable position, we really should try to... hmmmm... maybe we should just leave him alone. Whatever he's doing seems to be working. Unlike Meg Whitman. The more ads she floods the airwaves with, the lower she sinks in the polls. And she's spent over $140 million from her own bloated, under-taxed bank account so far.

She has pummeled California airwaves for months with ads painting Brown’s 40-year career in California politics as a failure. But the ads appear not to have had the desired effect.

When Whitman began her first major advertising blitz in March, 40 percent of state voters had a favorable view of her and 27 percent viewed her negatively. Now, her unfavorable ratings have nearly doubled to 51 percent, the Field poll found.

“Her negatives continued to grow as people were reminded day after day that Whitman was spending more time trashing Jerry Brown than laying out her own plans for the state’s future,” says Ms. O’Connor. “This state is really hurting, and people wanted to know what her specific vision was.... They feel she never told them.”

So what's her solution? She'll be releasing a new TV or radio ad every 6 hours from now until election day. Here's a letter in today's Palm Springs Desert Sun that everyone I know in California would agree with: "Where does one go to get away from Meg Whitman? I turn on the TV and regardless of the channel I'm bombarded by her ads. Then I go online to check e-mail and what pops up but another of her ads! Don't you have better things to do with all your billions than trying to buy votes in a governor's race?"

More of right-wing violence tomorrow, but it's worth noting that the right-wing fanatic who was sentenced to prison last week for repeatedly threatening to kill Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) after she voted in favor of health care reform legislation was afflicted with paranoia "grown and fostered by [Glenn] Beck's persuasive personality."

We knew it was a terrible idea in 2006 when Rahm Emanuel persuaded a religious conservative freak who was getting ready to run for Congress as a Tennessee Republican to move to North Carolina and run as a quasi-Democrat. Heath Shuler has been a hideous disappointment ever since, not just as one of the most reactionary and aggressive Blue Dogs, but also as a key C Street cult member. He's voted against women's Choice, against gay equality, against healthcare reform... against just about everything the GOP has voted against. The Democrats just rewarded him for this pattern of behavior with a $231,112.63 Independent Expenditure in his district this week, over ten times what they've spent on loyal progressive Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy (for example). And buoyed by their approval, he announced today that he's considering running against Nancy Pelosi for the Speakership. He joins 5 other Blue Dog scum in pledging not to vote for Pelosi-- Bobby Bright (AL), Jim Marshall (GA), Gene Taylor (MS), Mike McIntyre (NC) and Jason Altmire (PA). I wonder if Michele Bachmann (R-MN) will vote for Shuler now that she's declared it's beneath her dignity, as self-professed queen of the teabaggers, to vote for Boehner as Speaker.

And today's ad of the day, although just late enough to look positively desperate:



Let's try to keep Russ Feingold in office. Or do you agree with Ron Johnson that the U.S. should be more like China? Please help Russ here at the C&L Fundaiser For Russ Feingold.


UPDATE: Krugman Says There's Something To Fear... A Lot

Yep, Krugman thinks it'll be as bad as I do-- "future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness." Which, of course, is exactly why China is pouring money into GOP coffers through their pals at the Chamber of Commerce. Economic weakness? Years of political turmoil? Speaker Boehner? Miss McConnell fighting with DeMint over who's in charge? Clowns like Pence, Boehner, Cantor and Ryan looking like the relative adults next to surging sociopaths like Virginia Foxx, Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, Louie Gohmert, Darrell Issa...? China's dream come true.

The economy, weighed down by the debt that households ran up during the Bush-era bubble, is in dire straits; deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger. And it’s not at all clear that the Fed has the tools to head off this danger. Right now we very much need active policies on the part of the federal government to get us out of our economic trap.

But we won’t get those policies if Republicans control the House. In fact, if they get their way, we’ll get the worst of both worlds: They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts-- cuts they have already announced won’t have to be offset with spending cuts.

So if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.