Going Forward... What's The Democratic Party Going To Be?

No one knows what's going to happen, but it would be a safe bet that Americans aren't going to have a chance to vote for a real progressive for president in a very long time, probably longer than I'll be a sentient being. Or maybe not. Maybe Biden and the Democrats will screw up so badly that the Democrats lose Congress in 2022 and then the Democrat in the White House in 2024-- whether Biden or Kamala-- loses to a Republican who also screws up. So 2028... I may still be walking around and sentient. My grandmother was at that age.

But... I still feel cheated. I so wanted one damned good great president in my life. Instead they've all be mediocre at best and, more frequently, piles of stinking, rotting garbage. I wanted to see Bernie win so badly. It wasn't in the cards-- the Democratic establishment made certain of that.

Yesterday, Washington Post reporters Robert Costa and Sean Sullivan wrote about an interview they did with Bernie on Sunday. They predicted that Bernie's DNC speech last night "will effectively close an improbable odyssey-- two bids for the White House that together formed the backbone of a new, insurgent liberal movement." Thanks in great part to Bernie, Medicare-for-all, free college tuition, the Green Anew Deal and a chastening of the nation’s financial elite have all come to the fore of a grassroots Democratic Party-- and have pulled even a horribly corrupt status quo establishment slightly to the left and, perhaps put the breaks on a corrosive drift toward more-centrist views that have been been dominant since the Clinton DLC wing of the party managed to take over and change the focus from working class to managerial and donor class.

They quoted Bernie: "Ideas that we raised in health care, in education, in the minimum wage, in climate change, in criminal justice were ideas five years ago that people perceived to be radical and extreme. Today they are mainstream, and today they are actually being implemented by states and communities around the country."

They saw the slot allotted by Biden to AOC as a kind of passing of the torch. That's OK but there's more to it than that. I think I saw just about every Velvet Underground live performance in New York. They were my favorite live band when they were first getting going. There are many claimants to this but I think Michael Stipe first said, "not that many people ever bought that first Velvets album, but everyone who did started a band." And thank God they did. And not that many people saw that first Ramones national tour-- but it was Howie Klein (not the thieves who stole it as their own) who compared them Johnny Appleseed and noted that everyone around the country who went to see them started their own punk band.

AOC isn't the only political heir of Bernie's but one who even Biden was unable to deny at least 60 seconds of speaking time during his convention. But think of all the people Bernie has inspired who are now serving or will soon be serving at every level of government and who are committed to the somewhat revolutionary approach he imbued in a whole generation of Democrats.

When David Feldman introduces me on his radio show every week, he says something to the effect of Blue America supporting progressive and socialist candidates. I often remind him that this cycle, there was just one actual socialist candidate-- Shaniyat Chowdhury, who ran for a southeast Queens district held by loathsome and corrupt party boss Gregory Meeks, a New Dem. Shan, a first time candidate, didn't win, although close to a quarter of the voters backed him in the primary. "We’re only getting started," he told me this morning. "This was just the beta as a first time candidate. Change makers persist. I’ve continued to organize post election around housing rights, anti-poverty, and foreign policy. Sometimes I forget how young I am and how young our collective movement is with Bernie Sanders. Which speaks to the level of despair of what working people are going through. We are tired of waiting for change to happen election cycle or establishment democrats telling us it’s not our moment. I wake every morning thinking Trump or not, will everyone have free healthcare? Are we ending universal poverty and unjust wars? Are Black lives going to matter beyond symbolic gestures? The answer is clear. For that, I’m not going away anytime soon. Whether it’s this election or the next, we must continue to change the tides in the sea towards a more prosperous future. I will run for Congress again because I believe it is there where we can fight for humanity throughout the world."

In 2016 then-Flagstaff city councilwoman Eva Putzova was a Bernie delegate to the convention. This cycle she ran for Congress against a reactionary Blue Dog incumbent who spent most of his political career as a Republican and still votes as a mainstream Republican. Although the full face of the establishment opposed her. Yesterday, her district's election results were finally certified by Arizona's Secretary of State and she ended the race with 41.4% of the vote, winning in the most populous county and doing exceptionally well in the southern part of the district despite DCCC and the Arizona Demmocratic Party tilting the scales in favor of the incumbent. "We ran," she told me today, "a spirited, principled campaign that showed the district is winnable by a progressive candidate. If things fall in place, it's not out of the question that I'd run for the seat again. We have learned a great deal, built an impressive infrastructure, and we wouldn't be starting from scratch." That's how progressives win-- two cycles. It took that long for Alan Grayson and it took that long for Ro Khanna and Donna Edwards, each primarying their own party's establishment choice.

One of the people I met while Hector Oseguera was running for Congress told me during the convention broadcast last night the "for the past month, Hector has focused on the future of the progressive movement. Although we've witnessed incredible strides since Bernie's first presidential run, Hector often says 'we still have such a long way to go.' Policies like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal have not yet been realized. We are in the middle of a generational shift, and Hector is taking a central role in directing that shift across North Jersey. Bernie's presidential runs paved the way for a new generation of leaders, but that door sits merely ajar. It is now up to the Millenials to throw that door open and lead our nation into a new progressive era. It is often said that the true measure of a person is how they respond in times of adversity. Given the response I've seen from Hector in the past month, I wouldn't be surprised to see him throw his hat into the ring again." Yep... I get the same feeling!

Kim Williams ran for the strongly Democratic Central Valley seat held by worthless Blue Dog Jim Costa, who Biden will likely appoint to his dream job next year-- ambassador to Portugal. Kim told us she entered her race this year because she "wanted progressive policies to become part of the conversation in a poor, rural district that needed it. Throughout my campaign, we said things out loud that others would not, and I am extraordinarily proud of what we accomplished. We started a district-wide conversation and we knocked on 20,000 doors to promote a policy platform that resonated with actual people and not the local party elite. Our efforts proved that there was demand for Medicare for All and a Green New Deal while helping Bernie, and other progressives, win primaries in the district. And our work continues. I will not run again this cycle and I won’t need to. My focus today is on tearing down barriers for progressives and combating the incredible corruption embedded into every layer of our political system. CA-16 will see another candidate carry the progressive banner forward, and I am delighted by the base of support that is rallying behind her. My friend, Yenifer Gallegos-Mejia, is jumping in as the only candidate with the backbone to stand for progressive ideals and against Fresno’s duplicitous political class. She will not only build upon early momentum and carry us over the finish line, she will inspire an emerging generation of activists that will build a more equitable America. She is the future, and I will stand behind her and every other progressive running in the district."

"Sanders-style left-wing populism," wrote Costa and Sullivan, "is gaining power throughout Europe and the Americas, at times replacing an older guard of liberals who embraced globalization. Across Western democracies, campaigns rooted in passionate emotion and grievance have won mass followings. 'I’m very proud. I am very proud of the movement that we have built,' Sanders said. 'The younger generation is overwhelmingly progressive, and they want to see their government function in a different way than in the past.' Sanders pointed to Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), two allies who recently won congressional primaries, as evidence of a healthy and competitive left flank inside the Democratic Party."

In the eyes of his core backers, Sanders came agonizingly close to seizing control of the Democratic Party with his strong showings in the initial contests of the 2016 and 2020 campaigns. There were days when they thought he would be unstoppable.

But it didn’t pan out four years ago, as Hillary Clinton scooped up victories and support from superdelegates-- and as Sanders grew furious with the Democratic National Committee. Nor did it work out earlier this year when former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg muddied Sanders’s plans for a clean-cut victory in the Iowa caucuses and a politically hobbled Biden suddenly revived his campaign in South Carolina, in part because of alarm in corners of the party about a Sanders nomination.

Sanders and his supporters are trying to learn from his success during the 2020 primary campaign in courting young voters in Iowa and Latino voters in Nevada-- and from his stumbles, particularly with Black voters who rallied around Biden in March.

Exit polls showed that the struggles Sanders experienced among Black voters four years ago against Clinton largely continued. Sanders’s fervent push to broaden the electorate with new voters was never realized.

Sanders’s supporters argue that campaigns come and go but that ideas move glacially. And history has precedent for movement campaigns having a long-term impact. In 1964, conservative Barry Goldwater lost the presidential election in a landslide. But his campaign laid the ideological groundwork for his supporter Ronald Reagan to win the White House 16 years later.

If the United States eventually moves toward democratic socialism in the coming years, Sanders will deserve significant credit for mounting campaigns that pulled the Democrats to the left, said Abdul El-Sayed, a Michigan-based liberal organizer.

“He didn’t only take on the establishment but the governing consensus in America that markets are the answer,” El-Sayed said. “He drove the conversation that we are all having. He lost two elections, but he won the future in the sense that the party is now a lot browner, blacker and younger and sounds like Bernie Sanders.”

Faiz Shakir, who served as Sanders’s campaign manager in 2020, said the defeats were not rejections of the senator’s ideas but a product of a “party in transition.”

“There is no question the kinetic energy and dynamism in the Democratic Party is with progressives. But the party is in transition,” generationally and politically, Shakir said, “and you’re going to have fits and starts.”

...Biden, who once fashioned his candidacy as a vessel to restore political norms and bolster institutions, has started sketching out a more transformational-style presidency that would seek to marshal a sweeping response to the coronavirus pandemic, a severe economic crisis and racial upheaval.

“What we’re seeing is more than lip service,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who served as a national co-chair on the Sanders campaign. “The Biden team has been very intentional about listening to not just Bernie Sanders but a lot of his key policy advisers.”

Some Sanders activists have refused to join with the senator in offering the former vice president their unequivocal support, underscoring the importance of Sanders’s pitch for unity on the convention’s opening night.

In a column for the socialist magazine Jacobin, former Sanders adviser David Sirota mocked the task-force rollout as “an SNL skit.”

“They are a mix of party dinosaurs, corporate zombies and some terrific progressive voices,” Sirota wrote of the group members.

Over the weekend, Tlaib said she voted against the Democrats’ platform and cast her delegate ballot for Sanders, expressing outrage about her party’s refusal to upend what she called a “for-profit system that is leaving people to suffer and die just because they cannot afford health care.”

The Sanders political operation has labored to keep things calm, asking some supporters he picked to represent him at the convention to sign agreements barring attacks on other candidates or party leaders, combative confrontations on social media or talking to reporters without approval.

The move, which carried a threat of being removed as a delegate, has the effect of blunting one of the most powerful if divisive tools of the Sanders support network-- its unrestrained online presence and tendency to stoke controversy through social media, which has at times spiraled into abuse of his opponents.

...“It’s not about looking back,” [Bernie] said. “It’s about looking forward.”

Rachel Ventura is on the Will County board and primaries a garden variety Illinois New Dem this cycle. Yesterday she told me that "Bernie is right, it’s about looking forward. Currently, the corporate Democrats continue to ignore the people, whether it’s the call of free college, Medicare for all, the green new deal, or even legalizing marijuana. The hope and change we are looking for does not rest in the present, but in the future. We need to take control of our own future and run our own candidates. We need more bartenders, teachers, community activists, nurses and blue-collar workers taking the reins of power from the elitists who currently govern for the wealthy few. We see candidates like Marie Newman and Cori Bush win on their second time running. How many progressive candidates who ran this year will run again in 2022? I know I’m leaning that way and with an army of supporters already pressuring me to run coupled with national organizations biting at the bit to endorse our campaign again, there’s definitely a compelling argument to run. While taking home 42% of the vote after being outspent 17 to 1 is impressive, it isn’t a win. The win will come from continuing to champion the people’s voice."

Rachel continued: "Today and every day until the 2022 election, we need every person to drown out the false media voice and demand better representation, Medicare for All, and The Green New Deal. We need people to have political conversations with their friends and neighbors about how both democrats and republicans have failed the people in a time of COVID and economic uncertainty but pulled no punches to protect their corporate donors. It isn’t enough to call for our politicians to be anti-corrupt; we must throw them out and elect people who will truly represent common sense solutions. Our government, via the politicians, for too long have told us what we deserve and don’t deserve but it is ‘we the people’ that need to tell them what it is we need and demand. Now is not the time of polite negotiations, now is the time for impatience and bold action. Regardless of who wins the Presidential Election, the people must rise up and demand better policies. We cannot allow them to control the messaging, whether at the pulpit or on the news stations. That fight continues from everything Bernie has fought for, from the things MLK fought for, even all the way back to Henry Wallace. Our fight won’t be over in 2020 and it certainly won’t be over in 2022. But it is the time to stop pulling punches. To stop the DNC or RNC from gaslighting us. We all, collectively need to call them out. I’m excited for the future and have already begun collaborative talks with the 2020 congressional candidates like Eva Putzova, Morgan Harper, Melanie D’Arrigo, Robert Emmons, and so many more. Join us in the continued fight!"

Dorothy Reik is widely considered one of California's most visionary progressive leaders is the president of the Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains and an elected member of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party Central Committee-- elected by the largest majority of anyone else in the county-- and is a member of the California Democratic Party Executive Board. This morning, she told me that "Looking forward without looking back is how we got where we are today. We cannot really move forward until we understand how we got where we are right now and until we conquer the forces that led us here, from corporate greed to racism and everything in between. As I write this at least 850 delegates have refused to support the platform because it does not include Medicare for All. What evil brought us to the point where we confuse 'insurance' with 'care'? Yes, Bernie has moved us forward in many ways but we cannot progress further until we admit to who we are and where we have been.

Endorsing Bernie Sanders And Encouraging The Progressive Wing To Unite Behind Sanders... With An Aside On Trade And Climate

-by Rachel Ventura

I am sure that it was a gut punch for Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg to get the call from the corner office of the DNC encouraging them to drop out before Super Tuesday. I am sure that both still think that they are the strongest candidate for the general election, but they sucked it up and did it anyway. We still don’t know what these candidates were offered in exchange for their Biden endorsement, but I am sure that whatever was offered made the painful decision easier to make.

Right now, the people who worked tirelessly for Elizabeth Warren are also feeling that sting. I can identify with the women who still want a woman president and in my lifetime I will work to make that happen. Last night I participated in a Medicare for All townhall meeting and there were several women there who expressed their grief, and I encouraged them to move quickly and unite behind the only progressive in the race, Bernie Sanders.

Former 2016 Sanders Delegate and 2020 Warren delegate, state Representative Will Guzzardi didn’t hesitate to shift back to Bernie Sanders following Warren's withdrawal from the race.

I went on the Ben Joravsky show today as well on Chicago’s Progressive Talk Radio, WCPT 820am, to encourage supporters who wanted Warren to come out to Illinois’ 11th congressional district and canvass for Rachel Ventura and Bernie Sanders. If we want Medicare for All, The Green New Deal, a $15/hour living wage, meaningful criminal justice reform, a pathway towards citizenship for undocumented people pursuing the American dream, or meaningful campaign finance reform, there is only one candidate left in the race. From now until March 17th our campaign will be knocking on doors for Rachel Ventura and Bernie Sanders. In Aurora we are helping Junaid Afeef who is running for States Attorney. In Naperville, Illinois we are helping Denika McMillen who is running for State Representative. In Bolingbrook, Illinois we are helping Dagmara Avalar and in Plainfield, Illinois Michael Crowner is the progressive choice for State Senate 49.

Working for progressive change needs to happen up and down the ballot and that is where we all need to be. We need to be united and continue to push for the change that we want to see in the world.

As someone who has battled the establishment and won, I feel confident that we will win if we are united. I also know, that as someone who has been a strong voice for the people on the Will County Board that voters genuinely appreciate being represented. When our campaign knocks on doors in the overlapping parts of the 9th County Board District it is always nice to hear positive feedback from voters who have followed my fights for clean water, fair taxes, affordable housing, higher wages and a sustainable future. I know that people also appreciate Bernie Sanders 40 years of consistency and tireless advocacy for the marginalized and people who our political system has forgotten.

This is where I am most concerned with a potential Biden nomination. The Democratic establishment supported a corporate Democrat through the 2016 nomination process and they lost to Donald Trump. We cannot afford to make that mistake in 2020. We cannot afford 4 more years of Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate left standing who is speaking directly to poor people, people of color, women, and those who are not equally represented in our political system. We need a candidate who gives those people a reason to go to the polls in November, not the status quo. They deserve a candidate who will make it easier for everyday Americans to run for office through implementing policies like publicly financed campaigns and an end to citizen’s united.

From day one my campaign has been powered by supporters of both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I am asking those who supported Warren to join me in supporting Bernie Sanders.

We will all be watching Michigan, a battleground state where Bernie Sanders came from behind and won in 2016. The driving issue in 2016 was trade and once again, it will be an issue that separates the corporate Democrat, Joe Biden and the progressive Democrat, Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump will be touting his “fulfilled” campaign promise of bringing jobs back with his United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA, also referred to as NAFTA 2.0 trade renegotiation bill). While there were some small provisional gains in that trade deal, it was not good enough and we will continue to lose jobs because of the lack of environmental standards. I would have voted “no” on it unlike my opponent. Bernie Sanders did vote “no.” In sharp contrast, Joe Biden has supported free trade agreements like NAFTA and the China Free Trade Agreement. He supported Barack Obama’s TPP that caused Hillary Clinton to lose in the Midwest where manufacturing jobs have been decimated by these trade agreements.

At the end of the day the election in these states is going to be very similar to the 2016 cycle. In a hypothetical match-up between Trump and Biden, Donald Trump will be touting his version of NAFTA and pummeling Joe Biden for supporting the initial, flawed Clinton version. Courting white blue-collar voters in Michigan and other battle ground votes will require having a strong record of fair trade, and only Bernie Sanders brings that to the ticket.

We need to pay close attention to where Joe Biden won on Super Tuesday. He won in the south, a place where no Democrat is expected to win in 2020. We can’t have another election where the Democrat wins the popular vote and we still end up losing to Trump. We need someone like Sanders who can win in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana. These are places where white middle-class voters are likely to stick with Trump if we can’t give them a better choice. Additionally, Sanders voted against Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 creating greater contrast between him and Trump. He can point to some of the shortfalls to Trump’s version of the trade agreement. For those who are not following trade closely, here are a few things that I wrote about Trump’s NAFTA in December when the bill passed the House and Senate.

Donald Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 had support from republicans and corporate democrats like my opponent. I would have voted against Trump's NAFTA deal because it will only exacerbate the climate crisis. I would have stood with these environmental groups: 350.org, Earthjustice, Food and Water Action, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International, Sierra Club, and Sunrise Movement.

It perpetuates the offshoring of toxic waste and the outsourcing of jobs, creates incentives for more pipelines like the Keystone XL pipeline, and allows big oil companies to challenge environmental protections through a corporate tribunal process known as ISDS.

This trade deal does little to address the climate crisis and fails to even mention the words, “climate change." At least 10 national environmental groups are opposing Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 because the legislation is worse than the original NAFTA with respect to our climate.

The environmental concerns of NAFTA 2.0 are very real. This deal allows corporate polluters to dodge climate and environmental policies in the United States by outsourcing tightly regulated businesses like battery recycling.

The highly controversial Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process that allows corporations to sue a sovereign government over lost profits due to increased environmental standards remains intact for fossil fuel companies. Unfortunately, this means that oil companies like Shell or Exxon Mobile can sue Mexico in private tribunals if new environmental policies undercut their government contracts for offshore drilling, fracking, oil and gas pipelines, refineries, or other polluting activities.

The Trump administration’s text included a new “rule of origin” that would make it cheaper for oil corporations to export climate-polluting tar sands oil to the U.S. through dangerous oil pipelines like Keystone XL. The text also failed to include a provision that is needed to preserve the U.S.’s autonomy to determine if gas exports to Mexico and Canada are in the public interest. This provision is necessary to fix NAFTA’s automatic gas export guarantee, which has contributed to a five-fold surge in gas exports to Mexico since 2010, fueling increased fracking in the U.S. and an expansion of controversial cross-border gas pipelines.

As the next representative from Illinois’ 11th district I will make sure that we address the climate crisis in every trade deal. In addition to stricter environmental standards, I will also support the inclusion and expansion of human rights, women’s rights and strong, enforceable worker’s rights standards. NAFTA 2.0 makes small strides forward with labor standards. However, while these baby steps need to be recognized, I still have serious questions about how labor standards will be enforced on factory floors. Regardless, NAFTA 2.0 remains damaging to the environment despite these modest gains.

The deep irony here is that in the past, my opponent has used fossil fuel industry talking points and defined climate change as a “global problem," rather than addressing the problems right here at home in the U.S. Specifically, he has singled out other carbon-polluting nations like India and China as a way of dismissing the need for serious climate action by the United States Congress. The best way for the U.S. to influence the climate policies of other nations is through trade agreements like USMCA. Bill Foster cannot talk out of both sides of his mouth by criticizing other nations and then voting for a trade agreement that makes the climate crisis worse.

This trade agreement is far from being a “template” for future trade agreements. It represents a starting place and there is still much work to be done.

If we elect Bernie Sanders for President, in the U.S. House of Representatives I will be fighting hard to change all of our trade agreements to put the environment and human rights first. I am encouraging all of my current and past supporters to vote for fundamental change on March 17th in the Illinois Democratic Primary.

Vote For A Republican-Lite Democratic Candidate And Don't Complain When You Get Republican-Lite Laws-- Conservative Democrats Defeat Assault Weapons Ban In Virginia

Last Thursday night-- in a post called Scrub From Your Mind: Any Blue Will Do"-- we looked at how the much ballyhooed new Democratic majority in the Virginia legislature failed to repeal the state's venal, anti-union right to work law. Yesterday the state Senate again sided with the GOP, failing to pass a ban on the sale of assault weapons. The House of Delegates had passed the bill 51-48 last week, even though 3 Democrats voted against it (Steve Heretick, Roslyn Tyler and Lee Carter) and one, Kelly Convirs-Fowler of Virginia Beach, abstained. Yesterday, conservative Senate Dem Creigh Deeds-- backed up by fellow Senate conservaDems John Edwards (Judiciary Committee Chair), Chap Petersen and Scott Surovell-- got it tabled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, while the NRA-packed crowd in the visitors bleachers cheered and applauded.

Creigh Deed's name might sound familiar, since he was the Democratic candidate for governor in 2009, when he lost to crooked conservative Republican Bob McDonnell, 58.6% to 41.2%. He is well known as one of Virginia's worst xenophobes in the Democratic Party, having voted to make English the official language of Virgina as well as for bills that would prevent undocumented immigrants from applying for state and local benefits and to prohibit them from paying in-state tuition rates. In 2005 Deeds he had run against McDonnell for Attorney General, losing narrowly, after being endorsed by his pals at the NRA.

He represents a solidly blue Senate district (the 25th) that includes the City of Charlottesville and much of surrounding Albemarle County, stretching to also include all of Alleghany County, Bath County, Highland County, Nelson County, Rockbridge County, and the cities of Buena Vista, Covington, and Lexington. The district gave Obama a 55.5% victory over Romney and gave Hillary a 54.7% win over Trump, who scored only 39.3% there. Kaine and Warner both took the 25th in their Senate runs and Ralph Northam won it in 2017 (59.7- 39.2%) when he was elected governor. The district is way more progressive than its state Senator.

State Senator Louise Lucas, a Judiciary Committee member, said she was "deeply disturbed" by the vote and said Deeds and the 3 other Democrats who voted with the GOP had "wimped out... I want you to count now, start now, and start counting the number of people who would’ve died based on us not passing this legislation. A lot of people are going to die because this body didn’t have the spine to do what two million voters wanted us to do."

The corporate Dem who serves as House Speaker, Eileen Filler-Corn, called the Senate vote "a disappointment... The Democratic platform last fall was very clear. Limiting access to weapons of war used in mass murder was a key part of that platform."

No one should really be surprised though. This is exactly what you can expect by electing Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. On the federal level, that would be Blue Dogs and New Dems. And that's why Blue America hosts this ActBlue page, supporting vetted progressives who are running in primaries against the worst Democrats in Congress. I asked some of them what they think about the Virginia Democrats decision to betray the people who voted for them. Michael Owens, the progressive Democrat taking on reactionary Blue Dog David Scott in the suburbs south and southwest of Atlanta, made the right connection: "Blue Dog Democrats and other conservative members of the Democratic Party do their constituents harm each and every time they bow down to a corporation or special interest lobbyist and put their profit-driven greed above the need of the people."

"Today," wrote Rachel Ventura last night, "I had a debate against Corporate Democrat Bill Foster. In it I pointed out that many Democrats are watching how the news media is casting the presidential race and defining it as a fight between progressives and moderates. It's not though. Instead, it is a struggle between the corporate wing filled with politicians who are bought and paid for, versus the people’s wing. Blue Dogs Democrats and Republicans are bought by the same industries. They both have taken money from Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banks, and the list continues… my opponent is no different. These corporate politicians make us believe that our tax dollars must continue to go to endless wars and corporate bailouts. But they don’t. We can choose where are dollars are spent by sending a true representative to Congress. Incrementalism has only eroded the middle class and resulted in a president like Donald Trump. Since I first entered the political arena in 2016, my tagline has been 'no strings attached.' I have signed the 'no fossil fuel money' pledge and the 'patients over profit pledge.' My opponent cannot say the same. It is past time to send true representation to Washington D.C. as well as individual local and state reps like in Virginia!"

Will Medicare-for-All Be An Electoral Winner?

This morning, Business Insider reported that "Nearly half of all US health spending is tied to admin management and the cost burdens associated with private insurance are being passed along to US consumers, making treatment an unmanageable expense. Patients are coughing up large portions of their budget on health, with the average non-elderly US family spending $8,200 per year on healthcare — or 11% of their income." That's $817 billion a year completely and utterly wasted-- $2,479 per patient.

And when we consider that 67% of all US bankruptcies are due to exorbitant healthcare costs, according to a 2019 study from the American Journal of Public Health, it's critical to recognize that the admin burden from private insurers-- contributing to a rise in overall healthcare spending by US patients-- is at least partially to blame for why health costs have become so unmanageable for so many people.

And anxieties around the possibility of medically induced poverty are driving poor health habits among US consumers. In a recent Gallup poll, 25% of US consumers said they or a family member had delayed treatment for a serious illness because of the high cost of care.

Such risky behavior could easily result in a negative feedback loop, whereby patients with otherwise treatable conditions develop worse, more complicated ailments simply due to a lack of financial resources.

Virtually all of the candidates congressional candidates on this page agree that adopting a single-payer Medicare For All system would solve the country's unsustainable admin cost crisis. That, basically, is Bernie's program and a big reason why he has been doing so well in the run-up to the primaries. But before we talk about the real winner in Iowa-- hopefully for the last time-- I want to run the final votes by, pending, of course, any corrections after whatever kind of a re-canvas they do, if they do. The first number shows how many votes each candidate got on the first ballot and the second number shows what each candidate got on the final ballot.

• Bernie- 43,671 ---> 45,826
• Mayo Pete- 37,557 ---> 43,195
• Elizabeth- 32,533 ---> 34,771
• Status Quo Joe- 26,384 ---> 23,691
• Klobuchar- 22,469 ---> 21,181
• Yang- 8,821---> 1,780
• Steyer- 3,083 ---> 413
• Bloomberg- 217 ---> 20
• Tulsi- 334 ---> 17
• Bennet- 164 ---> 4
• Deval Patrick- 50 ---> 0

The DNC and their establishment allies can spin it any way they want, but 45,826 votes is more than 43,195 votes, and this, according to Matt Taibbi "after four years of being shat upon by party officials and media allies alike (CNN and MSNBC are seen in Sanders crowds as Goebbelsian arms of the Democratic National Committee), Vermont’s anti-corporate crusader has defied odds and soared... After a vote in Iowa that reeked of third-world treachery-- from monolithic TV propaganda against the challenger to rumors of foreign intrusion to, finally, a 'botched' vote count that felt as legitimate as a Supreme Soviet election-- the Democrats have become the reactionaries they once replaced... DNC chair Tom Perez-- a triple-talking neurotic who is fast becoming the poster child for everything progressives hate about modern Dems-- called for an 'immediate recanvass.' He changed his mind after ten hours and said he only wanted 'surgical' reanalysis of problematic districts." On Saturday, Taibbi also summarized the 10 things that went wrong in Iowa from Deval Patrick Sweeps Des Moines! to Impossible Math.

So... the winner is... Medicare-for-All.





Iowa voters were bombarded by ads from candidates-- but also by the Sickness-Industrial Complex relentlessly pushing an anti-Medicare-for-All message. The transpartisan anti-healthcare coalition spent significantly over a million dollars on TV ads alone and over the summer, their shady PAC was on the air as much as all the candidates combined.

The pro- and anti-healthcare debate is playing out not just in Iowa and not just in the presidential race, but all over the country and in the congressional races as well. Medicare-for-All proponents, like Mike Siegel in Texas, are asking the voters to compare and contrast what the various candidates are offering. Mike is up against two anti-Medicare-for-All candidates in theTX-10 primary next week. He's asking voters to look at this:

I asked some of the other congressional candidates how Medicare-for-All is looking as an issue in their campaigns. Eva Putzova is running for Congress in a huge Arizona district that is currently represented by a very conservative "ex"-Republican, Tom O'Halleran, who now calls himself a Blue Dog. He opposes public healthcare in general and Medicare-for-All in particular. "Medicare for All," Eva told us, "is popular in my district and here is why: I was told by a mother that she can't afford insulin for her child because their insurance plan doesn't cover it. One person I know took an uber to the hospital instead of an ambulance, to avoid paying an exorbitant bill. Another told me that he can't afford to go to the doctor because he is in between jobs and has no insurance at all. This is the disgraceful private healthcare system we currently have in place which my opponent, the incumbent, seems to think is just fine and can be improved with a few tweaks. We need to completely overhaul this heartless system, eliminate the private insurance industry, strictly regulate the pharmaceutical industry and enact Medicare for All. This is what I will fight for when I am elected to Congress."

Cenk Uygur is running for Congress in the very northern tip of Los Angeles County (CA-25) and his top four jungle primary rivals are bought and paid for anti-healthcare reactionaries, Steve Knight (R), Christy Smith (D), Mike Garcia (R) and George Papadopolous (R). "Once I explain that Medicare for All is the only proposal that is universal healthcare 100% of Democratic voters are on my side," he told me this morning. "Once I explain that all other proposals, like the public option, maintain a system where you still have co-pays, premiums and deductibles 100% of Democratic voters are on my side. All of the media propaganda did was create a need to add a one sentence explanation. Now in politics that could be a significant handicap but even so, our ideas are wildly popular even with people lying about them and universally accepted when they know the truth."

Liam O'Mara is the progressive Democrat, campaigning strongly on single payer Medicare-for-All, taking on Trumpist Republican Ken Calvert in Riverside County. He told us that "Last week Ken Calvert sent a mailer to the entire district, Democratic as well as Republican households. In it he listed three policies-- impeachment, Medicare for all, and the Green New Deal. There was a green column under my name and 'supports' in each box, and a red column under his name with 'opposes' in each box. Quite a few people hopped onto my social media after that and said they were happy Calvert had introduced them to me, and many of those who knew me already thought it was my mailer. Republicans continue to run on having no ideas and simply opposing improvements in our quality of life. And in the end, how long will voters tolerate the negative-nancy routine? I, for one, look forward to the opportunity he has given me to make my pitch to his voters-- namely, that Medicare will lower their effective taxation, and let them keep much more of their own money."

Nabilah Islam is running for the open congressional seat in the suburbs north of Atlanta (GA-07) and is likely to face off against an anti-healthcare conservative extolling Austerity. She has a clear vision of what the problem is and told me that "40 million Americans don't have healthcare, an estimated 87 million Americans are underinsured and 135,000 people in my district alone don't have healthcare. Mothers are sitting in the parking lots of Emergency rooms hoping their children's fevers don't spike while others are rationing their insulin supplies and other life-saving drugs. Why? Because for-profit healthcare systems don't work. There isn't a single instance around the world of it working. That's why almost three-quarters of Georgia Democrats support Medicare for All. I believe healthcare is a fundamental human right and while I sit in a field of Democrats who disagree, It matters not to me because I will always fight for regular people. For everyday Americans, for the 67% percent of people who are forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills."

Briana Wu, on the other side of the country, in Boston, is as dedicated to Medicare-for-All as Liam is. "For some time now," she said, "Democrats across the country have been calling for Medicare For All. Studies have been released showing the growing cost of health care for all age groups and demographics. On the campaign trail, health care is consistently one of the top issues I hear about from voters. It’s clear to me that Medicare For All is the solution we need to provide universal coverage and keep costs down for working class Americans. Try telling that to my opponent, Stephen Lynch. He constantly dodges the issue of healthcare because his donors tell him to through their campaign contributions. We need to take back the Senate, win the presidency, and increase our progressive caucus in the House. When we do, we will have the political will to finally get Medicare For All passed and enacted into law."

Marie Newman's race for the Chicagoland seat held by Blue Dog Dan Lipinski is a classic struggle between someone invested in a more equitable economic system and the Blue Dog approach to pay-for-play, where only the donor class gets their interests represented. This morning, Newman told me that her "opponent is so afraid of expanding a tried and true program, like Medicare For All, he calls it 'socialism' and will require our taxes to 'double or triple.' He has not even read the bill. To which I say, debating policy on its content is fine, making up lies about it just tells me, you know it will work and it will affect your ability to get insurance and pharma companies to fund you."

Robin Wilt is running for Congress in a district that is represented by a mediocre, garden variety Democrat who sits up in the back benches and does whatever her's told by the leadership. Robin is anything but that. "Prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)," she told me, "at a health care Town Hall that I helped organize in Rochester, NY in 2008, more than 500 people packed into a crowded auditorium to listen to two sitting members of Congress, a historian and a physician discuss the potential for implementing Medicare for All. As I connect with voters in our community today, access to health care and Medicare for All remain among the issues that most often arise. Despite the Affordable Care Act, nearly one million New Yorkers remains uninsured, and people with ever-more-ubiquitous high-deductible plans are struggling to access care, despite having health insurance. It’s no wonder that support for Medicare for All drove people to the polls in Iowa and continues to fuel an army of voters seeking change. 75% of Democratic voters support Medicare for All, and the New York Assembly has passed a statewide single payer plan four years in a row. Despite the widespread support, my opponent has steadfastly refused to support single payer at either the state or federal level. Medicare for All is at the centerpiece of my platform for people-centered policies for NY’s 25th Congressional District, and from the enthusiasm that I experience as I go door-to-door connecting with voters, it will be a winning issue as voters make their choices in our primaries. If voters in Monroe County want Medicare for All, there is only one choice among candidates, and that’s Robin Wilt."

Rachel Ventura, who is running for a seat mostly in Will County west of Chicago is far more progressive on healthcare-- and everything else, than the New Dem running against her, Bill Foster. "Passing Medicare for All won’t only give individuals healthcare," she told me, "it will also give them so many more freedoms. Freedom to choose their employer or their doctor for example. There are constituents in my district who can’t make above $2,000 a month or they will lose their access to Medicaid which is the only insurance they currently have. They can’t afford to buy insurance from the open market because it’s too expensive even if they’re in a better paying job. Unless the family is making more than $80,000 a year they just can’t afford healthcare if any member of their family is sick. Medicare for all will allow individuals to choose better employment, change employers, and more importantly select doctors that give them the best healthcare. Our healthcare system is not only keeping people sick, but it’s also keeping them broke."

As Daniel Strauss pointed out at Politico this past October, Mayo Pete pledged-- in no uncertain terms-- to support Medicare for All. The Question was "Can you affirmatively say that we need Medicare For All now and that insurance does not belong in healthcare? #SinglePayer" The response was "I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All, as I do favor any measure that would help get all Americans covered." Later, liking the taste of the money the 40 billionaires who are funding his campaign have sent his way, he found a way to worm out of that "unto the ages" pledge. Because he's a scumbag lying piece of shit politician. He calls his sleazy plan to kill Medicare-for-All, "Medicare for All Who Want It," the plan the anti-healthcare forces are pushing. Elizabeth Warren: "Whenever someone hears the term ‘Medicare for All Who Want It,’ understand what that really means. It's Medicare for all who can afford it."

Do You Think Congress Needs More Working Class Members? Or Should It Just Be A Playground For The Wealthy?

At the end of the week, a non-political source, Teen Vogue, featured Nabilah Islam's proposal on behalf of working class candidates. It's something we discussed with Nabilah earlier as part of the Blue America endorsement process. A dedicated advocate for Medicare-for-All, his advocacy for health care for candidates is related but different. The idea is to help elect more working class candidates who, in turn, will advocate more working family-friendly policies. That's not going to happen if only relatively wealthy people can run for Congress. Her idea is pretty simple: allow candidates to use their campaign contributions for health insurance.

She wrote OpEds for both Teen Vogue and Vox. She began her piece for Vox with an all-to-familiar statement: "About four months ago, I canceled my health care plan. A couple of months before that, I put my student loans-- of which I still owe $30,000-- into forbearance. My story isn’t unique among working-class millennials in the country. But what sets me apart is that I had to do all of this because I decided to run for Congress... I’m here to tell you what I’ve learned: Political campaigns are often a pastime for the wealthy, meaning they’re off-limits for working-class people with backgrounds like mine. Let’s start with the fact that it’s nearly impossible to run for Congress while holding down a job. Campaigning is a full-time endeavor that requires having enough money to live without a salary for months on end. It also usually means paying out of pocket for health insurance, forgoing money that could have been put toward a retirement account, buying a house, or caring for loved ones.

All of this might be fine if you’re independently wealthy, but that’s not me. I grew up in Gwinnett County as the daughter of Bangladeshi immigrants, attending Gwinnett public schools. My father was a file clerk with the IRS for nearly 30 years, and my mother has worked multiple low-wage jobs all my life. I worked odd jobs as a teenager and in college, putting myself through school and helping my family make ends meet.

I never thought I was electable. But 2018, the year we elected the most diverse Congress in history, showed me that “electability” is a myth. So I came back home and worked really hard to put together a grassroots campaign.

And yet, hard work isn’t enough. People like me can do everything in their power to cut costs and climb the ladder, and still find themselves at the bottom financially.

I thought I would be able to hold down a part-time job waitressing or driving for Uber while campaigning, but the demands-- calling and meeting with voters, attending events across my community, pursuing endorsements-- became too high. For a while, I was paying out of pocket for a junk health care plan. It was unfortunately the only plan I could afford, especially since Georgia has refused to expand Medicaid. I knew the plan wouldn’t do much for me if I got sick or got hurt on the trail, so eventually, I canceled it. Having no income also means I’ve eaten enough packets of dollar ramen to last a lifetime.

My situation is difficult, but it’s not unique. Working-class people don’t usually run for Congress, and when they do, they often find themselves struggling like I am. It’s hard to build up independent wealth if you aren’t paid fairly, and women and people of color are disproportionately impacted by the wage gap. I’m struggling to support just myself, and I know it would be nearly impossible for me to continue my bid for Congress if I had a family to care for too. It’s no wonder nearly 40 percent of Congress members are millionaires. Three of my competitors in this race have spent more than $250,000 to self-fund their campaigns.

If we don’t eliminate barriers that prevent candidates from supporting themselves while running for federal office, we’ll continue to see a Congress that’s largely composed of wealthy, older white men. Americans will be deprived of representation by people who understand their lived experiences, and will continue to struggle under mounting student and medical debt.

The Federal Election Commission currently doesn’t allow candidates to use campaign funds for health care. I’m challenging the FEC to change its rules and to explicitly allow working-class candidates to use campaign funds to pay for health care, so at least one hurdle to running for Congress is eliminated for the non-wealthy.

I have hope that the FEC’s position will change. Liuba Grechen Shirley, an activist and founder of Vote Mama, successfully petitioned the FEC to use campaign funding for child care costs in 2018 while running for Congress, and it’s why I’m hoping to change the face of health care funding for candidates for years to come.

Running for Congress has taught me that the process is not designed for the working class. It’s also taught me that voices like my own are badly needed in the House of Representatives. And that starts with creating a system where people like me can run in the first place.

She's been reaching out to progressive members of Congress for advice and support. Today Ro Khanna announced his endorsement for her campaign. Iron worker and former congressional candidate Randy Bryce told me yesterday that "It’s tough enough finding an everyday working person willing to put their life on pause for a while in order to run for Congress but most of us can agree that we need more working people to be elected to Congress. There are already quite a few hurdles. Money is probably the biggest. Not only do we need it to fund a campaign but we need it to pay our bills and it needs to come from a different source. Too many live paycheck to paycheck. One of the biggest worries is health care. Imagine having an amazing campaign that comes screeching to a halt because the candidate can’t afford to go to the doctor? Until we have Medicare for all this is going to be an issue. Appears most of those running for office who would benefit from being covered the most have a M4A platform to make sure all of us have health care. It says a lot to oppose a candidate being allowed to cover their health insurance while expecting them to take care of their staff. We can take care of everyone and we should be looking for ways to remove the hurdles if we really want to see people like us representing people like us. If we don’t we’ll keep having people elected who just view us as money farms.And we still won’t be able to afford to see a doctor ourselves."

I asked some of the other Blue-America endorsed candidates what they think about Nabilah's proposal. Kara Eastman is running for the second time in the Omaha swing district (NE-02) and she's experienced this already. "When I decided to run," she told me, "people told me to pull out my 'Rolodex' and call my friends and ask them for money. As a nonprofit CEO, I asked 2 questions. 'What is a Rolodex?' And 'how will I fund my race with the $50 each one of my nonprofit friends and colleagues can afford to give me?' As a mom, and the primary breadwinner in my family, running is and has been a sacrifice. The system is set up for wealthy people to run since the average net worth of a sitting congressperson is $1 million. Before we finally get around to getting money out of politics, we need to make running more attainable for regular working people. Allowing candidates to use funds for healthcare and childcare would certainly help."

This is Robin Wilt's first congressional campaign, but not the first time she's run for office. "Today, the majority of members of Congress are millionaires," she reminded me, "and the typical congressional representative has an estimated net worth of over $500,000-- roughy fives times the median US household net worth. At the same time we are more likely to be represented by a member of the financially elite, running a Congressional campaign has become increasingly costly. If we don’t want running for and serving in Congress to be exclusively the province of the wealthy-- those who don’t have to pay a mortgage, college tuition or student loans, or other every day real-life expenses-- we need the campaign finance rules that allow fundraising to relieve some of the burdens that are associated with running for office. If more people like Nabilah ran for office, we would have more representatives that share our priorities-- like Medicare for All and legislation to remove money from politics. That’s why we need more people like Nabilah in Congress that share the average Americans experience!"

California Central Valley progressive Kim Williams told us last night that she "grew up in Nabilah’s home county, and I’m behind her 100%. She is spot on when she says that the candidates we need are hampered by a system that supports the candidates we don’t. Like her, I’ve had to make hard choices. I’m a single mom, and I’ve had to maintain my full-time job to support my child. This means I start my day at 4:00 a.m. to get a jump on my day before work and then I drive to events all over the district in the evenings and on weekends. But I have great hope that the system will change, and I know every working class candidate that makes it into office will fight to make sure those behind them have a fair shot. It's why I back Nabilah’s proposal and why I support publicly funded elections."

Rachel Ventura, the Will County reformer running for Congress against New Dem multimillionaire Bill Foster: "I certainly agree with Nabilah that we need to allow candidates to use campaign funds to pay for healthcare. In my first two campaigns I went without insurance and it was unsettling. Working people have it much harder than the 40% of Congress that fall into the millionaire category. The only way we are going to take our democracy back is to build a powerful grassroots movement that can propel working people into the halls of power without corporate campaign contributions. I look forward to fighting alongside Nabilah to pass a Medicare for All system and transform our political system to being one that serves all Americans."

"Running a campaign while working full time," said Arizona progressive and labor activist Eva Putzova, "is almost unheard of and even that is a privilege most people don't have-- they don't have an understanding employer that allows a candidate to flex their time to run. We need a complete overhaul of the campaign finance law and we need campaigns to be publicly funded-- to ensure that it's not just rich and corrupted to have a chance to represent us in Congress. Until we have such system, the campaign finance law should allow candidates to raise money to reasonably replace their income and non-wage benefits, including healthcare."

Unlike Ordinary Voters, Steny Hoyer Doesn't Think The House Democrats Are Corrupt Enough

Voters hate both parties-- the Democrats a few points less than the Republicans. But apparently, the Democrats would like to catch up with the Republicans in the low esteem department-- and before the election. This week, The Economist released a new poll by YouGov that asked respondents what they think of both political parties. Among registered voters 46% have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party and 52% have an unfavorable opinion. The same voters said they have a 44% favorable opinion of the Republican Party and a 54% unfavorable opinion. Not that much different. Sad!

One of the most corrupt scumbags from either party-- Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer (80)-- is pushing a plan, along with retiring House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (82), to reintroduce, albeit gradually and less toxically (at first), bringing back earmarks. Everyone hates earmarks-- except corrupt politicians. Politico reporters Ally Mutnick and Caitlin Emma wrote up the bare essentials of a potentially explosive story that could send the Democrats right backing the minority. They wrote that the Hoyer-Lowey plan "would allow members to secure cash for some pet projects at home."

There's a growing concern among the political staff to some swing-seat members that this could hurt them in November and undercut their campaign promises of fiscal responsibility. And it comes after the Democratic-led House unsuccessfully attempted to secure a congressional pay raise last year-- another vote which freshmen deemed politically risky.

Members from both parties have long stressed that reinstating earmarks doesn’t have to mean a return to wasteful and highly criticized pork-barrel spending in which federal funds flow to thousands of niche projects.

Instead, they contend that a system with improved controls could help lawmakers better deliver on their districts' needs. President Donald Trump even endorsed a return to earmarks in 2018, saying that it led to “great friendliness” among Republicans and Democrats.

Still, even a watered-down version of earmarks could provide Republicans with all the fodder they need to make biting political ads.

“We’re not going to have a majority if we bring back earmarks,” said a top aide to a freshman Democrat who flipped a GOP-held seat in 2018. “This is not what we came to Congress to do. Voters made it clear years ago that they were tired of pork and special interest spending in Washington and sweetheart deals.”

Advertising spots that aired prior to 2012 often reminded voters that their member of Congress supported the use of taxpayer dollars for pet projects in states hundreds of miles away. And some Democrats who voted in favor of a 2011 earmark ban taped ads touting their work to curb government spending.

...In a letter to fellow lawmakers last February, Lowey announced that “there is currently not the necessary bipartisan, bicameral agreement” to revisit the contentious practice of specifying that federal dollars must go to certain projects.

But the New York Democrat added that legislators in both chambers “must discuss the issue of earmarks in our respective caucuses and conferences to determine member preferences, solicit ideas to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and when applicable, change rules to permit members to request earmarks.”

I spoke with two young women, both progressive reformers-- whose campaigns revolt around very anti-corruption messaging-- how they took the news about Hoyer trying to resuscitate earmarks. Mckayla Wilkes is running for the suburban south Maryland seat occupied by Hoyer. She told me that "House Democratic leadership considering a return to earmarks flies in the face of what Democratic voters have been calling out for: no more back room deals, no more influence peddling, no more payoffs. A return to earmarks threatens vulnerable freshman members, who must then explain to their progressive constituents why the party is returning to this corrupt practice. Steny Hoyer has been notoriously shifty in his efforts to maintain a moderate majority in the House. We all remember the notorious call to Levi Tillemann where Hoyer encouraged him to drop out in favor of the more moderate DCCC backed candidate. Not to mention Hoyer’s DCCC blacklist, which cuts off DCCC business to any consultants working on behalf of a primary challenger. This shady tactic serves to prevent dissenting progressive voices like mine from having the tools, staff, data, comms and fundraising needed to compete against incumbents. If it wasn’t for grassroots donations of money, talent, and time, I would be unable to compete, and Hoyer’s sleazy tactics would be successful. We as a party can’t let this continue."

Rachel Ventura's suburban and small town district is west of Chicago and she's also running against a corrupt conservative, New Dem Bill Foster. Rachel told me that "We must have a government and economy that works for everyone. Earmarks further corruption and special interests. Instead we need to use our tax dollars to help close the wealth gap through a federal jobs guarantee, living wage jobs, and infrastructure investments all across this country. Passing the Green New Deal ensures our dollars ARE going back to our communities to help everyone, not just a few pet projects. We need to pass policies that help everyone like Medicare for All and as your next congresswoman of IL-11, I plan to push for these two bills my first term in office."

War And Peace Doesn't Just Happen To Happen

Alan Grayson: "We don’t let children play with guns, or even knives. So why would we let Donald Trump play with drones, missiles and nuclear weapons?"

Mike Pompeo's bullshit about people dancing in the streets after Trump had Iranian leader Qassim Suleimani assassinated apparently didn't include members of the Iraqi Parliament. On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iraq's parliament unanimously voted to demand that Prime Minister Adel-Abdul Mahdi, who initiated the resolution himself, end the U.S. military presence in the country. Trump had talked with Mahdi on the phone before the drone attack on Suleimani's convoy at the Baghdad airport, but neglected to let him know about what was about to happen.

Also not dancing in the streets: progressive candidates running for Congress. This is a list of 2020 House candidates, 16 progressive Democrats endorsed by Blue America, along with their opponents. Each of the opponents voted in favor of the NDAA that gives Trump a free hand to start wars on a whim, like the one he’s ginning up against Iran right now. The Blue America-endorsed opponents have all said they would have voted against the NDAA.

• Shaniyat Chowdhury v Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
• Kara Eastman v Donald Bacon (NE-02)
• Kathy Ellis v Jason Smith (MO-08)
• Robert Emmons v Bobby Rush (IL-01)
• Mark Gamba v Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
• Morgan Harper v Joyce Beatty (OH-03)
• Marie Newman v Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
• Liam O’Mara v Ken Calvert (CA-42)
• Michael Owens v David Scott (GA-13)
• Rebecca Parson v Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
• Eva Putzova v Tom O’Halleran (AZ-01)
• J.D. Scholten v Steve King (IA-04)
• Mike Siegel v Michael McCaul (TX-10)
• Rachel Ventura v Bill Foster (IL-11)
• Kim Williams v Jim Costa (CA-16)
• Brianna Wu v Stephen Lynch (MA-08)

These Republicans and conservative Democrats should not be reelected and I want to ask you to help support the challengers. When you hear the phrase Bernie wants to send your children to college and Trump wants to send them to war, remember that it isn’t only Trump, it’s also Republican stooges like Michael McCaul, Ken Calvert and Steve King and reactionary Democrats like Tom O’Halleran, Jim Costa and Kurt Schrader. It’s time to take a stand. Eva Putzova sure has. She's running for the Arizona seat occupied by Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran, an "ex"-Republican legislator who voted for Trump's Pentagon budget. Eva has been completely clear that should would have voted NO. "Only Congress has the power to declare war," she told us yesterday, "and responsibility of oversight of and accountability for our use of military force. Yet Congress has increasingly enabled the reckless abuse of the AUMF by turning a blind eye to Executive overreach and by giving the Office of President ever-increasing military budget. As a member of Congress, my opponent has been complacent with the abuse of military power and bears responsibility for countless lives lost. His latest votes, failing to limit Trump's war-making ability and giving him the resources to start a war, are in conflict with the interests of his constituents, this country, and the entire global community."

Kim Williams, a former U.S. diplomat when Obama was president, is also running for a congressional seat held by a reactionary Blue Dog, Jim Costa (CA-16). "Last July," she told us, "Mitch McConnell rebuffed attempts to amend the NDAA by stating that Democrats were politicizing the process. He added that they would not be doing this if there were a Democratic president. But this argument fails to acknowledge a number of political realities. One, Congress should never have written a blank check to any President. Two, Republicans don’t win elections. The last two lost the popular vote by significant margins and neither showed the temperament nor the intellect to make life or death decisions. A functioning democracy should save us from the impulses of a single, flawed individual, and I can not understand how Members of Congress can argue that we should take slow, 'common sense' steps to address issues that cost real American lives like our failing healthcare system, air pollution, and poverty, but then fast track decisions around war. The fact that this President has a history of playing with decoys is even more troubling. Would he have made the same order if he wasn’t facing impeachment? I don’t think so. Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna have now introduced legislation that would block Pentagon funding for any unilateral actions taken by President Trump. If I am elected, they will have my full support."

Virtually all of the candidates we’ve endorsed have been bringing up Ro Khanna as a member of Congress they want to work with to preserve peace. Some say it in very simple terms and others have written long essays already! Last night Dr. Michael Owens, the progressive Democrat challenging Blue Dog warmonger David Scott in the suburbs south and west of Atlanta (GA-13) told me that “House Democrats should not cede any ground to this president when it comes to allowing him to use his judgement and executive branch authority. I would not have voted for the NDAA… mainly because we needed to have the amendments in the bill that Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Barbara Lee put forth. Amendments to block funding for a war with Iran barring congressional approval and the amendment to repeal 2001’s ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists’ (AUMF) could’ve possibly reigned in President Trump’s reckless actions and questionable reasoning for the U.S. drone strike he authorized against the high-ranking Iranian officials.”

Rachel Ventura, the progressive Will County Board member challenging New Dem Bill Foster (IL-11), noted that when she is elected she "will exercise my role as congresswoman to keep any president-- Democrat or Republican-- in check. That is the job of the United States House of Representatives and I will do my job. Just last December, many members of Congress disregarded that job they had to do by passing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a blank check that allowed the president to use government funding to conduct the very strike that landed us in our current position. They could have supported Ro Khanna's amendment and any number of other measures that would have limited Trump's ability to continue destabilizing the world. Instead, they gave an unstable president a blank check to destabilize an already unstable region. So to all the members of Congress who voted to pass this funding bill, including my opponent Bill Foster, you can't give an 'unhinged' president a check in December and then criticize the same man for using that check a month later. It is hypocritical to criticize Donald Trump's wrongful assassination of a senior Iranian General after shirking your responsibility to keep the president in check. I will not be a part of the caucus that simply goes along to get along. I will be joining the courageous members of Congress in the progressive caucus who had the foresight to predict this nightmare."

Rachel's neighbor in Chicagoland-- they sometimes hold joint events-- Robert Emmons, who’s taking on Bobby Rush, put it much more succinctly: "War will cost us trillions of dollars. War will end thousands of lives. Reparations, ending everyday gun violence, universal pre-k, Medicare for All, universal transportation, and a Green New Deal will save lives. I choose pro-peace." Pretty straight to the point. And Marie Newman, a third Chicagoland progressive taking on a reactionary pro-war Dem (Dan Lipinski) told us "My opponent voted for the NDAA and that says it all. He believes this president should have full power to start wars whenever he wishes."

Rebecca Parson, the Democratic Socialist challenging northwest Washington New Dem Derek Kilmer, was even more succinct! "Derek Kilmer voted for Trump’s war budget and now Trump is stoking war with Iran. We need principled progressives in Congress, not corporate tools of the war machine."

One state down, Mark Gamba, the progressive mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon, is running for the congressional seat held by Blue Dog war-monger Kurt Schrader, who, needless to say, voted for the NDAA a couple of weeks ago. Mark told me today that "We go to war to make rich people richer. We do it both to secure access to other countries resources for our corporations and simply to enrich the military industrial complex. We allow our young people to be maimed, psychologically ravaged or be killed in order to enrich Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and dozens of others. Never mind the fact that we kill millions of innocent civilians in other countries in the process. I believe in a strong national defense. But we were already spending more than the next 10 largest militaries in the world combined before the terrible vote by 188 house Democrats to increase it. Yet the only real threat we face goes completely unaddressed, simply because no defense contractor will make billions fighting climate change. No big surprise that Kurt Schrader was one of the Dems that took that bad vote. It’s long past time to replace corporate dems with people who are not beholden the Military Industrial Complex and who actually give a damn about our young people. It’s time to spend this kind of money solving the actual threat of climate change rather than the Trumped up threats from other countries. It may also be high time to preemptively launch antiwar protests. I’ll see you on the streets."

Liam O’Mara is the progressive running for the Riverside County congressional seat that lockstep Trump toadie Ken Calvert occupies. There are few districts in California where the contrast between the two candidates is as great. Yesterday, Liam, a history professor, told us that "Trump just made another massive blunder in the Middle East-- another in a long line of blunders that we keep making there. We violated Iraqi sovereignty, broke international law, committed an act of war against Iran, and may also have violated U.S. law-- and for what? To keep feeding the war machine, to get more troops sent overseas and keep up the endless waste of taxpayer dollars and lives? I think that the U.S. deserves better from its leaders. I think that it deserves investment in its citizens, in their quality of life, not in constant wars for oil and defense-contractor dollars. We should be building houses and hospitals, roads and bridges, factories and farms… not bombing ten countries, wasting trillions on unwinnable wars, and assassinating foreign leaders. It’s time to think about what kind of country we want-- a moral exemplar, devoted to the rule of law, or a rogue state, concerned only for power and greed. I know where I stand on that, and where Ken Calvert stands."





Yesterday, Pelosi sent out this letter to all the Democrats in Congress, announcing that the House would vote on a war powers resolution to prevent Trump from going to war with Iran on a whim. Note it is being carried for her by a conservative Democrat, Elissa Slotkin, rather than by one of the progressives who would be a natural-- like Barbara Lee or Ro Khanna. I suppose Pelosi thinks that will help her lock up votes on the right for the Democratic Party more easily.

Dear Democratic Colleague,

Last week, the Trump Administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials. This action endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran.

As Members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe. For this reason, we are concerned that the Administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress’s war powers granted to it by the Constitution.

This week, the House will introduce and vote on a War Powers Resolution to limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran. This resolution is similar to the resolution introduced by Senator Tim Kaine in the Senate. It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days.

The House Resolution will be led by Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin.  Congresswoman Slotkin is a former CIA and Department of Defense analyst specializing in Shia militias. She served multiple tours in the region under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.

I greatly appreciate the solemnity with which all of our Members are working to honor our responsibility to protect American lives and values.

Thank you for your patriotic leadership during this difficult time.