Trump And American Disunity

Blue skies, nothing but blue skies

If you were shocked to hear polling that indicated that a majority or plurality of Americans approved of how Trump was handling the pandemic, keep in mind that whenever there's a national calamity, Americans tend to rally round the flag. Sometimes that is short-lived though-- and in this case it was very short-lived. A new poll from Navigator shows most Americans have now regained their senses and see Trump as part of the problem, not part of the solution. When asked about Trump's erratic and self-serving handling of the pandemic, we see a 13-point swing in his net approval on this from 52% to 42% (+10) to 47% to 50% (-3). "Trump is wildly out of step with Americans with his new push to relax social distancing," concluded the pollster. "Only 5% say we should roll back precautions, even at the expense of economic losses, while 74% say we should wait however long it takes for public health experts to say it’s safe, including 70% of Republicans... Trump didn’t cause coronavirus, but his actions have made it worse-- and Americans are looking to others, from governors to health experts, to lead us out of this... Lives have been put at risk by Trump’s senseless delay on invoking his authority to produce more needed supplies like masks and ventilators."

One of my sisters is tucked away in self-imposed isolation at her home in Brooklyn, venturing out only rarely and only with her N-99 mask and latex gloves. The other-- who is married to a dyed-in-the-wool Trumpist-- has been incredibly hostile to the idea of precautions... until yesterday when her fearless leader announced he was considering some kind of a enforceable travel quarantine against New York and parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, whatever that means. If Trump says it's real, in her mind, it's real.

Some of Trump's political allies-- the reactionary governors of Florida and Texas for example-- had already put up barriers against New Yorkers. And now the truly repulsive conservative governor of Rhode Island, Gina Raimondo, a pretend-Democrat, who has adamantly refused to issue shelter-in-place orders, announced Friday that "members of the National Guard, along with local law enforcement, would be going door-to-door in shore communities to look for people who have come here from New York. The troops will collect their contact information and work to enforce the 14-day quarantine. They will do their best to target homes where the state believes people may have come from New York, Raimondo said. People who violate quarantine orders would be subject to a fine at first, and prison time on subsequent offenses, Raimondo said." Her troops have been ordered to pull over cars with New York license plates... respectfully. Cuomo said he would sue her if she didn't roll back her diktat immediately. [Instead she just announced that the restriction apply to any non-Rhode Islander-- so she's giving the finger to the rest of the country. No comment.]

Raimondo is widely considered one of the most disgusting, puke-worthy governors of any state regardless of party. She told the media that "This is an emergency. What is constitutional in one scenario is different than in another. This is pinpointed, this is targeted, this is a state of emergency, this is limited in time, and it’s going to be enforced in a respectful way. And it’s a public health necessity." She said "Right now we have a pinpointed risk. That risk is called New York City."

He backed off today

Janet Mills, Maine's lame (Democratic) governor hasn't had the brains or spine to order Mainers to shelter in place either. Officials on the island of North Haven, Maine issued an order banning all visitors to the island-- even ones who own homes there.




Vox's Ian Millhiser noted the same thing and wondered how much this is going to weaken the union, "testing the very notion that the United States are united."

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed an executive order on Thursday that would require travelers from some coronavirus hotspots to self-quarantine: It provides that “every person” who flies into Texas from “New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, or the City of New Orleans, or in any other state or city as may be proclaimed hereafter, shall be subject to mandatory self-quarantine for a period of 14 days from the time of entry into Texas or the duration of the person’s presence in Texas, whichever is shorter.”

Other states have imposed similar orders. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) imposed an order on Tuesday that requires anyone flying from New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut to self-isolate for 14 days. Alaska and Hawaii also imposed self-quarantine orders on people traveling from other states.

These orders implicate one of the fundamental premises of the union among the 50 states: the right of American citizens to travel among them freely.

As the Supreme Court recognized more than 170 years ago, “we are one people with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states.” The right of all US citizens to travel freely among the states, the Court later explained in United States v. Guest (1966), “was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger union the Constitution created.”

If states can decide that some US citizens are not welcome within their borders, it may cease to be a union at all. This right to travel is implicit in the notion that citizens are Americans, and not simply Texans or New Yorkers.

But should that principle hold during a pandemic? Does the Constitution forbid states from taking drastic actions to slow the spread of a potentially deadly disease within their own borders?

Gov. Abbott’s order, at the very least, is probably carefully drafted enough to survive constitutional scrutiny. That order applies to “every person” who flies into Texas from the designated areas, regardless of whether that person is a resident of Texas or some other state. Read in that light, it does not discriminate against non-Texans.

But orders like Gov. Abbott’s do raise troubling constitutional questions. And they cut against the concept of a union of states that has prevailed in this country, especially since the New Deal.

The modern notion that every US citizen has the same rights, no matter where they travel within the nation, is rooted in a notion of nationwide solidarity that depends on a strong and competent federal government. And the Trump administration is not holding up its end of that bargain.

...But even if such travel bans are legal, they are still indicative of a greater rot within our constitutional system. The premise of our Constitution is that the states gave up some of their sovereign authority to the federal government, in return for mutual benefits such as collective national defense and free trade among the states. The premise of the post-New Deal order is that the federal government must take on additional obligations, including providing a basic social safety net.

And the evolution of the right to travel played a significant role in establishing this new order. The right to travel is fundamentally tied to our conception of what it means to be a citizen of a nation. We’ve spent most of the last century fleshing out our understanding of what obligations our nation owes to its citizens.

...The United States was one collective community, not 50 insular communities.

But Trump is slashing the safety net that holds this national community together. He spent much of the first three years of his presidency dismantling the federal government’s permanent infrastructure, that his predecessors set up to deal with a pandemic-- including ordering the White House National Security Council’s (NSC) entire global health security arm shut down. He’s repeatedly proposed budgets making sharp cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.

Trump abdicates his role as the custodian of a nationwide safety net. Indeed, he recently told a group of governors who needed ventilators to deal with the rise of coronavirus cases to “try getting it yourselves.”

Thursday night, after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) requested tens of thousands of ventilators to protect the lives of infected New Yorkers, Trump dismissed this request in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “I don’t believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators,” Trump claimed. “You go into major hospitals sometimes, and they’ll have two ventilators. And now, all of a sudden, they’re saying, ‘Can we order 30,000 ventilators?’”

Nor is Cuomo the only governor frustrated by the federal government’s inaction. After Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) sought much needed medical gear and equipment to protect the people in his state, the federal government provided only a fraction of what his state needed.

Moreover, as Pritzker wrote on Twitter, Trump’s inaction forces governors to compete with each other-- potentially even pushing them into a bidding war. “I have medical professionals and first responders begging for the things they need to keep them safe-- but so does” Cuomo. So does Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R). So does Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D).

Trump, meanwhile, was extraordinarily slow to use the Defense Production Act, a federal law that would allow the federal government to coordinate a national response among state and private industry. As Pritzker writes, “it’s the federal government’s job to make sure that a nurse being properly equipped in Illinois doesn’t come at the cost of a doctor being ready for work in California.”

If the Trump administration is unwilling or unable to uphold its end of the post-New Deal bargain, the implications are staggering. Trump’s inaction does not simply threaten to exacerbate a pandemic. It threatens the very concept of what it means to be the United States of America.

Could Putin have foreseen all this when he invested a measly few million dollars towards getting Trump elected in 2016? What an absolutely brilliant investment-- at least from a Russian perspective! Shrewdest foreign policy move in Russian history!

"...As We Sleepwalk Our Way Towards The Most Predictable Financial Crisis In The History Of Man"

There wasn't a policy of his I ever agreed with when Sanford was a congressman the first time, nor while he was governor, nor when he rejoined Congress. And I still don't. When he hits on a truth-- example: Trump is a shit head who is wrecking our country-- his analysis is never correct. Same goes for shit-for-brains professional centrist and NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman. His latest column-- with the click-bait title ‘Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?'-- is little more than a gussied up neo-liberal plea for "serious" Democrats and #NeverTrumpers to nominate anyone but Bernie.

Friedman and his wealthy circle were horrified in June when Democratic presidential candidates talked about fundamentally changing the system that has been so very good to those, like Friedman, in the top 1%. Status Quo Joe was tailor-made for Friedman. If he didn't already exist, they would have to create him-- or draft Gina Raimondo, the neoliberal Wall Street shill from Rhode Island. He's their man. And if he wasn't before-- all those decades of racism can be embarrassing to pretend liberals-- those comments about how "nothing would fundamentally change" clinched it.

I was shocked that so many candidates in the party whose nominee I was planning to support want to get rid of the private health insurance covering some 250 million Americans and have “Medicare for all” instead. I think we should strengthen Obamacare and eventually add a public option.

I was shocked that so many were ready to decriminalize illegal entry into our country. I think people should have to ring the doorbell before they enter my house or my country.

I was shocked at all those hands raised in support of providing comprehensive health coverage to undocumented immigrants. I think promises we’ve made to our fellow Americans should take priority, like to veterans in need of better health care.

And I was shocked by how feeble was front-runner Joe Biden’s response to the attack from Kamala Harris-- and to the more extreme ideas promoted by those to his left.

So, I wasn’t surprised to hear so many people expressing fear that the racist, divisive, climate-change-denying, woman-abusing jerk who is our president was going to get re-elected, and was even seeing his poll numbers rise.

Dear Democrats: This is not complicated! Just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women who abandoned Donald Trump in the midterms and thus swung the House of Representatives to the Democrats and could do the same for the presidency. And that candidate can win!

But please, spare me the revolution! It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House and narrow the spread in the Senate, and a lot of good things still can be accomplished. “No,” you say, “the left wants a revolution now!” O.K., I’ll give the left a revolution now: four more years of Donald Trump.




That will be a revolution.

Four years of Trump feeling validated in all the crazy stuff he’s done and said. Four years of Trump unburdened by the need to run for re-election and able to amplify his racism, make Ivanka secretary of state, appoint even more crackpots to his cabinet and likely get to name two right-wing Supreme Court justices under the age of 40.

Yes sir, that will be a revolution!

It will be an overthrow of all the norms, values, rules and institutions that we cherish, that made us who we are and that have united us in this common project called the United States of America.

If the fear of that doesn’t motivate the Democratic Party’s base, then shame on those people. Not all elections are equal. Some elections are a vote for great changes-- like the Great Society. Others are a vote to save the country. This election is the latter.

That doesn’t mean a Democratic candidate should stand for nothing, just keep it simple: Focus on building national unity and good jobs.

I say national unity because many Americans are terrified and troubled by how bitterly divided, and therefore paralyzed, the country has become. There is an opening for a unifier.

And I say good jobs because when the wealth of the top 1 percent equals that of the bottom 90 percent, we do have to redivide the pie. I favor raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to subsidize universal pre-K education and to reduce the burden of student loans. Let’s give kids a head start and college grads a fresh start.

But I’m disturbed that so few of the Democratic candidates don’t also talk about growing the pie, let alone celebrating American entrepreneurs and risk-takers. Where do they think jobs come from?

The winning message is to double down on redividing the pie in ways that give everyone an opportunity for a slice while also growing the pie sustainably.

Trump is growing the pie by cannibalizing the future. He is creating a growth spurt by building up enormous financial and carbon debts that our kids will pay for.

Democrats should focus on how we create sustainable wealth and good jobs, which is the American public-private partnership model: Government enriches the soil and entrepreneurs grow the companies.

It has always been what’s made us rich, and we’ve drifted away from it: investing in quality education and basic scientific research; promulgating the right laws and regulations to incentivize risk-taking and prevent recklessness and monopolies that can cripple free markets; encouraging legal immigration of both high-energy and high-I.Q. foreigners; and building the world’s best enabling infrastructure-- ports, roads, bandwidth and basic social safety nets.

Ask Gina Raimondo, Rhode Island’s governor, and my kind of Democrat.

And Biden's kind of running mate... if they're going to force him to pick a girl? Literally a Blue state Republican who calls herself a Democrat because of abortion and for no other reason whatsoever. She may be Thomas Friedman's-- and other neo-liberals'-- wet dream, but I can't think of many Democrats less fit for the presidency than Joe Biden... but Gina Raimondo, who nearly ran until she did the polling, is certainly one of them. Andrew Cuomo too.

Meanwhile the big-money Democratic funders have made their decision about who to back. As anyone would have guessed, they've always wanted Status Quo Joe and have banked on McKinsey Pete in case-- as is likely-- Biden self-destructs. And then there's Kamala, another one who has always been on good terns with the very wealthy. These bundlers raised tens of millions of dollars for Clinton and for Obama and now are just thinking about one thing: stopping the one candidate who is for fundamental; change. Career-long Wall Street shills Booker, Gllibrand and Klobuchar have also done very well. They usually give to multiple candidates...but not Bernie.

Politico looked at 1,923 big donors and bundlers who gave to Obama and Hillary. Give to anyone you want at the DWT thermometer on the right. Here's how the money flowed in terms of the number of big donors and fundraisers:

• Status Quo Joe- 253
• Kamala Harris- 246
• McKiney Pete- 224
• Cory Booker- 152
• Amy Klobuchar- 113
• Gillibrand- 106
• Beto- 60
• Michael Bennet- 48
• Jay Inslee- 46
• Bullock- 42
• Frackenlooper- 39
• Elizabeth Warren- 39
• Castro- 19
• Delaney- 15
• Moulton- 12
• Tim Ryan- 11
• de Blasio- 7
• Eric Swalwell- 7
• Marianne Williamson- 5
• Andrew Yang- 4
• Bernie- 4
• Tulsi- 2

One of them, obviously delusional, said, with a straight face, "Electability is the most important thing. We just want a candidate that can beat Trump. You invest in candidates that are delivering as a candidate, or that polling tells you has a good shot to beat Trump."

Gina Raimondo Is Not A Moderate But Frank Bruni Sure Hates Progressives

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is a mainstream Democrat who was reelected in November with 231,477 votes (61.5%) against Republican Robert Flanders, who took 6 of Rhode Island's 39 municipalities. Frank Bruni's distorted puff piece on Rhode Island's right-of-center crooked governor, Gina Raimondo-- The Loneliness Of The Moderate Democrat didn't mention Whitehouse, only that Raimondo had been "reelected by a margin of more than 15 percentage points." She took 196,977 votes, significantly fewer than the normal Democrat won with. But that didn't fit Bruni's dishonest narrative. So why mention it? Bruni's whole twisted piece was deceptive, an attempt to paint the Republican wing of the Democratic Party heroic. Worst of all, he was happy to confuse "corrupt" and "right-of-center" with "moderate, saddened she isn't running for president." He bales that she "won her primary against a progressive rival by more than 20 points, then trounced her Republican opponent in the general election, 52.8% to 37.3%. No mention by Bruni that Obama won it both times he ran with over 62%-- just a little better Gore (61%) and Kerry (59.4%)-- and that even Hillary did better than her with 54.4%. 52.8% for a Democrat in Rhode island is pretty bad. Senator John Reed won his seat last time he was reelected with over 70%.

Also no mention that she spent over $7 million, to Republican Allan Fung's $2.3 million. Independent outside spending for her was at least $5.5 million more, compared to just $1.8 million for Fung. Her primary challenger, Matt Brown, was also swamped by her flood of corporate money. Last year The Intercept's Aída Chávez did a much better job of reporting truthfully than Bruni did for The Times.

Democratic Gov. Gina Raimondo is working to fend off a progressive, albeit underfunded, primary challenge from the left. Matt Brown, a former Rhode Island secretary of state, is running a grassroots campaign against Raimondo, who he describes as “the most extreme corporatist Democrat in the country.”

The Democratic Governors Association has pumped in $1 million to support Raimondo, money that won’t be available for Georgia, Florida, or Maryland. EMILY’s List, which helps elect pro-choice women, jumped in as well, spending $345,000 on pre-primary mailers for the incumbent. Although Raimondo presents herself as pro-choice, she was criticized by reproductive rights advocates for passing what amounted to restrictions on abortion access during her first term in office and is listed as “mixed-choice” by NARAL Pro-Choice America.

A July survey found Raimondo with a 40 percent job approval rating among the general public and 58 percent among Democrats. That dropped to 29 percent among independents, who are legally allowed to vote in Wednesday’s primary.

Raimondo, a former venture capitalist, has raised nearly $7.8 million for her re-election, raking in much of her fundraising from the same corporate players responsible for the state’s fiscal problems. The claim of “most extreme corporatist” may sound like hyperbole, but as state treasurer, Raimondo touched off a scandal by pushing through pension reform legislation that handed a billion dollars of state worker money over to hedge funds with links to the conservative movement, which harvested eye-popping fees.

...Raimondo’s head-to-head polling calls into question the conventional argument that centrist or pro-corporate candidates deserve support because they are more electable. “She’s taken millions in campaign contributions from Wall Street, fossil fuel industry, tobacco industry, lobbyists, corporations, tax breaks, and benefits from the state,” Brown said in an interview. “And she has, I think, raised a total of $7 million dollars now for this race and yet, as you point out, still a large majority of Rhode Islanders are looking for a different candidate with a different vision.”

Throughout her political career, Raimondo has also received thousands of dollars from the family that owns Purdue Pharma, a company widely blamed for fueling the opioid epidemic.

Brown’s campaign has sworn off corporate political action committee money, relying instead on individual contributions. The campaign boasts hundreds of volunteers that knock on doors and hold phone-banking sessions. In the first two months of the campaign, he said, they held over 70 events all across the state, “in people’s living rooms, talking to their friends and neighbors.” As for his policies, he’s running on “Medicare for All,” the creation of a public bank, tuition-free college, undoing Raimondo’s cuts to Medicaid, and a “Green New Deal.”

...Raimondo has refused to participate in even a single debate with her primary opponent. “She has funded her campaign with millions of dollars from Wall Street and corporations in an attempt to buy the election, while doing no debates with me about our records and our visions for the state,” Brown said. “So, it’s really-- the kind of campaign she’s running is not democracy.” Raimondo told the Providence Journal she skipped out on debating because Brown is “not operating in good faith,” accusing him of telling lies.

The only conclusion one can come to when a candidate avoids debate, Brown said, is that the candidate has an indefensible record. “And in her case, it’s a record of always working for Wall Street and corporations at the expense of the people. It’s a record of cutting Medicaid and giving out corporate giveaways, handouts, out to handpicked corporations that are often her campaign donors,” he continued.

“It’s a record of taking money from the executives of a gas company and then turning around and announcing that we’re going to do ‘whatever we have to to make sure we’re successful here at building a fracked gas and diesel oil burning plant in Rhode Island,’ which would be bad for everyone in the state, bad for our future, bad for our children. The only one it’s good for is the corporation. The fracked gas corporation, they’d make a bundle off Rhode Islanders, and Gov. Raimondo gets campaign contributions from them in return.”

Frank Bruni looked at that pile of congealed puke and calls it "moderate" and just could not wait to bash Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in his shameless and misleading propaganda column. "She can't tweet worth a damn," he wrote, "and the same goes for Instagram. She winces at talk of a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent and cringes at the growing use of 'corporatist' as a slur against Democratic politicians deemed too cozy with business interests. She thinks that big companies often need to be prodded forcefully to do right by their employees, but that it’s bad policy and bad politics to paint them as the enemy." No one will ever confuse Gina Raimondo with an enemy of Big Business; no need to worry about that. She's an old style conservative who even hates the idea of a minimum wage for workers.

She recalled an exchange with college students not long ago. One of them said: “I get who you are. You’re one of those spineless centrists.”

“And I was like, ‘Excuse me?’,” she said. “It takes a lot of spine to be a centrist in America today. You get whacked from the left and whacked from the right. That’s my life. I get whacked.”

Moderate Democrats have certainly had their day and their sway. In fact the passions of the left arise in part from how much compromise there has been-- and here we are stuck with Donald Trump. The rage of less moderate Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is earned and righteous. And Raimondo said precisely that to me.

But Ocasio-Cortez is by no means the whole of the Democratic Party. And is the leftward lurch that she personifies the best and safest bet for 2020? I worry, because there’s no political priority higher than limiting Trump to one term. Raimondo also worries-- a lot.

“So many Democrats just assume we’re going to win,” she said. “They underestimate how hard it’s going to be.” And it might be a serious tactical mistake, she added, to nominate any candidate who seems to be at war with capitalism itself or entertains the idea of a guaranteed minimum income.

“We have become the party that is anti-business,” she told me. “We need to be the party of work.”

She acknowledged that “the system we have today is totally broken.” She cited grotesque income inequality. She noted that too many Americans have no economic security and no prospects for achieving it.

“But I fall in the camp of: Let’s fix it,” she said. “Let’s embrace business to come to the table. Someone needs to make the case that it’s in the best interest of businesses and wealthy people to be better corporate citizens. Pay for health care. Help people get their college degree. Pay for job training.”

Along those lines, she recently proposed that companies doing business in Rhode Island be taxed up to $1,500 annually for every employee who is enrolled in Medicaid because he or she can’t get health insurance through a company-sponsored plan. “I hope that they’re embarrassed,” she said.

But, she added, “Where I think we are at risk is if all we do is beat up and crap on businesses.”

Sound like a Republican to you? Even Bruni admits her right-wing bullshit is "an exaggeration of where the party is." But he forgives her instantly for it; "I take her point." He sure does. He goes on the moan that "The media attention to full-throttle progressives among newly elected House Democrats is disproportionate to their numbers, and it sometimes obscures a sizable, practical middle. Besides, their more moderate peers are the ones who wrested seats from Republicans in districts that, like America, aren’t deep red or emphatically blue. 'I don’t think the lefties can win a general election,' Raimondo said. But, she conceded, 'Who knows? I’m not running in 2020. I could have missed the boat.'"

David Segal, a former Green Party city councilman who later joined the Democrats, represented East Providence in the state House and founded Rhode Island's Progressive Caucus, told us that "Decades of neoliberal policies that assume we should outsource political decisions to 'the market' have ruined untold millions of lives and left our democracy strained. Just as a consensus is emerging that we must act to systematically reform our political economy by instituting a new, progressive social contract, implementing state programs that provide for the general welfare, and undermining the power of this generation's robber barons, my governor gains praise in the paper of record by asserting that we should solve of nation's vast problems by begging our corporate overlords for more crumbs. It's appalling, but in the context of Raimondo's record of subservience to Wall Street and the donor class, it is anything but surprising."

Three More Primaries This Week: New Hampshire Today, Rhode Island Mañana, New York Thursday

In a few hours we should have results from New Hampshire's first congressional district, where Carol Shea Porter is retiring, and from the gubernatorial race. This is 2018's last contested congressional primary in the country. We'll get back to that in a moment. Tomorrow we'll be watching Rhode Island, where a a disgusting pair of corrupt conservative Democrats, Governor Gina Raimondo and Lt. Governor Daniel McKee, are fighting for reelection. And then Thursday, it's New York's non-federal primaries. Lots of excitement-- and probably lots of disappointment.

Last time I counted there were a dozen Democrats, 5 Republicans and a really horrible independent, Shawn O'Connor (who challenged Shea-Porter in 2016, first as a Democrat backed by Bernie (no one is perfect), then as an "independent"-- but always from the right and always steeped in dishonesty.

As of the August 22 FEC reporting deadline, 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans had raised significant money and gotten most of the endorsements.

• Carpetbagger and ex-Marine Maura Sullivan (D)- $1,840,889- The rotgut conservative among Democrats, endorsed by EMILY's List and right-of-center Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton (conveniently, one of the current signifiers that a candidate is terrible).
• State Senator and sexual harasser Andy Sanborn (R)- $865,440 (mostly self-funded), endorsed by Rand Paul, Corey Lewandowski, Gun Owners of America and a gaggle of right-wing state Reps.
• Executive Councilor Chris Pappas (D)- $823,289- Clearly the establishment candidate, endorsed by Jeanne Shaheen, Maggie Hassan and Annie Kuster and the majority of Democratic state Representatives, state Senators and local mayors, as well as lots of unions, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, End Citizens United, and the Giffords gun safety organization (the 2 last ones an indication that he's the DCCC candidate). He's openly gay.
• Corrupt lobbyist Eddie Edwards (R)- $628,699, endorsed by Rudy Giuliani, Rick Santorum, and former Senator Bob Smith. He's openly African-American.

Levi & some guy

Progressives running include Carol Shea-Porter's chief of staff, Naomi Andrews-- who only raised $86,641 but has been endorsed by Shea-Porter as well as by Donna Edwards, Marcy Kaptur and the Feminist Majority PAC-- and Levi Sanders (yep, Bernie's son), who raised even less money than Andrews ($39,270) and was endorsed by Ro Khanna, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy and a couple of state Reps. Unlike the other top candidates, he explicitly backs Medicare-for-All and tuition-free college and trade schools-- Bernie issues. Bernie hasn't endorsed him and Levi lives just outside the district.

Other Medicare-for-All (and single-payer) proponents are Mark MacKenzie, who raised $277,110 and has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the SEIU and 18 other unions; Lincoln Soldati, who raised $156,967; Mindi Messmer, who raised $100,569; Deaglan McEachern, who raised $215,085; William Martin, a vanity candidate; and Paul Cardinal, another vanity candidate.

There are also two Democrats, former Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand and former state Sen. Molly Kelly (the establishment candidate) competing to take on almost certain winner, popular GOP incumbent Chris Sununu. Kelly has raised $639,000 to Marchand's $291,000.

On to tomorrow's Rhode Island primary. Rhode Island is, ostensibly, one of the bluest states in the union-- D+10. And Hillary beat Trump 54.4% to 38.9%. But a corrupt and reactionary Democratic machine controls the state and people are sick of it-- and sick of Raimondo and Lt. Governor McKee, both just Republicans with disguised as conservative Democrats. Progressive former Secretary of State Matt Brown is challenging her and Berniecrat state Rep. Aaron Regunberg is going after McKee. If Raimondo wins the primary there's a good chance progressives will just sit on their hands in November and let Cranston Mayor Allan Fung (R), beat her. Yeah, she's that disgusting-- and has national ambitions. Wealthy Republicans have been funneling money into Rhode Island to help the conservative Democrats.

And then on Thursday... New York. But this is getting long-- and New York will double it-- so let me take on New York tomorrow or Thursday morning, OK?


UPDATE: NH-01:

Just 6 small precincts left to count in in the district. What do you think November will look like? Trump beat Hillary here 48.2% to 46.6%. And the PVI is R+2. Today 61,503 Democrats voted and just 47,058 Republicans. Expect a midterm bloodbath... and not just in New Hampshire. Anywhere where there are significant numbers of independent voters, the Republicans who have enabled and rubber-stamped Trump will suffer.

Beyond The Slogan The Democrats Stole From Papa John's Pizza...

Monday morning's NY Times had an OpEd, A Better Deal For American Workers, by Senate minority leader Little Chucky Schmucky, the non-presidential candidate politician who's taken the most in bribes from Wall Street, a cool $26,601,840 as of this morning. "Americans are clamoring for bold changes to our politics and our economy," he began. "They feel, rightfully, that both systems are rigged against them, and they made that clear in last year’s election. American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests. Today, Democrats will start presenting that better deal to the American people." Bold changes, unrigging the system, taking from elites and special interests to make things more equitable for ordinary working families... if that doesn't equate with Chuck Schumer in your mind, you're not alone. A less credible messenger for economic populism could never be found anywhere, ever. How comfortable are you with a crooked Wall Street whore like Schumer mouthing a Bernie message? "The wealthiest special interests can spend an unlimited, undisclosed amount of money to influence elections and protect their special deals in Washington. As a result, our system favors short-term gains for shareholders instead of long-term benefits for workers." Schumer is exactly who they're spending money on to influence the country's politics he's bemoaning. And, again, in unsell-aware self-description, he declares that "for far too long, government has gone along, tilting the economic playing field in favor of the wealthy and powerful while putting new burdens on the backs of hard-working Americans."

Schumer seems to have absorbed complaints progressives have been making about him and his kind for over a decade, writing "Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly-- so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for. Not after today. Democrats will show the country that we’re the party on the side of working people-- and that we stand for three simple things."

I'd rather have this message than a reactionary message or no message at all, but it's going to take a lot more than an OpEd to persuade me that corrupt corporatists like Schumer mean a word of it:

First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy.

Over the next several months, Democrats will lay out a series of policies that, if enacted, will make these three things a reality. We’ve already proposed creating jobs with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan; increasing workers’ incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15; and lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave.

...Right now, there is nothing to stop vulture capitalists from egregiously raising the price of lifesaving drugs without justification. We’re going to fight for rules to stop prescription drug price gouging and demand that drug companies justify price increases to the public. And we’re going to push for empowering Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for older Americans.

Right now our antitrust laws are designed to allow huge corporations to merge, padding the pockets of investors but sending costs skyrocketing for everything from cable bills and airline tickets to food and health care. We are going to fight to allow regulators to break up big companies if they’re hurting consumers and to make it harder for companies to merge if it reduces competition.

Right now millions of unemployed or underemployed people, particularly those without a college degree, could be brought back into the labor force or retrained to secure full-time, higher-paying work. We propose giving employers, particularly small businesses, a large tax credit to train workers for unfilled jobs. This will have particular resonance in smaller cities and rural areas, which have experienced an exodus of young people who aren’t trained for the jobs in those areas.

If there's one thing we should have learned by now, it's that if policies are important as follow-through, rhetoric, narrative, and emotional signifiers are at least as important to voters. For one thing, the Democratic Party should focus, in some meaningful way, on changing the way it does business. There was a lesson the Democrats should have learned from the Wasserman Schultz scandal. They still haven't. Thankfully, Schumer's messaging is coming from Bernie and from Elizabeth Warren, not from the Clinton wrong of the party but unless someone has a PhD will they even understand what he's talking about? As Claiborne Deming, who helped start SumOfUs.org and is the current VP of Impact.College, explained yesterday, "In order to define an 'us' we have to define a 'them,' and that 'them' must be larger than Donald Trump. When talking about monopolies, Schumer first speaks about antitrust laws, and then says, vaguely, that they'll break up corporations 'if they're hurting consumers.' That puts the focus on policy and an economic framing. It's wonky. It has no 'them' aside from some ethereal policy failure, removed from the lives and lived experience of actual Americans. It's cautious language, designed not to offend. I would take it a step further and blame the collusion of big corporations and big government, and then name names. Point out that a Verizon lobbyist leads the FCC. If we force the GOP to side with cable companies, we've won. Instead of speaking of the opioid crisis as a natural disaster, name the companies that pocketed billions of dollars from hooking millions of Americans on drugs. Name Wall Street banks and the problems of runaway financialization. Don't be afraid to make enemies."

Deming goes on to point out that Americans' confidence in institutions is at historic lows. "Look at that list and see what Republicans are against-- the press, with an approval rate in the mid-20s, government, with approval rating in the mid-thirties (presidency and Supreme Court) or low teens (Congress). What is the Democratic Party against? None of those, really. What is the GOP for? The military and police, the two groups with the highest confidence. And organized religion, in the low forties. What are Dems for? Government and schools, in the mid-thirties. And unions, in the mid-twenties. IMHO, Dems need to be very aggressive about being for small business (70% confidence) and against big business (20% confidence). We need to explain why Congress (12% confidence and likely lower by the end of the year) is broken (big money, gerrymandering, corporate lobbying). We should be against big banks (32%)."

He believes that the Democrats' effort yesterday is "a decent start" but that they're "still committing the same errors we've seen from wonky politicians that have had difficulty connecting with Americans emotionally (Hillary, Kerry, Gore). Obama had charisma and 'hope' at the right moment. Bill Clinton had charisma, 'I feel your pain'... We'll need candidates who can connect with Americans where we are emotionally and really side with our worldviews, not merely try to lecture at us that we should rationally choose their policies. It's when people believe that the candidate is really on of them that they will do their utmost to get that person into office. And you do not get there by trying to be inoffensive and appeal to everyone at once."

That sound like the perfect definition of @IronStache-- Randy Bryce, the progressive iron worker running in Wisconsin against Paul Ryan, someone who has authenticity and a brand the DCCC has never been able to help one candidate create init's entire miserable history of abject failure and loss. His message is more credible than Schumer's or Pelosi's. The House Dems chose Rhode Island moderate David Cicilline, NYC corporate liberal Hakeem Jeffries and far far right Blue Dog corruption monger Cheri Bustos, a Rahm Emanuel protégée, co-chairs of the House Democratic Policy & Communications Committee, to deliver their messaging message (in an OpEd for CNN. "Washington Republicans," they wrote, "are unable to uphold the basic bargain they made with the American people when they were elected: to fight to create new good-paying jobs and support sustained economic growth. The simple truth is the economy isn't working the way it should; incomes and wages are not keeping up with the cost of living. Wage stagnation, underemployment, the exploding cost of a college education and the erosion of pensions are leaving many without hope. From rural towns to inner cities, millions can no longer achieve the American dream. Meanwhile, Washington special interests and powerful corporations have acquired more and more wealth." What reader wouldn't then ask himself or herself if the Democrats did more or would do more?

Through A Better Deal, we will create opportunities for those who need them most, not just those at the very top. We'll make government responsive to all hardworking Americans, not just a select few. And we'll make certain that if you work hard that you can support your family, that you can retire with the security and dignity that you've earned, and that your children can get the skills and knowledge they need to secure good-paying jobs in their hometowns.

For Democrats, this is our collective vision. This is not a slogan. It's who we are and what we intend to accomplish for the American people.

First, our plan starts by creating millions of good-paying, full-time jobs by directly investing in our crumbling infrastructure-- and putting people back to work building our roads and bridges. To help our small businesses thrive, we will prioritize entrepreneurs over giving tax breaks to special interests. We will fight for a living wage-- so parents don't have to work three or four jobs just to pay rent. And we will keep our promise to millions of workers who earned a pension, Social Security and Medicare so they can retire with dignity.

Second, we will lower the crippling cost of prescription drugs and the cost of an education that leads to a good job with a college degree or a technical skill. And we will crack down on monopolies and the concentration of economic power that has led to higher prices for consumers, workers and small businesses-- and make sure Wall Street never endangers Main Street again.

Third, we will offer new tax incentives to employers to invest in their workforce through training and education. To make sure our country stays on the cutting edge, we will bring high-speed Internet to every community in America and offer an apprenticeship to millions of new workers. We will encourage innovation, invest in advanced research and ensure start-ups and small businesses can compete and prosper. By making it possible for every American to get the skills, tools and knowledge to find a job or to move up in their career, we'll not only improve individual lives, we'll also stay competitive in the global economy.

Juan Williams, writing for The Hill Monday, pointed out a Washington Post/ABC News poll that found 51% of registered voters say Trumpanzee won't be a factor for them in their 2018 decisions and that only 24% say they plan to vote in opposition to Trump-- countered by the 20% who say they will go to the polls solely to support congressional Republicans backing Trump.

That split-- a 4-point deficit for Trump-- is smaller than the 10-point disadvantage for President Obama going into the 2014 midterms or the 14-point disadvantage for President Bush going into the 2006 midterms.

“A majority of Americans see the Democratic Party as ‘just standing against Trump’ rather than presenting a coherent alternative-- a stance that may not be enough to get voters to the polls next year,” according to an ABC News report on the poll.

...The new plan presents Democrats as the party creating jobs; offering job training; keeping healthcare costs low while making college affordable; and pushing higher wages including a hike in the minimum wage. The plan is called: “A Better Deal-- Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages.”

This is the “strong, bold, sharp-edged and common sense economic agenda” Schumer promised in a television interview last month.

Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.), who is the most popular national politician with a 57 percent approval rating, has been calling for this kind of clear, Trump-free branding to convince voters that Democrats are “on the side of the working class of this country.”

But what about the thrill that comes from fighting Trump? What about the blood sport of responding to his bullying tweets and his name-calling; and giving attention to the ongoing probe into his campaign’s alleged ties to Russia in the 2016 race?

That fight is a “fool’s errand,” according to Steve Phillips, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Writing in the New York Times, Phillips argued Democrats are never going to win over Trump voters. He sees only a waste of time in trying to win “support from conservative, white working-class voters susceptible to racially charged appeals.”

Phillips favors a focus on getting Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton last year to come out for the midterms-- with specific attention to black voters whose turnout rates dropped in 2016. He also wants to win back Democrats who opted to vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee.

The opposing view calls for Democrats to reach out to Trump voters.

Democrats have to “move to the center and reject the siren calls of the left, whose policies and ideas have weakened the party,” according to Mark Penn, who served as chief strategist in Clinton’s 2008 run for the presidential nomination.

This debate about the right message and the right audience for congressional Democrats going into 2018 extends to uncertainty about the right candidates to run for president in 2020.

Who would be on the perfect ticket for Democrats to keep Trump from a second term in the White House?

  Following the National Governors Association meeting this month, two Democratic governors-- Montana’s Steve Bullock and Rhode Island’s Gina Raimondo-- are getting a lot of attention in Washington. [Note: Raimondo defines Democratic political corruption, so of course hacks like Cole reflexively push her.]

They are not political firebrands like Sanders or Warren. They don’t go on liberal political talk shows. [Note #2: No, they-- or at least Raimondo-- hang out with lobbyists and Wall Street vampires.]

But they have established themselves as solution-oriented politicians able to win with Democrats while attracting support from independents and Republicans.

Solution-oriented? In reaching out to Wall Street and more elites who are loathed by voters? The Democrats don't need corrupt conservatives; that's what the GOP is for. And they don't need announcement of slogans; they need Democrats showing how to work for principles and values, men and women like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, as 3ell as Ro Khanna, Ted Lieu, Barbara Lee, Jeff Merkley, Pramila Jayapal, Marek Pocan, Jamie Raskin, Judy Chu, Alan Grayson, Tammy Baldwin... Best advise for Democrats I heard all day: "don't just talk about it, be about it."

Ro Khanna is a member of the Budget Committee. This is what he told his constituents in the South Bay last week: "Once again, House Republicans think the best policy solution is giving a massive tax cut to the wealthy while leaving working families left to fend for themselves. First it was with health care, now it’s with the entire federal budget. The draft GOP budget resolution is an extreme case of putting special interests first. Instead of strengthening programs that help people get back on their feet, ensure regulation of the financial industry, and improve benefits for workers, the GOP is placing more than $200 billion of this funding on the chopping block. All to hopefully introduce an unfair tax reform plan. A budget should reflect the values of our nation, and I will work with my colleagues on the Budget Committee to make sure the version that goes to the House floor does just that."

We asked the two progressive stalwarts campaigning for congressional seats in Illinois, Geoffrey Petzel, who is running for the Chicagoland seat Peter Roskam is holding on it, and David Gill, who is running for the downstate seat held by sad sack Paul Ryan rubber-stamp Rodney Davis. Geoff:

"Every day I talk with voters. The unified message that I hear is that people are angry-- angry at the Trump mess, angry at Republicans for trying to take away healthcare, and angry at Democrats for doing nothing.The Democratic Party has a problem. They aren't listening to the people. They don't have a unified solution on healthcare, or minimum wage, or the big banks... or anything. For Democrats to be successful they need to be unified around progressive ideas and push to implement them. In our district, voters want elected officials to make their lives better (or at least, not make them worse). People want a healthcare solution, they want adequate environmental protections and they want a level playing field. That is why I advocate for a single payer healthcare system. I talk all the time about implementing a tax system that imposes fees on power plants that emit greenhouse gases and provides tax breaks for wind and solar investments. I advocate for breaking up large banks and large corporations that monopolize markets and prevent small businesses from having a fighting chance at success and I strongly support increasing the minimum wage. In my District, people want a Congressman who will fight for them and their families and ignore the special interests that have over run our political system."

Dr. David Gill's message on this is kind of personal, related to the career that he's been engaged in all of his adult life-- health care: "Voters are looking for politicians who actually care more about the well-being of ordinary citizens than that of insurance companies, arms manufacturers, Wall Street banks and oil and pharmaceutical companies. As a physician, I have been providing CARE to people from all walks of life for nearly 30 years. I openly criticize the corporate ownership of our politics and our government. By putting people first, both in my professional career and in my political aspirations, I have been able to perform far better than other Democratic candidates in my congressional district. I intend to keep pushing my message of single-payer healthcare, tuition-free public universities, and a $15 per hour minimum wage, and I have little doubt that this message, delivered by a demonstrated caregiver, will succeed next November."

Blue America is enthusiastic about two candidates running in the CA-45 Orange County district Mimi Walters technically represents, even though she lives in a fancy mansion on the beach in a neighboring district. One is former Sherrod Brown staffer Kia Hamadanchy. He was very frank in his assessment of the Democratic Party messaging and re-branding assault yesterday.

Personally I'm not really looking to the national party when it comes to messaging  and how we move forward as a party. One- because it's an area where we completely failed as a party and I don't think there has been a real examination as to why. Two- because we need a new vision for the Democrat party and that vision is going to come from the grassroots and from candidates all over the country who represent a new generation of leadership and the kind of different thinking that we need.

A lot of what is in the Better Deal plan is clearly designed to attempt to appeal to Trump voters in states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. However I'm sure that when it comes to Orange County the advice I'll get will be the complete opposite and that I'll be told I need to run as a centrist Democrat to have any chance of winning. Frankly I think that's plainly wrong and if we don't strongly for progressive values in this election, we'll lose. People have to be inspired and you have to give them something to believe in and a reason to get out and vote. And that's not by running a cookie cutter campaign that doesn't resonate in any way shape or form. The biggest problem we face as Democrats right now is that we don't fight for working people anymore. And the only way to fix that is by being very clear about where we stand not just in where we are in the issues but with how we go about communicating that to voters.

Are We Doomed To Suffer From Political Corruption Forever? Only Voters Can Really Put A Stop To It

Not all corrupt politicians are Republicans: Gina & Andy

I haven't read Matt Taibbi's new book, The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap, yet. But Matt Taylor did an interview with him at Vice.com that gives you a good idea about which trees Taibbi is barking up. Taylor asked him about the assertions in the book that the Bush administration was much tougher on financial crime than the Obama White House. "How much of the blame for that," he asks, "can we lay on Attorney General Eric Holder and how much can be attributed to Obama and his prerogatives?" Taibbi didn't beat around the bush.

I never buy the excuse that the president has been misinformed or the president has been duped by his advisers. We've heard that excuse in other arenas: the national-security arena, the civil-rights arena, the whole question of rendition and torture and drone assassinations. We hear people saying, "Oh, if only Obama knew!" This is funny for me, because in Russia they have this saying: "If only the czar knew!" That existed for centuries-- people had this implicit belief that the czar was a good man and it was just the people around him doing all these terrible things at the local level. That speaks to the desire of people to want to believe in the goodness of their leaders. I voted for Obama; I spent time around him on the campaign trail. I like him personally, you know, from a distance, just as a person. And he's smart. But there's just no way around it-- on this issue he hasn't been good. And it's hard to make any other argument that he's not responsible for a lot of this. I wish there was a way to make that argument.

Right now, Blue America is only backing two candidates for governor-- Angel Taveras in Rhode Island and Zephyr Teachout in New York. Both are running against excruciatingly corrupt candidates, respectively, Gina Raimondo and Andrew Cuomo, politicians well-known for their shady relationships with Wall Street predators. We have enough Chris Christies, Nathan Deals, Scott Walkers, Rick Scotts and Bob McDonnells… and they are not all Republicans. Conservative Democrats like Cuomo and Raimondo are just as corrupt as Republicans.



Providence Mayor Angel Taveras is taking on Wall Street in his role as the city's chief executive and in his bid for Governor. Providence is suing Santandeer Bank for redlining in minority areas and Providence is serving as the lead plaintiff against high frequency traders who used their influence to game the market.

Angel is now running against big Wall Street backed former venture capitalist, Treasurer Gina Raimondo, who not only has taken well over $500,000 in campaign contributions from Wall Street but is doing everything she can to protect shady hedge fund contracts that manage public dollars.

The Providence Journal reported Raimondo's rationale for keeping these hedge fund contracts secret "to limit the ability of competitors to poach their people and avoid the disruption that could follow" and to "minimize attention around [hedge fund manager] compensation. Such attention led to the kidnapping of [a] prominent hedge fund manager."

Angel then took Raimondo to task:

"Treasurer Raimondo is keeping hedge fund contracts secret, because she is more worried about hedge fund managers being kidnapped or losing an employee than the public’s right to know what’s in these mega-million dollar contracts. The Treasurer should be looking out for our interests-- not Wall Street and hedge fund billionaires.

"As a former Venture Capitalist, Treasurer Raimondo has consistently shown that she will choose the Wall Street way of doing business over what’s best for Rhode Island working families. While we are paying $70 million in fees to these hedge funds, the Treasurer is choosing their wishes on what’s publicly available over the Providence Journal’s. In a nutshell, it’s a value statement."

Zephyr's opponent is already in the next stage of corruption-- intense scrutiny and growing public revulsion. Last night we caught up with her by phone while she campaigned Upstate. She reminded us that "as Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo was in the position to investigate and prosecute the worst financial criminals, those who brought about the 2008 crash. Instead, he gave immunity to Clayton Holdings, the firm that oversaw tens of thousands of fraudulent loans which were then packaged and sold by Wall Street. Clayton was a client of his close aide, Howard Glaser." She was just warming up. 

He also agreed to take no action against ratings agencies and "terminate all investigations" against them, and they admitted no wrongdoing. Andrew Cuomo also took no action on the foreclosure fraud scandal.

Contrast that to his position as Governor, where he has refused, despite overwhelming popular support, to decriminalize marijuana, leading to young men and women-- disproportionately those of color-- being imprisoned for smoking a joint.

In Andrew Cuomo's New York, there, are two sets of laws, one for the wealthy and well-connected--who get a pass-- and another for the rest of us.

This failure to understand the very idea of law-- that is applies the same to all, regardless of wealth-- has been on display in the last two weeks, as new revelations show that his administration tried to block corruption-related subpoenas to his close friends and business associates.

The most fundamental job of democratic government-- before partisan or policy preferences-- is to treat all participants equally. But right now the criminal justice system is upside down, and those in power get preferential treatment, while those out of power aren't given a second chance.

Please consider helping Blue America's law-and-order gubernatorial candidates here.