Republicans On The Wrong Side Of History... On The NRA And On Putin-Gate

Teachers with Guns by Nancy Ohanian

On the extreme right, the Freedom Caucus has decided they can replace Ryan with neo-fascist Mark Meadows (R-NC) as Speaker and they are doing everything they can to undermine Ryan and bolster Meadows. Mainstream conservatives have their own problems with the incompetent and ineffectual Ryan and are also eager for him to announce his retirement and move on. (Ryan is widely rumored to be waiting 'til after Easter to announce he isn't running, saving himself the career-tarnishing embarrassment of being beaten-- possibly heavily beaten-- by a construction worker in November.)

On Friday Elaina Plott, reporting for The Atlantic, noted that growing numbers of congressional Republicans are pressing for action on guns... pressing on Ryan. Needless to say, Meadows and the Freedom caucus aren't among them. And she noted that it's a month since the Parkland NRA/GOP massacre and a month since Señor Trumpanzee "told lawmakers he didn’t want to wait 'two weeks, three weeks, four weeks' to address gun violence in America, when 'people sort of forget and we go on.'...[S]students have helped keep the issue alive. And as Trump has backtracked on proposals he supported one month ago, including universal background checks and some kind of assault-weapons ban, reporters are continuing to ask questions."

As many Americans call for tighter gun laws after a mass shooting, Republicans are usually silent. According to the Republican lawmakers I spoke to for this story, there are several reasons why this is the case, from fears of primary challengers to the gun lobby. But, in the wake of the Parkland shooting, an increasing number of Republicans appear ready to abandon these concerns in favor of a more proactive response to gun violence. Now, they’re eager for their leadership to do the same, meaning an issue that has long united the party could suddenly expose even more rifts in an already fractured conference.

“There is a genuine lack of serious discussion on these issues,” Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who chairs the Second Amendment Caucus, told me. “Our leadership seems like the sheriff deputies at the Florida shooting: They don’t want to go in and take fire, and instead just hope the issue will burn itself out.”

Since 1990, the NRA and other so-called "gun rights" groups have given members of Congress and candidates for Congress $37,225,077 of which $32,287,496 went to Republicans and $4,257,394 went to Democrats, almost exclusively to Blue Dogs from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. (Note: the DCCC is still actively-- very actively-- recruiting NRA-backed candidates for Congress, examples this cycle being Anthony Brindisi in New York, Ann Kirkpatrick in Arizona, Elaine Luria in Virginia and, perhaps worst of all, Jeff Van Drew in New Jersey.) Below are the dozen worst House members in terms of how much blood money they've taken-- but not including the millions of dollars the NRA spends helping their favorite candidates with independent expenditures-- from the NRA and other gun groups (since 1990).

So far this cycle the dozen biggest bribe takers from the gun groups are listed here... but remember, the really big spending will come in the next seven and a half months, as we close in on the midterm elections, when the NRA will be fighting to defend their top congressional allies-- at least in part with illegal Russian money.

As the progressive winner of the TX-23 primary Rick Trevino is in the late May runoff to determine which Democrat will go up against Republican gun-extremist Will Hurd. This morning he told us that "Since I've been running for US Congress 3 of the top 10 worst mass shootings in US history have taken place. As long as we have NRA backed candidates like Will Hurd in the House and Senate, nothing will change. If the American people want gun reform they need to look at who takes money from the NRA and vote them out. Also, this is not just a GOP problem. In my home town of Laredo, Texas Democrat Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX-28) has an A+ rating from the NRA. Any NRA backed candidate is garbage and needs to go and Democrats have to call out not just the GOP but NRA Dems within their ranks." That's why we love Rick-- outspoken and courageous. Please support his campaign here.

Brent Welder is running in an even redder district, and against an NRA favorite, Kevin Yoder in Kansas. "It is shameful," he told us, "that Rep. Kevin Yoder has decided that kowtowing to the corporate gun lobby and the NRA is more important than the lives of our children. We need leaders now more than ever on this issue and I will lead the efforts of reform and call out all gun lobby bootlickers like Rep. Kevin Yoder."

Levi Tillemann, the newest candidate Blue America is supporting, is running for the suburban Denver seat NRA ally Mike Coffman occupies. "It is becoming more and more evident," he told us, "that Republicans like Mike Coffman really have no empathy or real concern for the victims of gun violence.  The only thing that matters to GOP members is the continuing flow of green cash from the NRA spigot.  I call on Mike Coffman to return every penny he has accepted from the NRA and to stand up to the NRA and protect our children by passing safe gun laws."

On Friday, the editorial board of the Washington Post declared flatly that History Won't Be Kind, Republicans. The Republicans who care enough to have bothered to read it would have found out the board is furious at them for enabling Trump, Nunes and Putin. They blame the same guy who is getting all the pushback on a dysfunctional gun policy: Paul Ryan. "The nation's intelligence community," they wrote, "concluded long ago that the Russians interfered in the 2016 presidential election in an effort to hurt the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. In the face of this unprecedented attack on U.S. democracy, House Republicans have produced a report that casts doubt on the work of U.S. intelligence professionals whose conclusions were politically damaging to the White House. This was a new low for the Republican majority and their leader, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-WI)."

On Tuesday, House Intelligence Committee Republicans officially stopped pretending to investigate Russian election meddling, handing over a draft report to their Democratic colleagues. They did not deny what is plainly impossible to refute, that the Russians aggressively interfered in the race to sow discord and undermine U.S. political institutions. But they disputed the intelligence community’s finding that the Russians engaged in these activities to help Mr. Trump. In fact, House Republicans are trying to draw connections between the Kremlin’s influence campaign and Ms. Clinton, always a convenient GOP punching bag, deflecting awkward questions about Russia’s clear affinity for Mr. Trump in 2016.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (CA), the Intelligence Committee’s ranking Democrat, and former intelligence officials decried the attempt to cast doubt on Russian intentions. “The four intelligence chiefs all agreed with the assessment, which was based on highly classified intelligence,” former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. told CNN. “This is a case of people living in their own reality bubbles when we can’t agree on basic facts.” Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III recently indicted 13 Russians for, among other things, “supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump... and disparaging Hillary Clinton.” It is already on the record that the Russians selectively released damaging information on Democrats but not Republicans.

Perhaps sensing that their position was untenable, Republican Intelligence Committee members admitted to reporters later on Tuesday that the Russians had, indeed, attempted to harm Ms. Clinton, if not to help Mr. Trump, as though doing the former does not imply the latter.

If they’re unclear about Russian intentions, leaders won’t draw the right lessons, or even ask the right questions. Why did the Kremlin dislike Ms. Clinton and favor Mr. Trump? What kinds of candidates will the Russians attack, or help? How should voters assess the president’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin?

House Intelligence Committee Republicans also insisted that they found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, just evidence of “bad judgment” in a few circumstances. It’s easy not to find evidence when you don’t look. Many potentially relevant witnesses went un-interviewed, and witnesses who refused to answer questions were let off the hook. Fortunately, while House lawmakers have decided that their work is done, the Senate Intelligence Committee continues investigating, as does Mr. Mueller. History will not judge kindly these legislators who abased themselves and their institution.

Anyone think it's just a coincidence that Putin laundered many millions of dollars into the Trump campaign through the NRA? And Paul Ryan... and the Republican Party-- on the wrong side of history? Yes, on everything.

Kiss Of Death Politics

Part of Señor Trumpanzee's absurd-- but effective-- pitch during his election campaign was about how he would be a champion for "the forgotten men and women of America." Instead he's been a champion for corporate executives, the Wall Street banksters and the wealthiest and greediest among us. And, slowly but surely, the forgotten men and women of America have begun to catch on. Among Trump's base, his one legislative accomplishment, the Tax Scam, isn't polling all that well. Only 28% of rural Americans back it and only 29% of non-college whites like it. Even among actual Trump votes, just 57% are taken in by the scam. 63% of voters say the Tax Scam was designed mostly to benefit corporations and the wealthy, compared with 22% who say it was designed to help all Americans equally.

More voters now say they trust Democrats rather than Republicans to handle the economy. Worse yet for Republicans is the new SSRS poll for CNN showing that the advantage Democrats have over Republicans in a hypothetical Congressional matchup is continuing to grow, an indication that the building 2018 midterm wave is becoming tsunami.

Among registered voters, 56% say they favor a Democrat in their congressional district, while 38% prefer a Republican. That 18-point edge is the widest Democrats have held in CNN polling on the 2018 contests, and the largest at this point in midterm election cycles dating back two decades. The finding follows several other public polls showing large double-digit leads for Democrats on similar questions.

Only Beltway goofballs like Cook are cautiously predicting Democrats will net the 24 votes needed for a House takeover. Less conservative prognosticators more in touch with electoral reality see the GOP being absolutely crushed next year, with the House Democrats winning not 2 dozen red seats but 4 or 5 dozen! Independents are largely through with the GOP, bad news for every Republican outside of the Old Confederacy. Nationally, independent voters now favor Democrats over Republicans "by a 16-point margin, 51% to 35%, similar to the 50% to 36% margin by which they favored Democrats in fall of 2005, ahead of Democrats' 2006 recapturing of the House and Senate. The Democrats hold a larger lead overall now because Republicans make up a smaller share of the electorate than they did in 2005. And those Republicans who are still in the electorate are less enthusiastic about voting next year than Democrats."

On Thursday, Politico referred to Trumpanzee, Ryan and McConnell "as anchors on Republicans’ poll numbers." Their own poll, by Morning Consult, shows the generic congressional ballot advantage for Democrats 44-34%. and with Trump's already dismal favorability ratings continuing to crater. "Democrats’ 10-point lead on the generic ballot," they note, "is their largest for the year. The party has a 15-point lead among female voters, the poll shows, and a 3-point edge among male voters. White voters are split-- 39 percent for Democrats and 38 percent for Republicans-- but Democrats have a 59-point lead among African-American voters and a 27-point lead among Hispanics."

The double digit leads all polls have begun showing, including by Republican firms, is enough to overcome gerrymandering in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and perhaps even Ohio. Polls are also predicting high turnouts instead of the low turnouts normal for midterm elections.

Laura Oatman is the progressive candidate running for the Orange County coastal seat occupied by Putin asset Dana Rohrabacher. Yesterday she told us that "This is the pattern; Trump, full of promises and gaudy baubles promising the world, be it a hotel, a golf course, or a wall. And like so many others before them, the businessmen, the bankers-- Americans have learned that Trump cannot be trusted.  That their hope for something different-- which is understandable-- was misplaced.  Regardless, I won’t need Trump’s kisses to Dana, nor Putin’s bot factories behind Dana’s pages, to energize the voters of CA-48 and bring positive change to this district."

Sam Jammal, the progressive candidate running for the northeast Orange County seat occupied by Trump rubber-stamp Ed Royce is already clobbering Royce with his willingness to put Trump's whims ahead of his own constituents' needs. "Voters in our community," he reminded us, "resoundingly rejected Donald Trump last year and polls show they reject him today in even larger margins. It amazes me that Ed Royce is willing to fight for Trump's priorities instead of his own constituents. There won't be a day where we don't tie Ed to the Trump agenda. He is a 97% vote for Trump in a district that went for Hillary by nearly 9%. Our community won't stand for this, especially now that Trump took away net neutrality and Royce voted for a tax reform bill that undermines homeowners, seniors and young people in our district just so his donors could get a tax cut."

And this is a position of Democratic congressional candidates not just in blue California, but even in red Texas. Rick Treviño is the progressive candidate taking on Will Hurd in South Texas. "For months now," he said, "Will Hurd has been doing his best to distance himself from Trump. I'm sorry buddy, that stink don't come off. I can smell that vote from here. The GOP and Hurd enabled Trump and they must atone for the damage they've unleashed on our society." Jason Westin is running in a west Houston seat that's ready to flip. "Here in the Texas 7th district," he told us, "Donald Trump was the first Republican to lose in decades, so we'd love to invite him to campaign with John Culberson. Our district voted for Mitt Romney by more than 20% over President Obama, but things changed with Mr. Trump and his circus tricks. Our district is highly educated and the 'distract and divide' strategy Mr. Trump used fell flat, and that was before we saw his performance as President. The PPP polling done recently showed in TX-07 that Mr. Trump had a 37% approval rating, but amazingly John Culberson was only at 31%. I'm not sure how anyone could be less popular than Mr. Trump, but John Culberson has found a way. John Culberson has the second highest 'Trump Score' rating in the House per FiveThirtyEight, so he's clearly trying to get Mr. Trump's support. That sounds wonderful to us."

We've been talking for months about the Trump "kiss of death." Analysis of polls is now confirming this. "Trump is the most polarizing national politician. Just under a third of voters, 32 percent, say an endorsement from Trump would make them more likely to support a congressional candidate. But more voters, 38 percent, say a Trump endorsement would make them less likely to vote for that candidate. There’s also an enthusiasm gap: The percentage of voters who say a Trump endorsement would make them much less likely to vote for that candidate, 32 percent, is equal to the combined percentage who say Trump’s endorsement would make them much or somewhat more likely to support that person." Democratic candidates are mocking Trump on Twitter and Facebook, begging him to come to their districts to campaign for the Republican incumbents who are viewed as Trump and Ryan rubber-stamps.

The two least popular figures, according to the poll, loom large on the Senate battlefield: former White House adviser Stephen Bannon and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Only 17 percent of voters say a Bannon endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, while 39 percent say his backing would make them less likely to support the candidate.

McConnell’s numbers aren’t much better: Just 18 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate he endorsed, while twice as many, 36 percent, would be less likely.

The Bannon-vs.-McConnell proxy battles are most likely to play out in GOP Senate primaries, but the Politico/Morning Consult poll is inconclusive on which man is more valuable nationally to a Republican audience. Three in 10 GOP voters say a McConnell endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate, but 23 percent say it would make them less likely. The numbers are similar for Bannon, the controversial Breitbart executive: 29 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by him, while 25 percent would be less likely.

Endorsements from most major political figures could hurt candidates more that they help them.

Democrats, meanwhile, hope to turn House Speaker Paul Ryan into a bogeyman for GOP congressional candidates. Ryan (R-Wis.) is a stronger surrogate than McConnell, but the percentage of voters who say his support would make them less likely to vote for a candidate (36 percent) is still greater than those it would make more likely (25 percent).

Want To Know Which Democrats NOT To Vote For In Primaries-- The Blue Dogs And New Dems Have Lists

Elizabeth Warren endorsed Katie Porter, who is very much NOT a New Dem

Last week, we looked at the Blue Dogs' first list of 2018 endorsed candidates. These will be the worst of the worst-- and yesterday the New Dems, who, with the Blue Dogs make up most of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, released their own list. There are a few candidates on both lists. The Blue Dog list is here. Snd these are the New Dems:

• CA-45- Dave Min, a former Chuck Schumer staffer who keeps telling me he's a progressive
• CA-48- Hans Keirstead, a DCCC recruit and Harley Rouda, who wanted to run as a progressive but must have changed his mind
• KS-02- Blue Dog Paul Davis
• MI-08- Elissa Slotkin
• MN-02- Angie Craig
• NE-02- Blue Dog Brad Ashford who boasts a Republican voting record from his one term in Congress
• NJ-11- Mikie Sherrill
• NY-22- Blue Dog Anthony Brindisi
• TX-06- Jana Lynne Sanchez
• TX-23- Blue Dog Jay Hulings
• VA-05- Blue Dog Roger Huffstetler

The bolded districts are the ones that Bernie won in the 2016 primaries.

Chrissy Houlahan, who’s running for Ryan Costello PA-06 seat in suburban Philly, was already on the New Dem list. The New Dems gave them each $1,000 plus "guidance about messaging and strategy," strategy which will be about how to pretend to voters that you're a real Democrat. The PAC is advising candidates how to handle questions about policy issues such as single-payer health insurance. 'The districts like mine-- what we talk about is pragmatism,' said Scott Peters, a very reactionary multimillionaire whop basically always votes against the interests of working families. He is absolutely "not in favor of the current 'Medicare for all' legislation in the House." He boasted to the press that his San Diego district will never vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. He's wrong. The New Dems admit that they are coordinating with the DCCC this cycle.

NewDemPAC reviewed the websites and press releases of candidates being vetted for the list. Candidates also had to participate in brief interviews.

Reviewing the websites? Most of their websites have no issues on them, a New Dem/DCCC strategy for tricking voters into supporting Republican-lite candidates. The other day, a progressive friend told me he wanted to make a very substantial contribution to Elissa Slotkin's campaign and asked me to check her out and advise him. I read what I could find and looked over her website and-- even before the New Dem info came out yesterday-- I was able to advise him against contributing to her. This is the note I sent him:

I don't know her. It's a tough district but not impossible in a wave year. Last year the PVI was R+2 and this year it's worse: R+4, although still winnable in a wave year. So, if she were a good candidate, it wouldn't be a waste.

One of the first things I always check out with a candidate is the issues page on their website. The DCCC tells their candidates to avoid putting up issues pages (because the DCCC is afraid of the progressive issues Democratic primary voters like and assumes general election voters oppose them, which is why the DCCC has been on a losing terrible streak for a decade). Elissa has no issues page. If you want me to talk with her and put her through the Blue America vetting process I'd be happy to; just introduce us. But from what I can see, it looks like she's just an identity-candidate (female military veteran, the DCCC's favorite flavor this year).

So far she hasn't raised the $5,000 that would trigger an FEC report and her GOP opponent has $400,000 in his war-chest. And there seems to be another Democratic woman in the race as well. I smell another DCCC garbage candidate but I'll call around and see what I can find.

I didn't have to call around. The New Dems endorsements came out.

This is what Elizabeth Warren had to say about Katie Porter, one of the progressive candidates for the CA-45 seat: "I trust Katie to fight for working families. I’m fighting for Katie, and I hope you will, too. Katie lives in Orange County, California-- in a district that Hillary Clinton won by five points last November. The Republican Congresswoman who holds that seat has voted with Donald Trump 97.8% of the time this year-- including votes to repeal health care for millions of Americans, defund Planned Parenthood, and gut the rules on Wall Street. Sending Katie to Congress in this winnable district would put us one seat closer to taking back the House in 2018. And Katie will give us another powerful voice in Washington who will stand up to the big banks and powerful corporations and fight for women, students, seniors, immigrants, and working people in her district and all across this country. I’ve seen Katie’s commitment and grit up close and personal. I’ve seen her determination to tell the story of a rigged game. And I’ve seen her put it all on the line to fight for what she believes in. Katie has been my partner in these fights for years-- and she’ll make a terrific partner in Congress."

The other progressive running for the CA-45 seat that Trump rubber stamp Mimi Walters holds, Kia Hamadanchi, has had enough experience in DC to know what the corrupt, Wall Street-owned New Dems are all about. This morning he said, "To be honest I don't know why any real progressive would want to pursue their endorsement. They reached out to us but we decided that it was not worth a response from us. I believe that Democrats need to fight for things like single payer or debt free college and that we shouldn't be afraid to stand for what believe in. We don't need to try and be Republican-lite or take large sums of money from Wall Street or Big Pharma. We lost the 2016 election because people no longer believed that Democrats stood for the interests of working people anymore. If we are really serious about taking back the House in 2018 that perception has to change and we don't get there by trying to be more like the Republican Party."

Rick Treviño is the progressive running in TX-23 on issues directly relating to working families-- not exactly the cup of tea the Blue Dogs or New Dems are remotely interested in. Hulings is perfect for them and would be another terrible choice for South Texas. And Treviño wasn't interested in a New Dem endorsement. "Without any debate or time amongst the constituents of TX 23rd district, the D.C. establishment has picked their candidate. I find it interesting that candidates running to represent the good people of TX 23 are courting the people of Washington and not the people of the district. I have visited 15 cities and driven close to 1500 miles in the last two weeks. I've seen areas without paved roads or schools. I've seen health clinics on the verge of shutting down due to a lack of funding. The people of TX 23rd are sick and tired of D.C. insiders and lobbyists hand picking their representatives. You won't find D.C. in my campaign, you'll only find the good people TX 23rd."

David Keith is widely considered the most talented young campaign manager in America. Randy Bryce was savvy enough to hire him to manage his campaign and Keith took up residence in beautiful-- if sometimes chilly-- Racine for a year and a half. He told us he and Bryce had no interest in Blue Dog or New Dem endorsements and that they're feeling a sense of solidarity to be the Congressional Progressive Caucus' first-- and at this point, only-- 2018 endorsed candidate. "Randy Bryce understands that running for a swing seat does not mean-- as is too often misunderstood in today's politics-- settling for a corporate agenda in exchange for campaign contributions. He understands that you don't win a swing seat by showing off your large number of firearms in exchange for a passing NRA grade, but rather, you run on an authentic message that crystalizes a working family agenda. When working families unite, as they did for Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama, you win more votes than the Republicans. That's our plan. It's the right plan for Wisconsin and it's the way we win."

Remember: New Dems & Blue Dogs are on the wrong side of this battle

UPDATE: As of Jan, 2018

These are the candidates the New Dems are trying to get into Congress-- use it as a guide of who not to vote for; no progressives on this list:

• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-02)
• Greg Stanton (AZ-09)
• Dave Min (CA-45)
• Harley Rouda (CA-48)
• Hans Keirstead (CA-48)
• Lauren Baer (FL-18)
• Jason Crow (CO-06)
• Paul Davis (KS-02)
• Elissa Slotkin (MI-08)
• Angie Craig (MN-02)
• Dean Phillips (MN-03)
• Dan McCready (NC-09)
• Brad Ashford (NE-02)
• Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)
• Max Rose (NY-11)
• Anthony Brindisi (NY-22)
• Mob-connected socialite Susie Lee (NV-03)
• Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06)
• Jana Lynne Sanchez (TX-06)
• Jay Hulings (TX-23)
• Ben McAdams (UT-04)
• RD Huffstetler (VA-05)
• Dan Kohl (WI-06)