You Don't Get A Second Chance To Make A First Impression-- And Tom Cotton Is Stuck

Tom Cotton now claims he was just joking around

Anyone who followed Cotton's single term in the House or his campaigns for the House and, last year, for the Senate already had a good idea about what they were dealing with: a manipulative extremist who will say or do anything to advance his childish far right-wing agenda. And he comes wrapped up in a Harvard education with a fancy magna cum laude bow, making it easy to assume he might know what he's talking about. He doesn't-- as he proved with that cockamamie letter to the Iranian mullahs last week. He made common cause with the radical extremists within Iran to scuttle the nuclear treaty being hammered out by the legitimate government in Tehran with the Obama Administration.

What's amazing it that Cotton was able to persuade 46 of his Republican colleagues-- though, ominously, not Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Corker (R-TN)-- to suspend reason and take a walk down Sedition Lane with him. The 46 of them signed the letter, which Cotton and some of his embarrassed colleagues' staffers are now hinting was "just a joke." No one finds it funny-- and Cotton certainly didn't defend it as a joke when it first caused an explosion among Democrats and the national media.

I suspect more than a few of the co-signers wish they had just told Cotton that freshman senators are supposed to be quiet and pay attention during their first year in the Senate. Tuesday we saw how Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candidate, former Admiral Joe Sestak, clobbered Republican incumbent Pat Toomey for signing this misanthropic letter. "[F]or Sen. Toomey to sign a letter to a foreign leader," said Sestak, "urging that leader to ignore the institution of the American Presidency is inexcusable, embarrassing, and shows a lack of experience and understanding about America’s standing in the world, led first and foremost by the U.S. President." Sestak's missive got more devastating as it went on:

When Sen. Toomey was a Congressman, he fundamentally misunderstood the proper use of our military in the world when he voted to send us into the Iraq War. Today, Sen. Toomey is again wrong in voicing directly to an adversarial leader his opposition to an ongoing process of American diplomacy, by Toomey’s signing of a letter to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who has called for “Death to America."

That Sen. Corker, the Republican Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, did not sign the letter underscores the recklessness of Sen. Toomey’s political actions – that he would tell a leader who wishes us ill to ignore our President’s endeavor. Signing the letter only serves to disrupt a possible effort to bring about a peaceful resolution to the nuclear weapons issue with Iran.

And if the nuclear talks fail, Toomey offers no other option except to go directly to war. Then, once again, we will have a representative who will have pushed our nation into war and-- with no skin of his own in the game-- will once again walk away from the men and women he sent into battle by voting against 12 Department of Veterans Affairs' appropriations bills after his vote for the war in Iraq.

Cotton won't have to face Arkansas voters for 5 years, but several of the suckers he persuaded to sign his joke letter, like Toomey, are up for reelection in 2016. Others who could be in trouble are Ron Johnson (R-WI), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Rob Portman (R-OH), Richard Burr (R-NC) and, probably most vulnerble of all, Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Yesterday the Chicago Sun-Times pointed out how 4 prospective congressmembers are looking at what a big mistake Kirk made by signing the letter. "That Illinois Democrat Reps. Robin Kelly, Tammy Duckworth, Bill Foster and Cheri Bustos hit Kirk on the letter shows that the race is on-- as each one is contemplating a Democratic primary bid... Kelly said in a statement that Kirk, in signing the letter, 'failed to display the party independence and policy thoughtfulness he’d promised when he said he’d work across the aisle on important matters like our national security.' ”

In a statement, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called the letter a “political stunt” and “a cynical effort by Republican Senators to undermine sensitive international negotiations.”

After Kelly sent out her statement, I asked the other potential Senate candidates for their thoughts. Duckworth and Bustos did not use Kirk’s name.

Duckworth said in an email, “Those who signed this letter have set a dangerous precedent that impedes a President’s ability to conduct foreign policy and negotiate on issues of great importance to our nation.”

Bustos’ spokesman said in an email that she is “extremely disappointed in this political maneuver that she views as not only counterproductive to critical negotiations . . . but reinforces the mixed-up priorities of the letter’s signers.”

In an emailed statement, Foster cited former Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, R-Mich., who famously said we must stop “partisan politics at the water’s edge.” Foster wrote: “Republican Senators, including Mark Kirk, have forgotten that message today in their irresponsible desire to continue partisan attacks against the President.”

Besides Corker, there were a few Republican senators who realized Cotton's approach was insane and who refused to go along. Susan Collins (R-ME): "It did not seem to me to be appropriate for us to be writing the ayatollah at this critical time during the negotiations, and frankly, I doubt very much that the ayatollah would be moved by an explanation of our constitutional system." Jeff Flake (R-AZ), clearly disgusted, said the letter was neither "helpful" nor "productive": "These are tough enough negotiations as it stands. And introducing this kind of letter, I didn’t think would be helpful." The other Republicans who were smart enough to avoid Cotton's blandishments were Dan Coats (R-IN), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Thad Cochran (R-MS). 

And John McCain, who did sign the silly letter, is now having second thoughts. On Fox News he told Greta van Susteren: "What that letter did was tell the Iranians that whatever deal they make, the Congress of the United States will play a role... Maybe that wasn’t the best way to do that, but I think the Iranians should know that the Congress of the United States has to play a role in whether an agreement of this magnitude... It’s also symptomatic between the total lack of trust that exists now between we Republicans and the president. This has established a poisoned environment here which sometimes causes us to react maybe in not the most effective fashion."

UPDATE: Tom Cotton Now Suffering a Severe Stature Deficit

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is an extremely right-wing newspaper. But even they saw the folly of Tom Cotton's grab for the national spotlight this week!

So, yes, Arkansas, it's not crazy to feel like a stepping stone. While most junior senators less than 100 days into their first terms would devote themselves to figuring out how to best serve the state that put him in office, that's small potatoes for Cotton. It's hard to get on national newscasts based on Arkansas issues, so why not try to scuttle U.S. negotiations focused on keeping an antagonistic Middle East nation from developing a nuclear weapon?

…Of course, Cotton's real enemy is the man who helped him get elected: President Obama. We're not fans of the president, but Cotton's perspective has to be viewed through the lens of his fixation on Obama being the cause of many of the nation's problems. It's overstepping for a junior, freshman senator to so blatantly engage in foreign policy sabotage against the administration as a part of his constant campaign for higher office. Cotton is playing to his base, the right-wing conservatives so eager for his political ambitions to succeed, but his actions in this case did not serve the nation.

… If this letter is an example of Cotton's leadership in Washington, then he's still got a lot to learn.

I bet You Know Who Mike Bloomberg Is And You Don't Know Who Rex Sinquefield Is-- Both Want To Destroy Public Education

On the front page of the right-wing Now or Never PAC they try to get every visitor's e-mail address by asking you to sign a petition for Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz to release their tax returns. "Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have a combined personal wealth of nearly 50 million dollars," it begins. The PAC works to elect conservatives who are committed to wealthy people not paying any taxes (except, apparently, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz). In 2012 they spent $7,760,174 for independent expenditures against Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Richard Carmona (D-AZ), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), and John Tester (D-MT). Except for Carmona, their independent expenditures were wasted as all those Democrats were swept to victory. They also spent huge sums of money supporting and opposing various Republicans, including over a million dollars in favor of Todd Akin, running for Claire McCaskill's Senate seat (which McCaskill was reelected to) and in favor of teabagger/deadbeat dad Joe Walsh (R-IL), who also lost.

Retired Missouri stock market speculator and fund manager Rex Sinquefield is best known for financing crackpot groups trying to abolish public schools, which he does through over 100 political action committees he's started, a shady way of funneling campaign contributions and avoiding legal limits. His other-- related-- passion is keeping taxes negligible for the top 1%.

Since 2008, he and his wife Jeanne have directly contributed $1,668,650 to right-wing candidates for federal office and GOP committees. And that's on top of what he funnels into right-wing coffers through his 100+ political action committees. He was the single biggest donor to the Now or Never PAC last year-- $1,000,000. He's also a major donor to the worst neo-fascist politicians in America, like Rick Perry (R-TX), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Joe Miller (R-AK), Todd Akin (R-MO) and, of course, Ted Cruz (R-TX), to whom he gave so much over the legal limits that Cruz was forced to return much of it. And, unless you're a right-wing politician or movement junkie, you probably never heard of Missouri's most notorious sugar daddy of the extreme right.

Monday, the Associated Press ran a wire story on the corrupting influence of big money in politics and they singled Sinquefield out as the worst of the worst, "Missouri’s undisputed campaign money whale." Missouri has no spending limits for politics. That has a lot to do with how far to the right the state has drifted.

Since the retired investment company mogul started spending his fortune in politics in 2006, Sinquefield has contributed about $25 million to candidates and political committees that support lower income taxes and school-choice measures, among other things. When Missouri operated under campaign contribution limits in 2007, Sinquefield channeled his money through 100 shell committees in an in-your-face example of how to beat the system.

Mike Bloomberg isn't sleazy the way Sinquefield is and his contributions are all made up front. He's a super-wealthy Wall Street-backing kind of conservative but he has been extremely helpful with some progressive social issues. Today Robin Kelly is on her way to Congress instead of conservative Democrat Debbie Halvorson because, in great part, of Mike Bloomberg's unrelenting and gargantuan efforts to undermine the NRA. And Robin Kelly, aside from being good on gun issues, is an all around progressive who is likely to make an excellent representative for the folks in the Southland. In November it was almost entirely due to Mayor Bloomberg's efforts (and his more than $3 million) that Blue Dog Joe Baca was defeated by Gloria Negrete McLeod. When it happened, we were over the moon-- another Blue Dog down! But McLeod may be better than Baca on guns but her overall voting record-- at least so far-- is actually worse than Baca's! She's not only not a progressive, she's voted with the GOP more than any other Democratic freshman. Of course, that isn't what Bloomberg cares about; he just wanted to defeat an NRA advocate. He helped dump crazy teabagger Ann Marie Buerkle in upstate New York-- and replace her with New Dem Dan Maffei. His efforts on behalf of candidates-- especially when you consider the amounts of money his SuperPAC, IndependenceUSA spent ($9,630,930 in 2012)-- didn't yield much. His candidates in Florida (New Dem Val Demings- $2,076,888), Connecticut (Republican Andrew Roraback- $1,117,446) and Illinois (Republican Robert Dold- $963,477) all lost. On issues, when Susan G. Komen pulled funds from Planned Parenthood, Bloomberg stepped in to cover the grant; he gave $50 million to shut down coal fired plants; he's put his money and organization behind human immigration reform and marriage equality (even officiating over the marriage of one of his top advisors); and has pushed the necessity of addressing global climate change. Good stuff, huh? We like him, right? Um... apart from what kind of a mayor he's been in New York-- again plenty of pros and cons-- his other big passion besides exterminating the NRA, is charter schools. And right now, he's spending money hand over fist here in L.A.

Last week the L.A. Times covered his efforts with an article called Bloomberg's meddling in L.A. Unified races is paying for junk ads. Oops. There's a backlash building against his candidate, anti-union/pro-charter schools shill Kate Anderson.

I kept hearing last week from readers who were having conniptions over New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's $1-million donation to the local Coalition for School Reform. They said he should mind his own business, and they called this another example of an attempt by rich guys to privatize public schools, or at least turn them over to their charter school cronies.

Actually, it was Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who helped shake down Bloomberg. But I called Bloomberg's office to find out if he was aware that at least part of his money is being spent to distort the truth and misinform voters, which I'll explain in a minute.

"Mike Bloomberg is proud to help level the playing field on behalf of children and their families," a Bloomberg spokesman responded. "The union may not like it, but they should get used to it because he is just getting started."

That's more than a threat; it's a live grenade.

To be honest, I welcome anyone-- including outsiders-- whose goal is to improve public education. But the conversation has become so philosophically and politically polarized that it's hard to know who, if anyone, is acting most purely in the interest of kids.

On the contentious issue of charter schools, I think it's fair to say some do pretty well and some don't.

And although some of L.A. Unified's shortcomings can be blamed on union inflexibility, some is also due to administrative inefficiency and to parents who don't pay enough attention to their kids' academics. And all those problems are dwarfed by the fact that California is near the bottom when it comes to school funding.

I'd like to see more union give on teacher evaluations, work rules and tenure. But I'd also like anti-union forces to quit scapegoating teachers, because we owe the majority of them a debt of gratitude.

In Los Angeles, the stakes are high because L.A. Unified Supt. John Deasy seems to have convinced enough people that he may get ousted if this election doesn't go his way, even though that's an unlikely, long-shot scenario.

Deasy is a creative and effective leader who ought to keep doing what he's been doing, for the most part. But I don't agree with him on everything, and I don't think we're well served if everyone on the board stands up and bows every time he speaks. That goes the other way too. It'd be disaster, for sure, if everyone on the board were a union lackey.

That brings me to incumbent board member and former teacher Steve Zimmer, who has been nobody's stooge. Zimmer, at times, has tried to bridge differences among the warring parties, winning supporters and making enemies on both sides in the process. But there's a price to pay for independence, it seems. Zimmer is under attack by the Villaraigosa-aligned Coalition for School Reform, which supports Zimmer's opponent Kate Anderson. They see Anderson, an attorney and L.A. Unified parent, as more inclined to butt heads with the union and more likely to support Deasy.

Even some of his supporters say Zimmer can be an angst-ridden, hand-wringing worrier who takes too long to decide where he stands. But I respect his answer to that charge.

"I've spent my life immersed in these issues, and when a game-changing vote or policy issue comes up, I damn well should wring my hands."

And it's not as if Zimmer is rabidly pro-union and anti-Deasy. He's proclaimed his support for the superintendent and has ticked off the union because of it. But in a game of lesser evils, the unions have thrown in their lot with Zimmer, which has made his opponents all the more determined to drive him out.

The way I see it, we've got two capable people running who both seem to care passionately about L.A. Unified's 600,000-plus students. But politics being what it is, campaign strategists on each side have polluted mailboxes and airwaves with exaggeration and distortion. It's a dirty game, and you either sling mud or get buried alive.

Nice on the rare occasion when a billionaire comes in and spends big attacking the bad guys, like the NRA. But what about the much more common occurrence, when the billionaires come in and swamp elections with their money in ways that benefit them and their cronies and leave working families in the lurch?

Today Is Election Day In IL-02

The top ad was the original ad Bloomberg put out against Halvorson and then someone got them to alter it in a way that forced Toi Hutchinson out of the race. This is it:



Technically, it's just a primary to pick the Democratic nominee to replace Jesse Jackson, Jr. But in a district where Jackson won reelection-- without even campaigning-- with 181,067 votes (63%) against a Republican opponent who got 67,396 votes (23%) and where Obama took 80.7% of the vote in November, the primary is the real contest. Whomever wins today will be the next Member of Congress for this Southland district. Blue America endorsed state Senator Toi Hutchinson primarily because she seemed like the strongest candidate who could beat self-described conservative Debbie Halvorson-- and, most important, not splinter the progressive and African American vote that would allow Halvorson to get back into Congress. We hoped to interest a nonplused online community in a race no one seemed to care about or understand. Eventually a few online groups and communities did get involved but decided that Toi was tainted because she filled in an NRA questionnaire badly-- even though she was a sponsor of the bill to ban assault weapons and high caliber magazines and even though she had never voted with the NRA. In fact, once the Bloomberg folks were persuaded to changed their TV ad campaign from just attacking Halvorson to also attacking Toi... well it wasn't a race Toi had the resources to stay in.

She immediately-- the next day-- withdrew and threw urged her supporters to back Robin Kelly, the other progressive candidate. Blue America respected that and endorsed Kelly. And then yesterday-- the bad news. New polling from WCKG shows Chicagoland voters so angry about the millions of dollars being spent by Bloomberg that his ads are backfiring and Halvorson has taken the lead (at least according to a poll by a Republican who was once convicted of manipulating numbers). Another poll shows Robin winning by double digits.

Pollster Rod McCulloch told The Daily Journal that negative ads paid for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Independence USA PAC “may have backfired.”

The ads highlighted Halvorson’s past alliance with the National Rifle Association. But conservative, pro-gun voters in Will and Kankakee counties may have taken the ads as an endorsement of Halvorson, and may be willing to cross over to the Democratic primary, because the Republican primary is meaningless. The Illinois State Rifle Association has sent postcards to its members declaring "A Vote For Robin Kelly Is A Vote For Michael Bloomberg" and "A Vote For Debbie Halvorson Is A Vote For AMERICA."

The Illinois State Rifle Association is the state lobbying version of the NRA and below are copies of what they've been sending out:

If you plan to vote today... bring a friend. If you have two friends, bring them both. If the NRA wins this one it will set back the gun safety movement gigantically. Let's hope that the liberal PACs, which played such a huge role in driving Toi Hutchinson out of the race on largely trumped up and hysterical charges of being an NRA candidate, can pull this off for Kelly. She'll make an excellent Member of Congress and Halvorson has already shown herself to be a shill for not just the NRA but for Wall Street as well. Chicagoland congressmembers Jan Schakowsky, Danny Davis, Bobby Rush and Mike Quigley took the unusual step of endorsing a challenger against a former colleague. That's because Robin Kelly really is good and Debbie Halvorson really is horrible.

Robin Kelly For Congress (IL-02)

This morning state Senator Toi Hutchinson, back in Chicago from working to get the marriage equality bill passed in Springfield, made an inevitable decision. She's pulling out of the race for Jesse Jackson's old seat (IL-02) and endorsing the other progressive candidate, Robin Kelly.

From the first, Blue America's position has always been that the key to preventing self-described "conservative Democrat" Debbie Halvorson from worming her way back into Congress was to keep the non-Halvorson vote from splintering. Toi looked best equipped to do that but over the course of the last two weeks, momentum has shifted to Robin Kelly. Respected Chicago congressmembers Danny Davis, Jan Schakowsky and Bobby Rush have all endorsed Kelly and it became apparent that she would be the strongest non-Halvorson. Toi is urging her supporters to rally around Robin and make sure that Halvorson doesn't get back into Congress to work for Wall Street and the NRA.

Toi, on announcing her withdrawal this morning: “I urge those who have been supporting me to now work hard for Robin over the next 9 days. I have said from Day One that this campaign is not about me or any one person; it’s about moving America forward and standing with President Obama to create new jobs and safer communities. Robin is a friend, and has captured momentum in pulling our community together. I am simply unwilling to risk playing a role going forward that could result in dividing our community at a time when we need unity more than ever.”