DCCC Rolls Out Their Failed Game Plan-- A Sure And Proven Loser

The theory is that fewer young voters, fewer minority voters, fewer single women, fewer poor people turn out for midterms. These groups tend to vote Democratic-- and the groups that do turn out-- elderly whites, more well-off people, ideologically driven extremists-- tend to vote for Republicans. There are two things Democratic candidates can do: try to win over the likely voters or try to turn out their own base in greater numbers. A Democratic Party gloom and doom scenario, Conservative voters key to Dems 2014 strategy, by Alex Isenstadt in Politico this morning indicates that many Democrats are not going to fight to turn out the base but are going the easy route-- even though the easy route is a route to proven and catastrophic failure.

The Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders/Alan Grayson model is being abandoned for the Steve Israel model, that never works for Democrats and is sure to lead to dismal failure in November again. "It’s one thing," writes Isenstadt, "for Democrats running in red parts of the country to sound like Republicans on the campaign trail. It’s another when Democrats running in purple or even blue territory try to do so. Yet that’s what’s happening in race after race this season. Faced with a treacherous political environment, many Democrats are trotting out campaign ads that call for balanced budgets, tax cuts and other more traditionally GOP positions. Some of them are running in congressional districts that just two years ago broke sharply for President Barack Obama."

Steve Israel's DCCC premise is-- and has always been-- that vulnerable Democrats will survive if they can appeal to conservative voters. For Israel there were no lessons learned in 2010 when Democrats used this strategy and lost 63 House seats (of which 52 were incumbents) and control of the House. Almost every one of them followed the DCCC's advise to appeal to conservative voters and take the base for granted. The base didn't turn out to vote for Republican-lite candidates and-- voila! Speaker Boehner! Democrats who had spent the whole session voting conservative and then campaigned conservative and then lost their seats included:

• Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)
• Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)
• John Salazar (Blue Dog-CO)
• Betsy Markey (Blue Dog-CO)
• Allen Boyd (Blue Dog-FL)
• Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
• Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA)
• Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID)
• Melissa Bean (New Dem-IL)
• Debbie Halvorson (New Dem-IL)
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)
• Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN)
• Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)
• Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS)
• Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)
• Ike Skelton (MO)
• Dina Titus (NV)
• John Adler (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Harry Teague (Blue Dog-NM)
• Michael McMahon (Blue Dog-NY)
• Scott Murphy (Blue Dog-NY)
• Mike Arcuri (New Dem-NY)
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
• Bob Etheridge (Blue Dog-NC)
• Earl Pomeroy (Blue Dog-ND)
• Steve Driehaus (OH)
• Charlie Wilson (Blue Dog-OH)
• John Boccieri (Blue Dog-OH)
• Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH)
• Kathy Dahlkemper (Blue Dog-PA)
• Patrick Murphy (Blue Dog-PA)
• Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA)
• Paul Kanjorski (PA)
• John Spratt (SC)
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog-SD)
• Lincoln Davis (Blue Dog-TN)
• Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA)
• Tom Perriello (VA)
• Rick Boucher (VA)

And that list doesn't count all the conservative Dems who raised the white flag before the onslaught and retired-- in every case consigning their seat to a Republican: Marion Berry (Blue Dog-AR), Vic Snyder (AR), Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN), Dennis Moore (Blue Dog-KS), Charlie Melancon (Blue Dog-LA), Bart Stupak (MI), Barton Gordon (Blue Dog-TN), John Tanner (Blue Dog-TN), and Brian Baird (WA). On top of that, the DCCC was-- as they are this cycle-- pushing conservative challengers. They all lost too, like Mike Oliverio (Blue Dog-WV), Ami Bera (New Dem-CA), Lori Edwards (New Dem-FL), Dan Seals (New Dem-IL), Gary McDowell (Blue Dog-MI), Manan Trivedi (New Dem-PA), and Suzan DelBene (New Dem-WA). The DCCC is following that exact same game plan, step by step-- and some cases with the same pathetic characters-- this year and some are delusional enough to think they have some kind of chance for a different outcome. They do not.

“It’s a different kind of electorate,” said Ben Tulchin, a San Francisco-based Democratic pollster. “If you’re running in a competitive district as a Democrat in a nonpresidential year, you want to strike a more moderate tone.”

Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, who’s running in a district that Obama won in 2012 and 2008, has started airing a commercial that strikes a tea party theme. It highlights his record as speaker of the state House of Representatives when, he says, he helped balance the state’s budget.



“It’s really pretty simple. You don’t buy things you can’t pay for,” Romanoff states.

As Romanoff narrates, a graph of the nation’s soaring debt pops up on the screen. The image looks strikingly similar to one that appears in a Web video Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan released in 2011 to sell his controversial budget plan, though a Romanoff spokeswoman insisted that the campaign hadn’t borrowed from the former GOP vice presidential contender.

New Hampshire Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, whose district broke for Obama by a yawning 11-percentage-point margin in 2012, is running an ad that touts her support for small-business tax cuts while showing her touring a local microbrewery. Separately, former Iowa state Sen. Staci Appel, in a district Obama won by 4 percentage points two years ago, underscores her record of fighting overspending in state government, a populist theme often heard from tea party-aligned conservatives.



Democratic Rep. Ron Barber, in a swing southern Arizona district that is slightly more conservative than the others, uses his first TV spot [up top] to highlight his support for increasing border security funds. The ad-- complete with the image of a border patrol car-- doesn’t mention elements of immigration reform that are typically more popular among Democratic voters.

Like the commercials aired by Romanoff, Kuster and Appel, Barber’s doesn’t mention his Democratic Party affiliation.

Democrats who have the especially high hurdle of competing in deep-red districts are striking multiple conservative themes. Democrat Patrick Henry Hays, the North Little Rock mayor who’s running in an Arkansas district that Mitt Romney won in 2012, uses his first TV ad to discuss the need for a balanced budget, limited government regulations and less wasteful spending. Like Romanoff, Hays includes a graphic to depict the national debt.

“I approve this message because it’s simple,” Hays says. “You cut waste, you pay your bills, and you do everything in your power to create jobs. That’s what we need in Congress.”

…Some Democrats also argue that, with so many Republican candidates-- pushed by tea party forces-- staking out positions further and further to the right, there’s room for Democratic hopefuls to appeal to centrist Republican voters who feel alienated.

“There’s an an opening among moderates that mainstream Democrats are well positioned to fill,” said Robby Mook, a former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee executive director.

Not all Democrats are happy with the approach. Andrew Myers, a Washington, D.C.-based Democratic pollster, said that by focusing on issues such as balancing the budget, the party was losing an opportunity to lay out clear distinctions with congressional Republicans, who are wallowing in national surveys.

“We need to differentiate ourselves, and taking the Republican line doesn’t do it,” he said.

Republicans say the Democratic strategy carries risks, especially if the candidates can’t back up the image they’re trying to present.

In response to Romanoff’s ad, the National Republican Congressional Committee sent out a news release on Wednesday pointing to his past support for the $787 billion economic stimulus package and stating that “It’s dishonest for Andrew Romanoff to criticize the mountain of government debt he helped create.”

“It’s pretty clear why Democrats would charade as Republicans in districts coast to coast-- on every big issue, voters prefer Republicans to Democrats,” said Liesl Hickey, the NRCC’s executive director. “But by portraying themselves as something they are not, these Democrats are playing a dangerous game that is destined to backfire with voters.”

Unsustainable model-- great for the GOP though

Arizona Republican Plays Footsie With The Gays… Or At Least The Wealthy Gays

Ron Barber is both a New Dem and a Blue Dog-- very much a member in good standing of the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party. According to ProgressivePunch, Barber's crucial vote score for 2013-'14 is a horrific 25.0, a record that is far more in tune with the GOP, particularly on economic matters, than with the Democrats. In fact there are only 2 Democrats who vote more reliably with Boehner and Cantor than Barber-- John Barrow (GA) and Jim Matheson (UT), each of whom represents a much more conservative district. Barrow's district has a PVI of R+9 and Matheson's is R+16. Barber's Tuscon district's PVI is a much more manageable R+3.

Every source I have in Arizona is predicting that Barber is a goner and that Martha McSally will beat him in November. She nearly did last cycle, when he eked out a 137,993- 137,339 win, 50/50. Her big win in sparkly populated Cochise County was offset by his 9,000 vote margin in Pima County, which he took with 52%.

She's raising a ton of money this time around, probably enough to stay competitive with the Big Buisness-friendly incumbent. In 2012, outside groups, several funded by the Koch brothers, spent close to $2,000,000 opposing Barber and they plan to spend more than that this year. She’ll be all over the air in a fairly inexpensive media market. Meanwhile, there’s virtually no enthusiasm from the Democratic base for Barber at all. He stands for nothing, because he took positions based on what Steve Israel told him to do, rather than on his own principles. He even needed to be goaded into getting out in front of the gun issue, when he himself was a victim in a mass shooting. And when he did speak out, he did so kind of feebly. Forget that McSally is obviously a mental midget; she’s smart enough to moderate her position on same-sex marriage. What’s Barber going to run on?

A non-partisan analysis from Arizona's Politics shows how she's using her pivot on marriage equality to raise big money while keeping the drooling right-wing base quiescent. Winning Women! was supposedly about electing conservative women but it helped McSally grab a chunk of $360,000 from GOP pro-gay heavy hitters without having to do a specifically pro-gay fundraiser, still a bridge too far for Arizona Republicans. They point out that "Republican billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer and  co-owner of the Chicago Cubs Sylvie Légère Ricketts-- and, others-- appear to have cloaked their support of Martha McSally and two other female Congressional candidates-- calling the joint fundraising effort "Winning Women" instead of acknowledging that marriage equality was the driving force." And the proof that it was really an LGBT-oriented fundraiser rather than what it claimed to be?

First, the co-hosts. "Winning Women" was co-hosted by Paul Singer and Sylvie Légère Ricketts. Singer is a billionaire hedge fund CEO (Elliott Advisors), who has made changing the GOP's opposition to same-sex marriage one of his primary political endeavors. He has spent more than $10M in this effort, and was the primary 2012 founder and funder of the American Unity PAC, which is focused on the issue.

Sylvie Légère Ricketts was the other co-host. Her husband, Todd Ricketts, is the CEO of the conservative Ending Spending SuperPAC, and the Ricketts family owns the Chicago Cubs baseball organization. The Ricketts have also been major supporters of American Unity PAC and efforts to legalize gay marriage in Illinois.

The co-hosts have all (Singers and Légère Ricketts) indicated that their passion to push the GOP towards marriage equality is driven by having family members (son and sister-in-law, respectively) who are homosexual.

Second, the supporters. The Singers-- along with persons at Elliott Management and Singers' employees-- contributed $123,700 to the fundraiser. The Ricketts family added another $45,000. The balance came from a variety of persons involved in political and charitable giving in New York and the tri-state area, Chicago, and Florida. A few notable names include WWE founders Linda and Vince McMahon ($18,600), former American Express and AIG chairman Harvey Golub ($10,000) and Candace Straight-- "a national moderate Republican leader" ($6,000).

Third, the candidates/beneficiaries. Two years ago, McSally told the conservative Center for Arizona Policy that she would fight for a U.S. Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between opposite-sex individuals. However, in an interview this past December, she indicated that she did not like the yes-or-no format and thought an essay would have been better. She said the hypothetical presented by the CAP questionaire "is not happening anytime soon" and that it is an issue best left to the states.

The second "Winning Women" beneficiary is Elise Stefanik, who is running in a contested Republican primary in upstate New York. In an interview in January, Stefanik used almost the exact same leave it to the states quote, and added that it is already legal in New York.

The final candidate, who received $110,000 from the joint fundraiser, is Barbara Comstock. She has steered clear of having media reports about her position on same-sex marriage, but has already been attacked by her opponents for accepting money from Singer. (Comstock apparently attempted to defend the donations by saying that Singer has given to lots of other Republican campaigns-- Singer especially has supported Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.)

McSally is not facing the same intense primary battles against more conservative candidates that Stefanik and Comstock appear to be, but she has been very cautious in stating any views that might alienate voters in the primary. Rep. Barber is firmly on the record as supporting marriage equality and her position could become a topic then, but as witnessed in the Jim Nintzel interview cited earlier, McSally is able to persistently set the issue aside.

Fourth, the political environment in which the three candidates are operating in. The Republican party is certainly divided about the issue of same-sex marriage amidst the rapidly-changing legal and political playing field. While a Pew Research Center poll this year shows that 61% of young Republicans favor marriage equality, only 39% of Republicans overall share that view. (A majority in every other age group opposes it, and only 22% of seniors (65+) favor it.) Primary elections have tended to favor the opponents.

Fifth, these three candidates do not have anything else explaining why the joint fundraiser was limited to these three. They are not the three most hotly-contested districts; McSally's is, the other two are not. Arizona's other female-GOP-Air Force-conservative-frontrunner-in-a-hotly-contested-district-- Wendy Rogers (in CD9) was not included, for example. The Republican Party has touted a number of other up-and-coming female candidates as part of their Project GROW (where they feature McSally and others as leaves hanging from a tree); yet this joint fundraiser did not include them.

Each of these data points-- taken individually-- should not be enough to convince you that female empowerment was not the key driver in this joint fundraiser. Singer-- and, people at his company and his attorneys-- have issues other than same-sex marriage that they are interested in. Immigration reform or securities laws, for examples.  Likewise, the  Légère Ricketts. And, neither couple (yes, Singer's wife also maxed out for the Winning Women) has shown passion for boosting the ranks of Republican women in Congress. The candidates/beneficiaries have positions and opinions on subjects other than same-sex marriage-- and, even their public semi-positions on that issue are hazy.

However, marriage equality is the only passionate issue at the intersection of Singers and Légère Ricketts. And, they are the ones who chose to support these three candidates out of a wide universe of Republicans (women and men).

The candidates have no strong positions on issues that excite the mega-donors and differentiate them from all of the other female GOP candidates.  And, their vague positions on same-sex marriage-- in the slowly-changing climate of the GOP-- might signal that they either are already in agreement with the hosts, or are very persuadable. (Although raising $360,000 likely indicates the former rather than the latter.)

Whether or not you agree with the Singers' and Légère Ricketts' views on same-sex marriage, the most interesting aspect of cloaking the joint fundraiser as "Winning Women" is that Republican candidates (and fundraisers) are still apparently reluctant to declare their openness to movement (evolution) on the issue.

Arizona’s Freshmen Reps: What’s Going On Here?

Kirkpatrick, Sinema & Barber all voted with the Republicans for CISPA

Is Steve Israel or Steny Hoyer calling the shots, or did Arizona’s three freshman reps reach these cynical heights all on their own? It’s hard to say, but my bet is on Israel or Hoyer. Or maybe it's the New Dem operation. Otherwise, it’s hard to fathom the votes we’re seeing from Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Barber (AZ-02) and Sinema (AZ-09).

Regardless, the progressive base in Arizona (and, yes, there is one) is not amused. Blog For Arizona features a collection of progressive bloggers. At the start of the session, that group showed admirable restraint in the wake of Sandy Hook. Strangely enough, the reaction to that tragedy by Ron Barber, who took a bullet in Tucson two years earlier, was to pay homage to the Second Amendment. They could have jumped all over Barber, and few would have blamed them. Instead, they mounted a petition campaign to encourage Barber to lead the charge for sane gun laws. Barber actually responded positively for awhile, then went silent once out of the spotlight.

But the admirable patience of Arizona’s progressives has worn thin. It’s easy to understand why. Start with United Solutions, a supposedly "bi-partisan" group of freshmen reps that is about two-thirds Republican. And, no, we’re not talking moderate Republicans here. Joining the group were Arizona’s Kirkpatrick and Sinema. Here’s Sinema bragging about her membership (and lying about the composition of the group, which is far more heavily Republican than she lets on, and her role in founding the group, which was actually formed by lifelong Republican/New Dem Patrick Murphy and far right North Carolina Republican Robert Pittenger):



It was about that time that Bob Lord, posted this at Blog For Arizona: AZ Freshman Reps Sweep Gold, Silver and Bronze. Lord was referring to the Progressive Punch scores of the Democratic Freshman class. In that group, Kirkpatrick was worst, Barber was second worst, and Sinema was in a group tied for third worst.

Since then, the Arizona freshmen have continued to follow Steve Israel’s lead, or perhaps their own worst instincts, and the fire from the progressive community has grown more intense. Craig McDermott, who also posts at Blog For Arizona, wrote an open letter to the freshmen on the House Financial Services Committee, a group that includes Kyrsten Sinema, explaining that doing bad work for good reasons still is doing bad work. Donna Gratehouse at Democratic Diva expanded on McDermott’s theme, urging constituents not to be accepting of bad work, whether for good reasons or not. What had these freshmen done? Basically, they’d voted for legislation drafted almost entirely by Citigroup’s lobbyist, exempting vast swaths of trades from regulation under Dodd-Frank. A few weeks after the vote, Wall Street lackey and Democratic fundraising leader Joe Crowley led the freshmen on a tour of lower Manhattan, including receptions at both Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase.

Pamela Powers-Hannley at Blog For Arizona has been more direct in her criticism of Sinema, actually titling one post, Sinema Too Republican? Votes to Reduce Banking Regulations, in which she implored progressives to put the pressure on:

Not only has Sinema not supporting the Robin Hood Tax, her recent vote exempts many Wall Street trades from any regulation. This is the wrong direction for the American people. How many Wall Street bankers live in CD-9? How many people who would benefit from the revenue generated by the Robin Hood Tax live in CD-9? It's time for Sinema to do the math. Voting with Wall Street is a vote against her constituents in Arizona.

If you live in CD9, it's time to call Sinema and tell her you thought you were voting for that fiery State Senator-- not the banksters' handmaiden.

We see you, Rep. Sinema

Powers-Hannley’s depiction of Sinema may have been too specific. She appears to be doing her best not to be just the banksters’ handmaiden, but the handmaiden of corporate America at large. Amazingly, she and Barber voted with the Republicans for the failed Farm Bill, which would have cut $20 Billion in food stamp assistance, a huge chunk of which is going to children. Here’s E.J. Dionne, explaining the rank immorality of the legislation for which Sinema and Barber voted:

The bill the House voted down would have cut food stamps by $20.5 billion, eliminating food assistance to nearly 2 million low-income people, most of them working families with children or senior citizens.

This alone should have been bad enough to sink the bill. But then Republicans pushed through an amendment by Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., to toughen work requirements in the program. Work requirements sound reasonable until you look at what Southerland’s amendment was actually designed to do.

As Robert Greenstein, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explained, Southerland’s proposal violated “the most basic standards of human decency” because it made no effort, as other work requirements have in the past, to create employment openings for those who “want to work and would accept any job or work slot they could get, but cannot find jobs in a weak economy.”

In fact, noted Greenstein, a longtime advocate of nutrition assistance, the amendment barred states “from spending more on SNAP employment and training than they do now.” And it created incentives for states to throw people off food stamps by letting their governments keep half the SNAP savings to use for anything they wished (including, for example, tax cuts for the wealthy).

In a more rational political world, progressives and smallgovernment conservatives might join forces to slash subsidies for agribusiness and wealthy farmers while containing market distortions bred by price supports. But when Rep Jim McGovern, D-Mass., proposed an amendment to restore some of the food stamp funding by reducing spending on crop insurance, it was defeated.

And Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., exposed hypocrisy on the matter of government handouts by excoriating Republican House members who had benefited from farm subsidies but voted to cut food stamps.

The collapse of the farm bill will generally be played as a political story about Boehner’s failure to rally his own right wing. That’s true as far as it goes and should remind everyone of the current House leadership’s inability to govern. But this is above all a story about morality: There is something profoundly wrong when a legislative majority is so eager to risk leaving so many Americans hungry. That’s what the bill would have done, and why defeating it was a moral imperative.

Sinema signing on to a bill that would leave Americans, including many children, hungry, is stunning, given her background. If you heard her stump speech during her 2012, you would know about the years she spent during childhood living in an abandoned gas station. That story was the centerpiece of her speech. Based on that experience, Sinema would explain, governmental assistance is giving people in need a hand up, not a handout.

Finally, just last week, the House Financial Services Committee approved H.R. 1135, a bill to repeal the provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that requires public companies to report the ratio of their CEO pay to median worker compensation. As expected, the Republicans voted in lockstep for the amendment. But five of the twenty-eight Democrats did as well.

The pay ratio reporting requirement was a threat to the exorbitant pay CEO’s currently enjoy. Allow folks to compare the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay from one corporation to another, and CEO pay might be brought back to Earth. That’s why corporations had been working overtime to delay and dilute the regulations needed to implement the pay ratio disclosure. And they’d been successful on that front. But H.R. 1135 would solve this little “problem” for CEO’s entirely. And the argument for the amendment truly is Republican-esque. The pay ratio reporting, you see, would involve too much paperwork. Here’s committee chair Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) defending the amendment, according to Emily Chasan of the Wall Street Journal:

"I assume there is an infinite number of ratios some investors would find helpful to their decisions," Mr. Hensarling said. Companies might as well be required to calculate the ratio of workers with or without college degrees, the ratio of old versus young workers, or the ratio of office supplies purchased from big box retailers to local suppliers, he joked.

The individual votes on this atrocity were not easy to track down, but here they are. And who was among the five Democrats New Dems whoring for contributions from America’s CEOs? Why Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, of course, doing her best to make sure the great-great grandchildren of America’s CEOs never have to experience life in an abandoned gas station.

I Got A Call From A New Dem Friday

Not the New Dem who called me... but it could have been

A congressman who I used to talk to a few years ago-- before he was a congressman-- called me Friday. He said he felt badly because of the stuff I've been writing about him. I haven't really been writing about him much-- just reporting (usually without comment and never with any pejorative language) his ghastly votes. He said he felt bad because he likes me. I told him I felt bad because I like him. I haven't even asked the DWT art director to make a clown face for him. His excuses for voting badly were so sad... just like his excuse for joining the New Dems. He said it was because the district wasn't blue enough. Obama did substantially better in the district last November-- beating Romney by 7 points-- than he had against McCain. The district is turning bluer by the day-- more than almost any district in the country. The congressional caller told me he'd join the progressive caucus if he gets reelected. Why would they even want him with the kind of record he's amassed?

Anyway, he told me that he voted for the Republican Farm Bill because his district has farmers, although he agreed it's a terrible bill. What courage! He also said he offered to rescind his vote and vote against it but that Hoyer told him not to. Steny!

Coincidentally, right after we spoke, I got an e-mail from another New Dem, Ron Barber, who votes very much like the congressional caller. Here's the e-mail:

U.S. Rep. Ron Barber today issued a statement after the House voted 234-to-195 to reject the Farm Bill.

Barber was one of 24 Democrats who joined 171 Republicans in an effort to pass legislation that would have set the course for U.S. agriculture and food policy for the next five years.

Barber’s statement:

Today I voted for the Farm Bill. It’s a far-from-perfect bill, but it would have moved this process forward and toward a compromise. It would have extended national agricultural and nutrition programs for the next five years. These programs are important to Southern Arizona and my constituents.

This is unfortunately another example of how Congress is broken. We must come together to pass a bipartisan Farm Bill. We need to give certainty to American farmers and consumers by ensuring steady, dependable prices at the grocery store, relief for drought-stricken farms and critical investments in food assistance programs for those most in need.

I strongly oppose the proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and voted to restore those cuts. In Arizona, more than 1.1 million people-- 1 of every 6-- receive aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. More than 75 percent of those recipients are in families with children and nearly half are in working families.

I call on leadership in Congress to work together and bring a bipartisan Farm Bill to the floor that can pass the House and Senate and be signed into law for the betterment of the American people and southern Arizona. The American people are calling on us to get something done. We need to take action now.

Wow, that was the exact same stuff my congressional caller told me. Did the New Dems tell them all to use those points? Or was it Hoyer? Steve Israel? I wonder if either of these guys ever met Alan Grayson. If not, they should. Neither was at Netroots Nation Friday, so they missed Grayson's and Digby's panel on Weak Democrats vs Strong Progressives. USW Blogger tweeted some of it though:

Adam Green's top 10 lessons learned in the fight to save Social Security from the Obama-Boehner Grand Bargain:

10- We cannot depend on party leadership, caucus leadership, or any others to lead. We need to invest in leaders who are willing to lead.

9- Sometimes outsiders are more strategic than insiders. Don't instinctively trust the experts.

8- Competent, progressive staffers inside Congress, matter immensely.

7- Activists having personal bonds with Members of Congress matters immensely.

6- A Member of Congress being truly bold in a partnership and talking to their colleagues on the House or Senate floor, matters immensely.

5- Many Democrats in Congress hide behind an "I don't take pledges" stance to avoid making promises that our country, our movement and their constituents need them to take. Debunking this stance is a strategic imperative for our movement.

4- In the Grayson-Takano push, progressives proved an inside/outside partnership model that works and can be replicated.

3- Progressives rewarded and invested in bold leaders, making them more powerful for the next fight.

2- The coalition built around the Grayson-Takano letter... provides the foundation for the next fight, expanding Social Security benefits, coming soon.

1- Progressives are perilously dependent on the Tea Party being batshitcrazy. Progressives in Congress have the ability to be an enormously powerful bloc if they are strategic and unified and our movement needs to help them build that power.

The Lamest Ducks In The House-- A Beltway-Eyed View

Accidental Congressman Gary Miller, California's Confederate sympathizer

This week, Roll Call points to California Republican Gary Miller and Tennessee date rape drug doctor Scott DesJarlais as being the two incumbents most likely to lose their seats in 2014. Close behind are detestable Blue Dog reactionaries Jim Matheson (UT) and Mike McIntyre (NC), New Dem Ron Barber (AZ) and GOP fringe loon Mike Coffman (CO). The retirements of these four characters by their constituents who be steps in the right direction for making Capitol Hill a better place-- even if we would need 2-300 retirements like this for it to actually make Congress function on behalf of the American people.

Gary Miller, of these four, is the most likely to be working as a lobbyist after 2014. He is an accidental congressman-- as well as an extremist crackpot, a crook and a confederate Civil War reenactor. So how did Miller come to represent a district, CA-31, where Romney only managed to get 40.6% of the vote? The district, which includes Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino, Colton, Redlands, Loma Linda and Rialto, is a minority majority district (44% Hispanic and 11% African American) and should have gone to a Democrat in 2012. The DCCC and California Democratic Party botched it up and 4 Democratic contenders in the open primary split the vote so badly that two Republicans, Miller, who represented a neighboring district previously, and state Senator Bob Dutton wound up with the most votes and went on to the general election. Redlands Mayor Peter Aguilar, the heavy favorite, didn't get a chance to compete in the general, where Miller beat Dutton 82,212 (55%) to 66,603 (45%).

So Aguilar is running again and it should be a slam dunk, right? Sure... because everything in politics goes just as its planned. Meet defeated Blue Dog Joe Baca, who was hounded out of office in 2012 by Mike Bloomberg. Baca is an NRA stalwart and Bloomfield, in effect, bought the seat for another conservative Democrat-- although an anti-NRA one-- then state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod. Her voting record, in terms of progressive issues, has been at least as bad as Baca's, if not worse. And now Baca says he wants to run in the open primary against Aguilar and Miller. Oh, dandy.

DesJarlais, a physician who was having sex with multiple patients-- some who he gave drugs and one who he encouraged to get an abortion-- is widely viewed as an embarrassment and he's likely to lose a primary... unless there are multiple candidates. State Reps Joe Carr and Kevin Brooks will probably run but right now state Senator Jim Tracy is the favorite and he outraised DesJarlais 4 to 1 this quarter. Obama won just under a third of the district in 2012, down from 35.8% in 2008 and TN-04 (Murfreesboro, Shelbyville, Winchester, Cleveland and Smyrna) is not a good fit for Democrats. In 2012 DesJarlais-- even under the cloud of scandal-- beat Democrat state Sen. Eric Stewart 128,500 (56%) to 101,944 (44%). So far this year, no Democrat has emerged as a candidate. So this will just be replacing one wingnut with another wingnut.

Ron Barber, a right-wing Democrat, has a pitiful voting record that is sure to deflate Democratic voters. He's foolishly banking on attracting Republicans with his Republican voting record, but the GOP candidate, Martha McSally, he just managed to beat by a nose (143,173- 141,771) in 2012 is probably running again-- and this time Obama won't be on the ticket to draw Democrats to the polls.

Mike Coffman also just scraped by in 2012 (47.8% to 45.8%) but this year he'll be facing popular former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in a blue-leaning district. (Obama won CO-06-- which includes Littleton and Centennial south of Denver, Aurora east of Denver and Brighton north of Denver-- 51.6%- 46.5%.) The DCCC is all in on Romanoff and this is considered a "must win" top priority race for them.

As for the two nearly extinct Blue Dogs, this is what Stuart Rothenberg had to say in his report for Roll Call:

Two incumbents who were almost given up for dead (politically, that is) last cycle but survived-- Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina-- are likely to face stiff challenges again. Either or both could move to the top of the vulnerability list next year.

Democratic partisans may pooh-pooh the danger to both incumbents in 2014, noting that we have heard reports of their problems before and saying that if the two Democratic congressmen won with an unpopular (in their districts) president on the ballot, they certainly can win again against the same opponents in 2014.

Republicans can counter that unsuccessful 2012 Utah Republican nominee Mia Love didn’t run nearly as good a race as GOP strategists had hoped, and she’ll likely have a better campaign-- and be a better candidate-- in a rerun.

The same, of course, could hold for the unsuccessful GOP nominee against McIntyre last year, David Rouzer. Rouzer, then a member of the state Senate, lost to McIntyre by a mere 654 votes in 2012.

Both McIntyre and Matheson vote with the Republicans on crucial issues as a default position. Matheson has the single worst voting record of any Democrat in Congress this year-- a ProgressivePunch score of 21.05, tied with right-wing GOP freaks like Matt Salmon (R-AZ) and Tom McClintock (R-CA) and worse than 14 other Republicans, including... crackpots Louie Gohmert (TX) and Phil Gingrey (GA) and Staten Island Mafia figure Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm! McIntyre scores a 38.89, also worse than Grimm! The sooner these two are gone from the Democratic House caucus, the better off the Democrats will be.

Ron Barber (AZ)-- As Bad As We Feared... And He's Just Getting Started

Arizona Democrats, for largely emotional reasons, picked conservative corporate shill Ron Barber, a former staffer for Gabby Giffords, to replace Giffords. Last month, in one of the closest contests in the country, Barber managed to hold onto Giffords' seat against formidable GOP opposition, 143,173 (50%) to 141,771 (50%). Republican Martha McSally spent $1,393,346 and outside groups spent in the neighborhood of $2 million to support her. Barber outraised her significantly and spent $2,637,022, with outside groups kicking in close another million on his behalf (although that included the special election as well). Arizona's new 2nd district has two counties, blue-leaning Pima and deep red parts of Cochise. Barber beat McSally 117,472 (52%) to 108,728 (48%) in Pima, overcoming her 60-40% win in much smaller Cochise, where he picked up 17,388 votes and she won 25,620. (Romney won the district narrowly, 49.9- 48.4%.)

Many Arizona Democrats were dismayed when they realized Barber-- after his win against a Tea Party extremist in the special election-- would be voting against progressive values and with his corporate cronies. His ProgressivePunch crucial vote score so far is a dismal 65.08-- Blue Dog territory, although, so far, he hasn't officially joined that caucus as far as we know. His first two substantive votes in Congress were to join Darrell Issa's psychotic jihad against Attorney General Eric Holder and then to vote for a Republican plan to gut environmental protections in Arizona. Only 16 of the most anti-environmental Blue Dogs and New Dems joined the GOP for this boondoggle. Right after the vote a DWT reader left this comment on the blog:

I am beyond words. I supported this slimy traitor and attach what I just wrote to him. We are being disenfranchised by deception.

"You must be kidding me! THIS is why I gave you hundreds of dollars of my limited retirement income? THIS is my alternative to Jesse Stinking Kelly??! My God, man - what are you thinking? How DARE you presume to color yourself in the mold of Gabrielle Giffords. I lose one of the last sane voices in the House and THIS is the result? To say that I am disappointed would be the grossest sort of understatement!! Who are you? What is your real agenda??!"

Good question... and the next week Barber exposed his right-wing tendencies again, this time joining 20 other reactionary Democrats to back Issa's demands for Eric Holder's scalp. Barber sent a clear message to Boehner and Cantor that when they need a so-called "Democrat" to make even their most extreme crackpot agenda items look "bipartisan," he's their boy. No progressives expect him to be helpful in finding a humane solution to border problems and immigration policy. And then Thursday he sent out a press release bragging about how he's hassling federal regulators about enforcing environmental protection laws, doing so in Republican talking point language:

U.S. Rep. Ron Barber will tour the Apache Generating Station tomorrow – one day after the congressman met with federal officials who are requiring the installation of costly emission control devices on the Cochise County plant.

“As our economy slowly recovers, middle-class families still face a number of burdens,” Barber said today. “That's why I want to see for myself the impact these standards will have on rates families have to pay and jobs in Cochise County. I will continue to work with the owner of the generating station and the Environmental Protection Agency to find a solution that works for all involved.”

Barber recently wrote to the administrator of the EPA urging her to reconsider proposed emissions requirements and timelines that could eliminate jobs in Southern Arizona and lead to higher rates for electric customers in rural Cochise County.

In his letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Barber said he supports efforts to reduce emissions from the power plant, but contends that an EPA proposal “significantly threatens the future energy production, employees and ratepayers.”

Barber, in his letter, also asked to meet with EPA officials to discuss the emissions requirements. That meeting took place today in Barber’s office on Capitol Hill.

Tomorrow, Barber will tour the plant and meet with officials of the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative to see what work would be required under the EPA proposal. Media is welcome to join the tour and talk with the congressman after.

The EPA has proposed an emission limit that will require the installation of additional, more expensive technology at the Apache Generating Station, located between Benson and Willcox. The EPA says the goal is to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions that cause haze which the agency says is impacting visibility at national parks and wilderness areas in the Southwest.

Barber stressed that he supports that goal, but expressed concern about the cost of the technology. The Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, owner and operator of the plant, said the technology would cost more than $160 million, forcing it to increase rates-- possibly by 20 percent-- and lay off employees.

The Arizona Electric Power Cooperative makes its political contributions through the powerful National Rural Electric Cooperative Association PAC which spent $3,244,932 on federal candidates this year, almost all of it to Republicans, although they also give generously to conservatives and corporate whores on the Democratic side of the aisle. Barber, no doubt, want to make sure they know he's their kind of Democrat. The Democrats who got the big pops from these guys-- $10,000 or more-- were dreadful far right Blue Dogs, John Barrow (GA), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), Joe Manchin (WV), Collin Peterson (MN), Tim Holden (PA)-- their single biggest recipient for 2012-- and Ron Kind (WI), head of the corporate-oriented New Dems. Dr. Matt Heinz is weighing another primary challenge against Barber.

Now That Ron Barber Officially Won The AZ-02 House Seat, Are Arizona Democrats Happy?

One of the closest races in the country and one of the last to be decided, conservative New Dem Ron Barber beat back Martha McSally 143,173 to 141,771. As expected, McSally beat Barber badly in deep red Coshise County 60-40%, but couldn't overcome the odds on much bluer-- and much bigger-- Pima County (Tucson), where Barber took 52% of the vote. Obama's and Carmona's coattails helped drag Barber over the finish line in Pima-- and so did the massive, more than two-to-one spending advantage Barber had over her. As of Oct 17 he had spent $2,112,987 and she had spent $859,173. The DCCC and their satellite group, House Majority PAC spent an additional $1,721,294 helping Barber.

So he won. Other than sleazy K Street lobbyists does anyone care? Sure, conservative Democrats and the kind of Republicans who like corporate-oriented, cowardly Dems are happy. But ordinary families who count on Democrats to look out for their interests... no one's singing "Happy Days Are Here Again."

Right after it was announced that Barber had squeaked out a win, Pamela Powers Hannley asked, pointedly, at Blog For Arizona, what role Barber will play in the debate over immigration reform. Acknowledging that Barber is more a "Republican-lite" than an actual Democrat, Hannley doesn't sound very optimistic. She points out that "Barber's campaign website... makes no mention of immigration reform, comprehensive reform (Giffords' stance), the Dream Act, the plight of undocumented and exploited workers, the heartbreak of family separation, a path to citizenship, or even the Latinos who live in CD2. Instead, it focuses exclusively on Blue Dog Democrat ... er... conservative Republican talking points-- security, fear, drugs, fences, drones, guns, increased militarization of the border, and business friendly war deals for our local bomb-maker."

According the the New York Times, Obama "is firmly on the hook" to tackle immigration reform after having won the Latino vote 3-1, and the Times claims that some Republicans (seeing their party's extinction on the horizon) are ready to chip in and help:

"One day, the Republican Party is rock-ribbed restrictionist, dedicated to the proposition that unauthorized immigrants are an invading army of job stealers, welfare moochers and criminals whose only acceptable destiny is to be caught and deported-- the border fence forever, 'amnesty' never. The next day: never mind."

One has to wonder where this leaves our DINO Congressman. During the campaign, there was hardly any difference between the two hawks-- Barber and McSally-- on border policy. They were both firmly ensconced in the "border security" camp. No talk of reform... period.

...So, as our president lays the groundwork for true immigration reform, will Barber stand with him and other Democrats or with the military industrial complex? At this juncture, my money is on him standing with Raytheon, desert-combing citizen militias, job creation through militarization, and the money-making War on Drugs.

Remember, Barber's first two consequential votes in the House were to vote in favor of Darrell Issa's witch hunt against Eric Holder and for the package of Republican proposals to gut all the most important EPA regulations ever passed.

The bill, H.R. 2578, was a package of GOP-approved public lands bills that included a provision by Utah wingnut Rob Bishop that waives 36 environmental, health, and tribal laws (including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Superfund Law, and the Clean Water Act) within 100 miles of U.S. land borders and giving U.S. Customs and Border Protection authority to shut down any economic or recreational activity within 100 miles of the northern and southern U.S. borders if deemed necessary for securing them. Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) dubbed the provision a “drone zone” bill and said "It essentially will be a national sacrifice zone where our rights, our liberties, and our environment can be sacrificed for the sake of an ideological anti-immigrant, anti-environment agenda. Make no mistake, this isn’t a bill that actually addresses immigration issues."

So the bill passed 232-188, 19 Republicans voting with the Democrats while 16 New Dems and Blue Dogs, who are all sleazy corporate whores crossing the aisle in the other direction. Barber threw his lot in with all the worst garbage sheltering inside the Democratic Party, a bunch of Blue Dogs and ultra-conservatives like himself, exactly half of whom were either forced into retirement or were defeated this year.

Last Set Of Congressional Primaries-- Next Tuesday In Arizona

In less than a week Arizonans will go to the polls and the parties will pick their candidates for the general election. The most crucial primary is in AZ-03, where Big Business is running a lifelong Republican-- a fake Democrat-- in the hope of defeating Raúl Grijalva. Blue America is supporting Raúl and we have an ActBlue page dedicated to helping him win reelection-- first in next Tuesday's primary and then in the November general election.

There are three other races we're watching closely. In AZ-01, corporate shill Ann Kirkpatrick, who was defeated as part of the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010, is running for her old seat as is progressive champion Wenona Baldenegro. When Kirkpatrick first ran in 2008 for the sprawling open seat that takes up most of the state she took 56%-- 155,791 votes (as opposed to 109,924 for her GOP opponent). She won 6 of the district's 8 counties with the biggest, Yavapai, being a virtual tie-- 45,014 for her and 45,487 for her opponent). Last cycle, her confusing voting record-- she stuck with the Republicans whenever it mattered most-- depressed Democratic turnout and the results were astonishing. Paul Gosar won even more GOP votes than the previous GOP candidate-- 112,816 but over 50,000 of Kirkpatrick's initial supporters evaporated. She only managed to get 99,233 votes, a pathetic result of a pathetic 2 years in Congress. She only won 3 counties of the 8-- and was trounced by Gosar 47,449- 27,179 in Yavapai. The Democratic activists and the base hate her. The DCCC, of course, is pushing Kirkpatrick and she's raised $1,439,151. So far Kirkpatrick has spent $626,950 in the primary. Baldenegro has raised just under $100,000. It's another David vs Goliath race-- with the DCCC and shady corporate interests backing Goliath... as usual.

And then there's the complicated, messy primary in the new 9th CD, pitting 3 people who I know and like, moderate Democrat Andrei Cherny, the DC Establishment face (an Arizona ex-state Democratic Party chair and a former Clinton White House aide; former state Senator Kyrsten Sinema, usually considered to have the best shot (but the choice of untrustworthy Beltway organizations like EMILY's List and the Victory Fund); and progressive champion and state Senate Minority Leader David Schapira, who's been endorsed by DFA, Raúl Grijalva and, oddly, failed conservative ex-Congressman Harry Mitchell.

And then there's the race in the new AZ-02, basically a slightly bluer version of Gabby Gifford's old 8th district seat. Up top you can watch the TV forum with ConservaDem Ron Barber and Blue America-endorsed Matt Heinz. It was as close as Barber would get to a debate. But if you watch closely, aside from seeing him lose his shit when he's confronted about backing a Tea Party bill to gut a package of crucial environmental laws (his first substantive vote in Congress), you see how crafty he is about never answering any questions in a way that gives away how he really stands on anything. The man is a repulsive weasel-- perfect for Steve Israel and Joe Crowley, which explains why they're backing him so heavily. Even after being asked twice if he'd back legislation to restrict high capacity gun magazines, like the one used to wound both Gabby Giffords and himself, he showed his true cowardly, weasely nature by repeatedly ducking the question. He says we "need to talk to law enforcement to find out what they believe are the right answers to these problems and then with their advice and the advice of our community move forward and take whatever action is appropriate." But law enforcement has been begging Congress for years to get assault weapons and high capacity magazines off the streets. Barber is a not just a coward; he's a liar. And then he went on obfuscating with the typical NRA post-tragedy line: "But this is not the time in the emotion of these three shootings, of the two most recent shootings, to engage in this kind of political debate. I think we have to respect the people who were shot and were killed and we have to have a longer and more serious discussion with the people who know about this issue in depth and law enforcement is one of those groups and then we can get to some answers that are important." Hard to imagine anyone who considers themselves a Democrat could vote for this walking pile of turd.

Coverage in the Arizona Daily Star, Tucson's biggest newspaper, didn't refer to Barber as a walking pile of turd... but it would be difficult to read their account without walking away with that impression. They emphasized Matt Heinz's more germane response to the same question:

Mental-health services need to be beefed up, but it's also time to have a serious dialogue about high-capacity magazines, said Heinz, a Tucson doctor and state representative. This discussion would be a way to honor the memories of the victims of the mass shootings.

"I'm not saying there needs necessarily to be a ban, but that should be on the table," said Heinz, pointing out that many of the mass shooters have used high-capacity magazines.

Heinz acknowledged it's impossible to stop all disturbed people from going on rampages, but he argued that having fewer bullets may reduce the number of people killed. Having fewer bullets in each magazine would have lessened the bloodshed in the Tucson shooting, he said.

"If he had to stop for five or 10 seconds and fumble around, and reload, and get tackled at that point, 20 fewer bullets would have left his gun," Heinz said.

Heinz, who's found voters in the district most concerned about Barber's support for GOP plans to gut environmental legislation explained the differences between the two to his supporters and the media right after the forum ended.

“My opponent wrongfully alleges that I did not read the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990. He also erroneously claims that the Act clearly includes an exemption for border patrol and border security operations.

“Since casting his vote for H.R. 2578, a bill that included provisions to waive conservation and environmental protections, it is clear that my opponent continues to misunderstands what he voted to waive. I encourage my opponent and his staff to read Title III, section 301, clause (g) of Mo Udall’s Act. The Act does not allow for a blanket exemption, otherwise it would not have been included in the Tea Party backed bill that he voted for.

“I agree with Barber’s statement: ‘when you go into a body like the Congress, you don’t get to vote maybe. You get to vote yes or no.' He voted no on an amendment that would have struck the 100 mile exemption from the bill, but yet he still calls 100 miles excessive. He says he advocates for a reduction of the exemption to 25 miles, but he failed to introduce an amendment that reflected his supposed opposition.

“My opponent’s inexperience is disconcerting. An experienced legislator knows how to stand up for Arizona’s beautiful Sonora Desert while enhancing border security. Interagency cooperation must be supported, not ignored. Top managers for border security and land management agencies testified interagency cooperation works and that exemption from environmental regulations does not enhance border security.

“It has been my opponent’s political strategy to ignore the primary election so he can avoid public accountability. It is a shame that this candidate forum occurred late in the cycle because so many concerns and questions continue to go unanswered. If my opponent is selected to run in the general election, I hope he can better defend his record.”

There Are Still 7 Crucial Congressional Primaries Coming Up For Progressives

Progressives have had a mixed year in terms of primaries. We had four big losses-- Norman Solomon in California, Ilya Sheyman in Illinois, Cecil Bothwell in North Carolina and Eric Griego in New Mexico-- and five big wins-- David Gill in Illinois, Patsy Keever in North Carolina, Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania, Beto O'Rourke in Texas, and Nate Shinagawa in New York. Here's the schedule for the key primaries still unfolding that we're watching:

Darcy Burner (WA-1)- August 7
Syed Taj (MI-11)- August 7
Trevor Thomas (MI-3)- August 7
Chris Donovan (CT-5)- August 14
Nick Ruiz (FL-7)- August 14
Matt Heinz (AZ-2)- August 28
Raúl Grijalva (AZ-3)- August 28

The 3 primaries in Washington and Michigan are two weeks from yesterday! And all three look good, though none are in the bag. Darcy Burner's main opponent in a 5-way race for a new district stretching from Seattle's technology-forward suburbs to the agricultural areas up towards the Canadian border, is a quintessential self-entitled one-percenter, Suzan DelBene. DelBene is the Mitt Romney of the Democratic congressional cycle-- a serial business failure in every way but one: she made lots of money for herself as she caused nothing but economic devastation around her. Everyone in America now knows that multimillionaire Mitt Romney is engulfed in a scandal because he didn't release his tax returns and refuses to disclose his assets and finances; multimillionaire Suzan DelBene similarly refused to file her 2011 financial disclosure despite the fact that federal law required it. If she's the nominee, the Republicans will have an easy time beating her because of that alone. Polling against the crazed GOP candidate has consistently shown that DelBene would lose to him and that only Darcy has a chance to keep the seat blue.

But DelBene and (especially) her husband are loaded and they're determined to buy the nomination. DelBene has put more of her own money into the race than any other Democrat anywhere in America... and is running over a million dollars in self-funded TV ads against Darcy right now. She's outspending the other 4 candidates combined 4 to 1! Because of her money she's the favorite of the Inside-the-Beltway corrupt Establishment and has been endorsed by the New Dems (basically, the Blue Dogs without the white KKK sheets). It must be driving her insane that Darcy has been ahead in every single public and private poll of the district's Democratic voters. The DCCC, slimy as always, has asked donors to keep out of the race-- in effect leaving DelBene and her self-funding with the overwhelming money advantage. Daily Kos' Orange to Blue PAC, Blue America, DFA and the PCCC have pitched in for Darcy.

Michigan also has it's primary 2 weeks from tomorrow and we have two hot races, although there are other important ones as well (including in MI-14 where two incumbents face off, progressive and underfunded Hansen Clarke vs right-of-center Gary Peters and in MI-13 where progressive icon John Conyers is battling to save his seat against 3 Democratic state legislators and a school board trustee). Michigan's 3rd district (Grand Rapids/Battle Creek) has a hot primary between a young and super-accomplished activist, Trevor Thomas, and a rich old hack, Steve Pestka, who, as a state legislator consistently voted with the Republicans against Choice and to defund Planned Parenthood. He doesn't even allow for an exception in his anti-Choice mania for women who have been raped or when there is incest involved! He's the worst of what the old-time Democratic Party is still trying to foist on voters. Although he has some corrupt institutional support, 74% of his money ($590,118) comes by way of writing checks to himself. He's heavily invested in Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Occidental Petroleum and Devon Energy which is currently planning a controversial fracking project in Michigan. Pestka has failing grades from the League of Conservation Voters. Trevor pointed out that it doesn't make sense to "say you're concerned about high gas prices, or tax loopholes, or our environment when you're personally holding investments in Exxon." Pestka's campaign stinks to high heaven and Amash would make mincemeat out of him in no time flat.


In terms of contributions from real voters, Thomas is beating him handily and polls show that if there's a big turnout Thomas will win the primary. A big turnout in a summer primary is never easy and we're asking for anyone who can afford it to send Trevor last minute contributions for his get-out-the-vote efforts.

We've also talked a bit about the contest in MI-11 where Thad McCotter's hasty resignation has opened up a Republican-held seat to the Democrats. Under the new boundaries Obama would have beaten McCain in this district 50-48%. Dr. Syed Taj is unlikely to ever get real chummy with Michele Bachmann, but he's a distinguished physician with fantastic ideas for how to improve ObamaCare. Dr. Taj is a strong across-the-board progressive champion and in the primary he's facing a bizarre sociopath, Bill Roberts, who brazenly calls himself a LaRouche activist and is obsessed with impeaching President Obama. (Yes, we're talking about a Democratic primary.) This is the header from his website:


The following week, the action shifts east and south, to Connecticut and Florida. Chris Donovan, Speaker of the Connecticut House is a real threat to the corrupt Beltway Establishment. He's the embodiment of everything they fear-- with a record of achievement to prove it. Donovan defines what it means to be a champion of regular American working families-- and he's running against two self-entitled careerist hacks who are eager to immerse themselves in the sewers of Washington. One is the son of a wealthy lobbyist and the other is a grotesque ConservaDem bolstered by EMILY's List who, thankfully, has never accomplished any of her goals-- all of which were to cut services to working families while giving tax breaks to her wealthy financial supporters.

Also on August 14 there are two big match-ups in FL-7, one between Republicans and one between Democrats. Oddly, both have teabaggers! On the GOP side, old time Republican hack, John Mica-- one of Boehner's stooges-- faces off against the Member of Congress considered the stupidest person on the Hill, teabagger Sandy Adams. On the Democratic side Blue America's first endorsee of the cycle, Nicholas Ruiz, is facing a strange Tea Party Democrat, Jason Kendall. Grassroots Democrats everywhere are looking for elected officials equal to the challenge of today's Republican Party, and, alas, Obama, Hoyer, Reid, Wasserman-Schultz and Israel just aren't going to cut it in this climate. There's a time for magnanimity, timidity and bipartisan statesmanship-- and there's a time for kicking their asses. It's time to kick their asses-- which is why people are so excited about Nick Ruiz. We've been in these circumstances before as a people, when we were faced with the debauchery of the early 20th century and the subsequent implosion, followed by FDR's appearance in the 1930s and that's why FDR and the progressives of that time had such a tremendous impact on our country. After Bush, for whatever reason, Obama and the conservative consensus that rules Congress, didn't rise to the occasion. This is the time when we need more tribunes for working families who won't hesitate in standing up for Americans values and progressive principles and will never sell out to the one percent. Nick Ruiz is the embodiment of that kind of candidate.

The two teabaggers are likely to lose their primaries and then it will be a tough contest in November between Mica, who the district is pretty sick of, and Nick Ruiz, the independent-minded progressive who will get to Congress owing nothing to the corrupt conservative Democratic Beltway hierarchy.

And that brings us to the end of August-- the 28th-- when Arizona moves front and center. Blue America has two candidates, both in the southern part of the state with districts that split Tucson-- incumbent Raúl Grijalva (AZ-3) and challenger (and state Rep) Dr. Matt Heinz (AZ-2). Raúl is the nexus of the progressive movement inside Congress... and the power of the one percent has arrayed against him again. This time-- knowing they probably can't beat him in a general election-- they're throwing their money behind a fake Democrat, a conservative shill Amanda Aguirre who's getting tons of PAC support from health insurance companies, corporate agriculture (BCBS and CropLife America) and Canadian mining operation, Rosemont Copper. And she's got George Braun, a Republican Party operative, running her campaign. Raul spends his time and energy working for us, not working the phones for campaign contributions, the way most incumbents do. If you can, please consider stepping up for him now. He's the only incumbent member of the House endorsed by Blue America this cycle. While stumping for him in Tucson, Jim Hightower reminded voters that "they're not coming after Raúl... they're coming after YOU!"

Corporate interests have been successful in getting conservatives elected as Democrats in Arizona and they certainly succeeded in the other Tuscon district, where Ron Barber got elected and immediately started voting with the GOP, first to gut all the environmental legislation ever passed and then to gut Eric Holder as part of Darrell Issa's deranged anti-Obama witch hunt. This isn't the kind of Democrat anyone needs and, luckily, a progressive state Rep., Matt Heinz, looks like he can beat Barber next month. During an interview with Piers Morgan, Barber said in response to the recent Colorado tragedy that “between now and the election, I really believe that very little is going to be said about major policy issues.” Barber can’t talk the talk or walk the walk. He will not tackle hard issues that require a strong advocate-- issues like gun control, the environment and equality. That's why Democrats and independents are so excited about Matt. All Barber can do is hope people think he's Gabby Giffords.