Blue America Endorses An Inspiring New Candidate-- Meet Matt Haggman (FL-27)

I want to introduce Blue America's newest endorsed candidate, Matt Haggman in Miami-Dade, the 27th district, from which Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is retiring. The only reason this very blue seat has remained in Republican hands for so long is because Debbie Wasserman Schultz has done everything in her once- considerable power to undermine and sabotage any Democrat who has gone up against Ros-Lehtinen, an old crony of hers from when they both served in the Florida state legislature and worked together to gerrymander the state in a way that helped the GOP and, of course, Wasserman Schultz. She's now a largely reviled and powerless character and Ros-Lehtinen realized without Debbie working for her behind the scenes-- Debbie's no longer even allowed behind the scenes-- she'd better retire with grace. The district has a PVI of R+5 and Hillary beat Trump there 58.5% to 38.9%, the biggest, bluest margin in any Republican-held district in the entire country.

This cycle, predictably, a boatload of Democrats jumped into the race. Since then many of them dropped out, leaving it a contest basically between progressive Matt Haggman and two garden variety Democrats, Clinton-era throwback Donna Shalala and moderate state legislator David Richardson. All have raised approximately the same out of money. Shalala and Richardson, though, are both self-funders who each dropped over half a million dollars of their own money into their campaigns. Yep... seat buyers. Clearly the best of the three candidates, I asked Matt to introduce himself to DWT readers with a guest post. If you like what he has to say, please consider contributing to his campaign-- by clicking on the Blue America 2018 congressional thermometer on the right.



Why We Must Change In Big Ways, Not Small
by Matt Haggman

I’ve never run for elected office before. But last year I decided to quit my job and run for Congress.

Before the last presidential election I believed America would never elect a person who said and did the things that Donald Trump said and did. I believed America today would never elect a bully, a liar, someone who preyed upon our worst fears and sought to divide us to win. We might come close to electing such a demagogue as president, but at this stage in our country’s history we would never actually do it. We had come too far to take such a clear and destructive step backward. America today was, I thought, different. I was obviously wrong.

Eight years after the most hopeful moment in our politics in my lifetime, we now were at the very bleakest moment. The better angels of our nature had given way to the most base sensibilities. A presidency built on hope had been followed by one built on our worst fears.

How we respond is, of course, critical. Years from now we will each be asked, what did you do when a president was elected who declared the press the enemy of the state, instituted a Muslim ban, ripped immigrant children away from their parents? Each of us is answering that question in our own way. For me, I’m answering by running.

But I would argue even more is at stake than standing up against a rogue and duplicitous president.

To me, what is required in Congress today is dramatic overhaul. Not incremental tweaks but deep and widespread change. This needs to be more than simply retaking the House but a moment of renewal in our politics in which we chart an entirely new path, and practice our politics in entirely new ways.

Even as Donald Trump’s election was a call to action and even as we must ensure that Trump’s America doesn’t become the new normal, Trump’s election revealed something else. Namely, it revealed that our political system is badly broken.

For years our politics have been stuck. Friends intent on driving social change have long given up on politics as the place to do it. They’ve focused their efforts in community activism, entrepreneurship, arts, education (my brother has worked as an 8th grade public school teacher the past decade), rather than try to make a dent in the messy and ineffective world of politics. Trump’s election served notice that the rupture is complete. Something is deeply wrong with our entire political system. Indeed, the sad truth is that while Trump is a cause of our political dysfunction, he is also a symptom of it.

At the time of Trump’s election I was Miami Program Director at the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Before that I was a journalist for almost a decade, most of that time at the Miami Herald.

During my nearly six years at Knight Foundation I launched an effort focused on propelling Miami’s entrepreneurs and civic innovators as a way to expand opportunity and drive community engagement. The effort resulted in thousands of jobs, spawned myriad new leaders and, most important to me, created a new sense of possibility in Miami.

We aimed to lift up the entire community, supporting the launch of dozens of programs ranging from The Idea Center at Miami Dade College, supporting student entrepreneurs at the largest and most diverse college in the U.S., to the creation of the Black Tech Week and Women Innovating Now LAB Miami, supporting black and women founders.

I loved the work, and it’s hardly finished in Miami. But, for me, the presidential election interrupted all of that. Instead, I submitted my resignation, packed up my office at Knight Foundation, and drove home. There, sitting on my couch in my living room, I started calling friends. “I have a crazy idea,” I told them, “I’m running for Congress.”

As I’ve set out on my first campaign-- building a plane while flying it, I’ve often described it-- much has shaped my thinking. From growing up in Cambridge, Mass. in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s district, being a product of public schools, attending college in New Orleans at Tulane University, working as a journalist at the Miami Herald. But what I want to focus on here is the work at Knight Foundation helping propel entrepreneurs, small business owners and community leaders in neighborhoods across Miami.

At its core, that work focused on investing in and empowering people, helping entrepreneurs honestly assess challenges and think in new ways to solve them, while building trust and establishing core values across the community. And, most of all, the work thrived on an ethos of helping people disrupt-- in big, transformative ways-- the normal way of doing things.

To me, all of this is required in our politics today. We need wrenching, system-wide change. And we, as candidates, can’t just aspire to it, but have the courage to live it.

Change must really mean change

It’s for that reason that my campaign is refusing to accept any donations from political action committees, federal lobbyists or special interests that often play an outsized role in Florida politics like the sugar and energy industry. Instead, our mantra is people, not PACs.

My belief is that if we can get people elected who are funded purely by individuals, then it’s one step closer to getting a Congress that is working in the public interest rather than the corporate or special interest.

Consider that polls show that more than 80 percent of Americans-- more than 8 in 10-- want universal background checks for gun sales. Yet, there is zero movement on legislation in Congress to establish universal background checks. To me, there is one explanation: how congressional campaigns are funded.

Once in Congress, I would support legislation banning contributions from PACs and lobbyists. Furthermore, support legislation that increases transparency on political contributions of all kinds and begin the process of passing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

But, to me, the key is not to wait. For too long we have seen well-meaning candidates who say we must have campaign finance reform but become beholden to the very system they pledge to change.

Meanwhile, this needs to be a moment when we not only change the way we fund elections, but have the courage to let new leaders emerge from the bottom ranks of Congress to the very top. Now, more than ever, we need new leaders and fresh voices. But solely electing a host of fresh-faced members to Congress this Fall is not nearly enough.

That’s why when I was asked in May by a Miami Herald reporter, if elected to Congress, would I support House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi to continue leading the party, I responded, “No, it’s time for a new day.”

My response was not meant to detract from the years of great service Leader Pelosi has given to the party. She is a trailblazer who is responsible for some of the biggest successes of the Democratic Party in the past fifteen years.

Experience and institutional knowledge are, of course, important. But if the Democratic party doesn’t see voters’ frustration with both its current leadership and our politics today, we will have missed an historic opportunity to chart a new path at a pivotal moment.

If elected, I would also push for reforms that allow members of Congress to move up the ranks quicker. For instance, establish term limits for committee leadership posts. With this change, members will be able to move into leadership roles faster and groom future speakers.

In sum, the “Blue Wave” must not only result in a Democratic majority in Congress, but new leaders at all levels too. If it doesn’t, my hunch is that this surge could ultimately resemble the last Democratic wave in Congress, which was short-lived and unsustainable.

Throwing out the playbook

Yet, this is just the start of the broad change that is needed. We need to move away from the campaign formula that candidates are told to follow. Namely, focusing on a specific set of Democratic voters, sticking to selected Democratic poll-tested issues, and then spending most of our waking hours raising money.

Back in 2012, when my Knight Foundation colleague Ben Wirz and I first sketched out our plan to help build Miami’s startup and entrepreneurial community, we established principles to guide us.

• Build networks from the bottom up
• Diversity as a core strength
• Entrepreneurs over institutions
• Fund experiments first, then scale
• Don’t reinvent if we can import
• Learn as we go

This was built on a model of constant community engagement. Every other week we held a coffee open to the entire community. Anyone could come (we didn’t extend invitations or decide who could attend) and conversations were purposefully open-ended with nothing off limits for discussion. The result was a regular platform for people to share ideas, aspirations, complaints, fears-- whatever.

Our thinking was that we didn’t have the best ideas, the community did. Furthermore, the best solutions are reached when you listen and have the courage to embrace good ideas no matter where they arise. And that the greatest impact is achieved when the most diverse range of people are included-- after all, innovation is built on a diverse range of people and ideas connecting and colliding.

Thinking back on it now, I see how different it is from how we are told to run for political office. Rather than opening ourselves up to as many people possible, we choose to connect with a select few who regularly vote. Rather than being open to myriad ideas and solutions, we read from poll-tested position papers. Rather than seeing diversity and inclusion as a critical value, it’s viewed as a nice thing.

For our campaign, our approach is to start with the voter and work backwards. We’ve built a campaign fellows program powered by more than 60 people who, along with me, are visiting voters in all 245 precincts across Florida’s District 27. Currently, we have hit 220. We’ve hosted meetups and coffees open to all. We also have tried an online site called UpVote where we ask people to identify what solutions they prefer. This is only a start.

I know that listening, or even changing one’s mind after hearing a better idea, rather than presenting one’s self as having bold ideas and clear convictions isn’t typically rewarded in today’s politics. But we should start to try. Change occurs from the bottom up. Washington has not been able to find the solutions to our most pressing problems, listening more closely and more widely across our neighborhoods may prove better.

Investing in people and thinking different

My approach at Knight in supporting entrepreneurs wasn’t to make direct investment in businesses. Instead, it was to create an ecosystem of resources across the community that people could choose from to better build the ideas and solve the problem most important to them. This included programs that provided mentorship, connection, learning, access to funding, and fostered a greater sense of community.

Examples include Endeavor, a non-profit which provides mentorship and support to help entrepreneurs scale ventures. eMerge Americas, an annual conference in Miami uniting entrepreneurs across the Americas. LaunchCode and Girls Who Code, each making learning to code more accessible and, in the case of Girls Who Code, taking aim at the yawning gender gap in technology. Social Entrepreneurship Bootcamp and programs, which I mentioned earlier, like The Idea Center at Miami Dade College, Black Tech Week, Women Innovating Now LAB, with a particular focus on black, Hispanic and women entrepreneurs.

Our mantra was that talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not-- and that must be changed. Creating a network of resources that invest in people across the community from the bottom up was our way to try.

It’s time our politics took the same approach. And, while at it, it’s time to start matching the scale of the challenges we face with the size of the solutions. For too long, we’ve operated under the assumption there are things we cannot do. That needs to end.

Matt and his wife at the Women's March-- the day he decided to run for Congress

I mentioned earlier that years from now we will each be asked what we did in response to a destructive and irresponsible Trump presidency. But an equally important question is, what did you at a time when the opportunity and income gap is wider than it’s been since the great depression; when getting an education resulted in so many going deeply into crippling debt; when we seemed helpless to confront gun violence; when quality, affordable healthcare remains a challenge for way too many families and prescription drugs remain artificially and cruelly high; when the planet continues to warm and sea levels rise; when entrepreneurship and business creation remain at decade lows; when the era of mass incarceration continues unabated; when public transportation remains abysmal for too many here in South Florida who lose hours each day commuting to work or school; and when there is such deep-seated mistrust in our politics.

It's a long list. But that’s why we need a new approach which is both honest about what is required and unafraid to embrace solutions that actually have a shot at solving the problem.

That’s why I am for Medicare for All, importation of prescription drugs and allowing Medicare to negotiate reasonable drug prices, universal pre-K, refocusing on improving public education, free tuition in community colleges and public universities, high-speed internet into every home, revamping our criminal justice system, raising the minimum wage to $15, increasing federal funding for public transportation, piloting a federal jobs guarantee. Taken together, this would begin to address the searing the opportunity gap in our country, while expanding opportunity and stirring job creation.

Not only that, hastening the transition to an economy powered renewable energy. Indeed, my moonshot goal is for South Florida-- a region threatened by sea level rise-- is to be the first metropolitan area to do it. We are a long, long way from there today. But if we can muster the resolve, this is a change that will not only safeguard the environment and make us more resilient, but increase jobs and drive our economy.

Meanwhile, we must get back to celebrating that we are-- and always will be-- a nation of immigrants. My wife’s family came to this country in 1966 from Cuba. They found a country that welcomed them with open arms and gave them a shot. We need to get back to being that America. Comprehensive immigration reform includes a pathway citizenship for the undocumented, fighting for Dreamers and those with Temporary Protect Status, cleaning up a cumbersome visa process, and abolishing ICE.

Lastly, no one will believe Congress is really serious about change until we pass gun safety reform. This includes universal background checks, an assault weapons ban and a ban on high capacity magazines, among other changes.

This is a tall order. But the truth is that we are at a crossroads. We need a new direction in our politics focused on solving problems with an open mind that is grounded in common sense, champions our diversity and engages the entire community. The response must allow for experimentation and cannot be top down. But it also can’t be incremental. To do it, in my view, we will need many new leaders in our politics.

We can’t expect the same approach and the same people to deliver a different result.

In President Obama’s farewell address he warned that we can’t take democracy for granted. It “falls on each of us to be anxious, jealous guardians of our democracy,” he said. What the speech said to me is that, yes, America is a special place-- but it is special because generation after generation have continually stepped up and engaged in making it so even as there are setbacks, sometimes dramatic setbacks, along the way.

Now is that time for us.

It's MOTHER Nature, Not Father Nature

I was fascinated a few days ago to hear Marianne Williamson address a crowd of Laura Oatman supporters in Huntington Beach. Laura is the progressive woman running against Putin's favorite congressman, Republican Dana Rohrabacher. Marianne and Laura spoke to the crowd about the special strength and power of mothers that has evolved over millennia to ensure the longevity of the species. And if we, as a society, ever needed that power, it is now, with Trump and his self-serving enablers in power.

Yesterday, outgoing Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen told Face the Nation that her party is in trouble. "When you look at the future of the Republican Party," she said, "I think that we would be foolish to not see that we’re heading into trouble. Part of that problem is that the GOP is a predominantly male party, with few women running and with a generally hostile attitude towards women. "Far greater numbers of women are identifying themselves as being in the Democratic party," she said. "When you look ahead, what's our future going to be? Are we going to end up a marginalized party? I think that we need to look toward the future, and we need to have the policies that attract millennials, women and minorities. I don't see that... I don't see those Asian women and-- and those minority women, serving in the House GOP or in the Senate GOP... we used to be more accepting of having moderate positions, and now-- now it's getting harder."

Greed-driven, selfish, entitled patriarchs-- the Trump crowd-- aren't going to protect anyone or anything but their own wealth and status. Trump doesn't recognize the concept of a future, very much the opposite of the role that has evolved for women. From the website, Motherhood: "While there are many characteristics that make up a good mother, protecting their young is a common quality that both the human and animal mother share. The mother bear has always been the quintessential example of a mother’s love, and this is mainly because of their fierce, protective nature. It is a widely accepted belief that the most dangerous place to be is between a mother bear and her cub... seventy percent of human deaths caused by grizzly bears are related to a mother grizzly bear protecting her cubs."

Some of this year's best candidates are fierce women who talk about preserving the environment about protecting children from the NRA-coddling Republicans, from the oligarchic tendencies the GOP has adopted that will turn the majority of people into victims. Women like Lisa Brown (WA), Jenny Marshall (NC), Katie Hill (CA), Jess King (PA), Lillian Salerno (TX), Katie Porter (CA), Marie Newman (IL), Nina Ahmad (PA), Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (NM), Mary Matiela (AZ), Wendy Reed (CA), Laura Oatman (CA), Kara Eastman (NE), Marge Doyle (CA) and Alexandria Ocasio (NY) are the future of the Democratic Party... and the future of America. There are 22 women in the Senate, so 22%-- 5 Republicans and 17 Democrats. There are 84 women (19.3%) in the House-- 62 Democrats and 22 Republicans. By the way, 51% of Americans are women and 49% are men. Do we need more women in Congress? Desperately. But keep in mind, some of the very best members of Congress are women-- take Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Judy Chu (D-CA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)-- while some of the most horrible members-- even among Democrats-- are also women-- Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-DL) and Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL). And the Democrats have some amazing women running this cycle, like the aforementioned Nina Ahmad, Jenny Marshall and Lillian Salerno, right alongside some of the worst candidates you'll find on the 2018 campaign trial, from Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ), Susie Lee (New Dem-NV) and Mike Sherrill (New Dem-NJ) to Gretchen Driskell (Blue Dog-MI) and Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)... and that even before we look at neo-fascist Republican monstrosities like Diane Black (TN), Virginia Foxx (NC), Liz Cheney (WY), Vicky Hartzler (MO) and Marsha Blackburn (TN).

And you want to talk about destructive corruption? Three little words: Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

And that's not to say that women politicians can't become as jaded, vile and self-serving as men. In fact, the longer someone is in Congress, the more likely that becomes. Look at Kirsten Gillbrand for example, who is desperately trying to turn the #MeToo movement into a stepping stone for her own careerist ambitions. She's corrupt, racist and devoid of a moral core... but she knows an opportunity when she sees one. Doesn't this look like it was cribbed straight from DWT?

The Gillibrand we see today looks very different than the one we saw back in 2007, when she was on her way to becoming the unlikely winner of a House seat in a largely rural and heavily Republican district in upstate New York:

Upon winning, she became a member of the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats. She supported a balanced budget amendment and a ban on deficit spending. Her immigration platform was of a piece with the proto-Trumpism brewing during George W. Bush’s second term-- no amnesty or benefits for illegal aliens; a crackdown on sanctuary cities like New York; more agents, fencing, and tech for the border; and legislation making English America’s official language. The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group, gave her the lowest rating of any New York Democrat in Congress for her positions on gay rights issues. Her rating from the National Rifle Association, meanwhile, was a solid 100 percent.

All of that made her a controversial pick to fill the Senate seat that opened up when President Obama tapped Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state in 2009. Asked about why her views had changed, Gillibrand had an unusually straightforward answer.

“After I got appointed, I went down to Brooklyn to meet with families who had suffered from gun violence in their communities,” she said. “And you immediately experience the feeling that I couldn’t have been more wrong-- you know I only had the lens of upstate New York.”

She offered up a similar answer on immigration: “I came from a district that was 98 percent white… And I just didn’t take the time to understand why these issues mattered because it wasn’t

right in front of me. And that was my fault. It was something that I’m embarrassed about and I’m ashamed of.” As Alfonsi pointed out, to say Gillibrand “only had the lens of upstate New York” is somewhat misleading, since she had lived in New York City for a decade before returning to upstate to a run for a congressional seat. From their exchange:

Alfonsi: But you had-- lived in New York City...

Gillibrand: I know.

Alfonsi: ...for a decade.

Gillibrand: And that’s why I was embarrassed.

Alfonsi: You traveled abroad.

Gillibrand: I was wrong. What it’s about is the power of the NRA and the greed of that industry. Let’s be clear. It is not about hunters’ rights, it’s about money.

Alfonsi: Your critics will say it’s political opportunism.

Gillibrand: As is their right. They can say what they like.

Gillibrand is doing her best to air out the issues now, hoping that liberals in Iowa and New Hampshire will focus on her unblemished record in the Senate and not a handful of highly damning House votes from a decade ago. As Gillibrand herself said in the 60 Minutes interview, “if you’re wrong, just admit it and move on.”

No mention of Al Franken? Did he get a chance to apologize and move on before Gillibrand scalped him and then mercilessly ripped him to shreds and forced him out of the Senate? Or is that dirty little episode already deep down the national memory hole?

Health Care... Who Needs It Anyway!

Yesterday, writing for the Washington Post James Hohmann made the case that the blundering moron has wrecked the American health-care system by immediately halting cost-sharing reductions for 7 million Americans and now owns the dire consequences.

This is not “letting” Obamacare fail. Many nonpartisan experts believe that these active measures are likely to undermine the pillars of the 2010 law and hasten the collapse of the marketplaces.

The Pottery Barn rule comes to mind: You break it, you own it. Yes, the plate you just shattered had some cracks in it. But if you dropped it on the ground, the store is going to blame you.

As Barack Obama learned after the Great Recession, with heavy Democratic losses in the 2010 midterms, it’s hard to blame your predecessor for problems two years after you take office. Especially when your party has unified control of the federal government. No matter how much it might be the previous guy’s fault, many voters won’t buy it. People have very short attention spans.

The uncertainty about what Trump would do has already driven premium prices higher for 2018. Now it’s going to get worse. Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin explain why: “Trump has threatened for months to stop the payments, which go to insurers that are required by the laws to help eligible consumers afford their deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. But he held off while other administration officials warned him such a move would cause an implosion of the ACA marketplaces that could be blamed on Republicans … The fifth year’s open-enrollment season for consumers to buy coverage through ACA exchanges will start in less than three weeks, and insurers have said that stopping the cost-sharing payments would be the single greatest step the Trump administration could take to damage the marketplaces … Ending the payments is grounds for any insurer to back out of its federal contract to sell health plans for 2018.”

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the dean of the Florida Republican delegation to Congress, complained that Trump's mind-boggling decision to unilaterally and precipitously cut health care subsidies "will mean more uninsured in my district." She reminded him that he promised "more access, affordable coverage" complaining that his actions do the opposite. Is it possible that she's the only Republican with the integrity and guts to even question Trump on this decision that will so drastically impact the lives of so many millions of Americans?

Carol Shea Porter (D-NH) told her constituents what most Democrats in Congress are telling theirs. "Late last night, President Trump announced that he will torpedo the individual insurance market by ordering the government to stop making the Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) payments it owes. He is right to be so ashamed of this spiteful action he would only announce it in the dead of night. Stopping these payments won’t just hurt the lower-income people whose out-of-pocket costs are defrayed by CSRs, it will also hurt every one of the millions of Americans who buy their own coverage. That’s because insurance companies say they are going to charge everyone more to make up for the lost funding. Congress must act immediately to fund CSRs and protect our constituents from Trump’s vengeful and destructive actions." Friday another Republican sheepishly joined Ros-Lehtinen in trying to separate himself from Trump's insanity. Tom Reed (R-NY): "If Congress doesn't get it done the people who suffer are the people back home."

We reached out to Laura Oatman, the progressive running for the Orange County seat (CA-48, just downgraded by Cook from "leans Republican" to "toss-up") occupied by Trump rubber-stamp Dana Rohrabacher. "What Trump has done with the stroke of his pen," she told us, "now ends government subsidies that help our nation’s poorest people obtain the life-saving health care they need. There are more than 6 million low-income people across our country that will be affected by this, and in our district, there may be as many as 76,000 that will be left without health insurance. Rohrabacher’s record is clear-- he has voted with Trump to dismantle Obamacare every step of the way, and seems to have no regard for those 76,000 people that he’s supposed to represent and whose very lives will now be at risk. This is immoral and unacceptable. No one should have to worry about dying or going bankrupt because they cannot afford the lifesaving medicine or surgery they need to survive. It is time for him to go. We need strong, bold, progressive leadership here in District-48 to represent us in DC now, to fight for health care as a human right."

When I reached Kendra Fershee in a West Virginia district where Trump beat Hillary 68.0-26.4%-- but where Bernie also beat Hillary and, in many counties got more votes than Trump did on primary day-- she told me that my question made her think we were separated at birth. "I drafted a post about this exact issue this morning. Over the last couple of weeks, voters in the West Virginia First have been receiving a glossy tri-fold mailing from David McKinley, who pats himself on the back for his vote for the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would kick 14 million Americans out of their healthcare plans by next year. The AARP said the bill could cost many older West Virginians "$6,332 to $8,482 more per year" for healthcare (and inflict a lot of pain district-wide). Despite knowing all of this, Rep. McKinley voted for the bill, which he reports in the mailer under a heading that says, 'Promises Kept.' Is this the kind of promise we want our Representative to make?" She continued with her own communication to people in the northern third of West Virginia, district that includes the Panhandle, Wheeling, Parkersburg, Morgantown and Clarksburg:

Yesterday, President Trump slashed subsidies to health insurance companies, which will strip insurance from the people who need it most (despite his promise in January that he would provide "insurance for everyone"). Rep. Paul Ryan said the move was appropriate because Congress controls the "power of the purse." So, West Virginians want to know whether Rep. McKinley is going to use the power his constituents granted him to do the right thing and seek support in Congress to fund the subsidies. After his vote to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with a much worse option (the AHCA), it's hard to imagine he will step up now. We need leadership who will ensure that this political gamesmanship will stop and fight for universal healthcare. I'm ready to be that leader.

State Senator Daylin Leach is the leading candidate contesting Pat Meehan's seat in the suburbs of Philadelphia (PA-07). He told us just what he's telling voters in Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster and Chester counties. "It's clear that America's access to health care is more under attack than ever. And Pat is not someone you can have confidence will fight for us and our families on this. He was for the awful Republican health care bill before he was against it. But don't forget, he voted to completely and totally repeal the Affordable Care Act, with NO replacement at all, over 50 times. That's no replacement, zero protection for pre-existing conditions, zero minimum coverage, no subsidies to help families afford it, nothing. So like most of the rest of his Republican colleagues, ideology was more important than making sure kids can go to the doctor when they are sick."

Dayna Steele is running against one of the most extreme anti-healthcare Republicans in East Texas; maybe Louie Gohmert is worse, although Babin and Gohmert usually vote in tandem. "It is unfathomable to me how many times the incumbent Babin has voted to take away health care from thousands of his constituents in Southeast Texas," Dayna told me yesterday. "Instead of improving during his watch, the health of people in the district and their health care has declined every year. We have a large populated county in the district without a hospital. Texas has the #1 maternal death rate in the U.S. (and higher than many industrialized countries.) Women's clinics have been shut down. CHIP is being taken away. Veterans benefits will decrease. the list goes on. And now, in the aftermath of Harvey, national media is referring to the Gulf of Mexico and the Houston Ship channel as a "toxic gumbo" after all the leaks, spills, and explosions caused by the hurricane. This will add to an already catastrophic health situation in CD-36 over the next few years. It is as if they are 'culling the herd' as we say in Texas. One of the many reasons #whyIrun."

Lillian Salerno is another strong and brilliant progressive woman running in a completely different part of Texas (north Dallas) for a seat held by a slippery member of Paul Ryan's leadership team, Pete Sessions. Yesterday, she told us that she's "seen first hand how Sessions and the Washington elite use their positions as a way to line their own pockets from a broken healthcare system at the expense of working families. Pete Sessions does not have the background to understand healthcare, but that does not stop him from writing bills meant to gut Obamacare. By ending cost-sharing reduction payments, many ACA enrollees may see steep premium increases and some insurers may pull out of the marketplace all together. It has never been more critical for the people of Texas-32 to have a real leader in Congress-- let me have at 'em."

Here in California, 673,104 people rely on the cost-sharing reduction payments Trump just abolished, primarily so he could give the wealthiest 1% of Americans tax reductions-- while driving up the cost of insurance by around 20%. Any California Republicans willing to stand up to Trump's reckless gambling with the lives of so many of the state's citizens? Not Mimi Walters, that's for sure. Kia Hamadanchy, one of the progressives vying for the nomination to take her on told us that "Trump is going out of his way to deliberately sabotage and undermine the Affordable Care Act. His actions will lead to less people in this country having health insurance. There is no healthcare policy expert who thinks this is a good idea or that will it do anything to make health insurance more affordable or accessible. But yet again Mimi Walters continues to remain silent and refuses to say or do anything to contradict Donald Trump, even when she knows he is acting against the interests of her constituents. I've said a number of times that I think we need to transition to single payer. But that does not mean we should actively work to make the healthcare system worse, which Donald Trump and Mimi Walters are doing."

Predictably, three physicians running for Republican held seats felt very strongly about Trump's action. Alina Valdes is running for the south Florida seat occupied by Trump rubber-stamp Mario Diaz-Balart. She sent us a statement that says it all:

As a physician, who has taken care of the poor and uninsured for 35 years, I have always felt that a one payer health care system, without private for-profit companies, is the way to go in this country. Politicizing health care makes it seem like it is optional in people's lives, like something that could be bought or not. Sooner or later, we all need medical care and that is why I support Medicare for All or HR 676 and its counterpart in the Senate, S 1782.

While I support fixing the ACA as a temporary measure to continue healthcare coverage for the maximum number of people possible, the only way to guarantee healthcare, which is a human right, is to make it a benefit for all Americans guaranteed by the US government regardless of ability to pay.

Right now, for profit insurance companies, who are beholding to their investors and stock holders, determine who gets certain benefits and this, in turn, is determined by the users ability to pay. This translates into better healthcare for those able to pay more and many with no healthcare because they cannot afford it.  We need a humane, all inclusive option that will be cost effective while covering every single American. This leads to a one payer healthcare system run by the government, like Medicare, which has a 3% administrative cost when compared to a privatized insurance system, many having as high as 30% administrative costs.

Insurance is generally based on risk and this determines premiums but how can you assess risk on a newborn? By covering all 350 million with a minor increase in Medicare payroll deduction, you eliminate for profit companies and the attached premiums these bring. No matter which company provides your healthcare now, they are all increasing their premiums and crying poverty while their stocks continue to rake in record profits. Employers are removing many choices from their employee benefits because of these ever increasing costs to their bottom line.

We can eliminate all other forms of insurance beholding to Congress and its whims like CHIP, which has not been funded past this year, leaving 9 million children uninsured and Medicaid, which covers the destitute, disabled, and many elderly now being cut in the proposed budget. Businesses, especially small ones, can benefit by eliminating workmen's compensation, which now consumes a large portion of costs to companies.

I conclude that the logical solution to the difficult logistics of providing healthcare to the maximum number of people for the minimum cost is a one payer healthcare system backed by the US government, like Medicare For All. Until you have walked in somebody's shoes or side by side with them, healthcare may be a luxury many cannot afford but by making it available to all regardless of ability to pay, we can have a healthier, generally more productive working class.

Dr. David Gill, running for a seat in central Illinois, is laser focused on improving the healthcare system, not wrecking it. He just said "My Republican opponent, Rodney Davis, stated in a radio interview yesterday that President Trump's cut to health care subsidies will 'lower premiums.' This couldn't be further from the truth. There may be some small number of residents in the district that will see lower premiums, but the vast majority of IL-13 residents will see steep increases in premiums; in many cases, this will make health insurance completely unaffordable for families here in central Illinois. Mr. Davis' deceit and support of the president is not at all surprising-- he has backed every version of TrumpCare, and he has repeatedly lied in stating that TrumpCare would prevent insurers from billing higher premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. Mr. Davis and I are like night and day on the topic of health care: he stands with the for-profit private health insurance industry that subsidizes his campaigns, while I, as a 25-year member of Physicians for a National Health Program, advocate for the single-payer system which Americans have been deprived of for decades. I look forward to sending Mr. Davis home from Washington, and once I've taken his seat, I intend to speak as a boldly progressive physician in providing leadership toward the effort to finally bring a single-payer plan to fruition here in America."

Our third physician is an award winning oncologist and cancer researcher in Houston, Jason Westin. Early this morning he told us that "After Trump decided to allow 'junk' insurance plans and refused to pay critical CSR subsidies, it was clear to all that he was deliberately working to sabotage the ACA. Two Republican Members of Congress had the courage of their convictions to rightly declare Trump's moves to be wrong-- John Culberson was not one. Once again, Culberson has decided to stand with Donald Trump and turn his back on us in Texas 7th. After I take Culberson's seat in 2018, I will fight for true universal coverage, to bring down the drivers of healthcare costs like prescription drug prices, and to speed up our search for new cures. It's long past time for our leaders to lead on healthcare, and if career politicians like Culberson want to play partisan political games instead, we will need to elect new leaders to get the job done."

Tom Guild's campaign keeps picking up steam in Oklahoma City and we could wind up with a progressive Democrat in Congress from Oklahoma for the first time in more decades than anyone remembers. "Trump," he said, "has done it again! He never misses an opportunity to disappoint us. Although he said all the politically correct things running for president about health care, at every opportunity he does everything in his power to undermine health care for Americans. He has undermined Medicare, Medicaid, and gone after the Affordable Care Act with a vengeance rarely seen in American politics. Steve Russell goes merrily along with each and every attempt the Donald cooks up to hurt hard working Americans. He wants to cut trillions from Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA, and Russell supports Trump at every turn. The new federal budget, voted for by Russell takes from working people and the middle class and gives to the top 1% in huge tax cuts. Both must have been distracted when their teachers read the story of Robin Hood to their classes. Now Trump has signed an executive order with the intent of further weakening the ACA and destroying the individual market place created under the law. Once again, like two peas in a pod, Russell is on board and a member of the Trump Wrecking Crew. I am disgusted that Trump and Russell have intentionally sabotaged the ACA, needlessly leaving 130,000 Oklahomans seeking health care coverage with an avoidable 30% increase in their premiums. Dr. Terry Cline, Oklahoma’s Secretary of Health and Human Services and Commissioner of Health at the Oklahoma State Department of Health recently chided both Trump and his recently departed HHS Secretary Tom Price for denying the state of Oklahoma a waiver provided for in the ACA that would have helped more than 130,000 Oklahomans struggling with dramatic increases in premiums. It would have afforded a more than 30% premium reduction for 130,000 Oklahomans, who now are forced to buy health insurance under the ACA rendered unreasonably more expensive because of the malicious actions of Trump’s appointees, supported by his lackeys in Congress like Russell. Russell does the bidding of a treacherous and toxic president while laying waste to working people in our congressional district. It is time to repeal and replace Russell in the 2018 elections and elect a hard working progressive to represent the fifth district of Oklahoma. The more the twin towers of tyranny work to destroy health care coverage for Americans, the more inevitable and necessary universal affordable healthcare becomes. Single payer. Dragon slayer."

Paul Clements is running for a seat in southwest Michigan held by one of the architects of Trumpcare, Fred Upton. He told us today that "at the end of April Upton opposed the Republican health care plan. Then Donald Trump called him for a meeting and promised $8 billion dollars to address insurance costs for pre-existing conditions-- a pittance compared to their actual cost, and Upton flipped. On May 4 the Upton Amendment got the bill the final handful of votes it needed to pass the House. This bill would have hurt poor people, older Americans, people with pre-existing conditions, state governments, hospitals, and Planned Parenthood. It would have helped high-income earners and people who wish to go without health insurance. If Upton had held firm, Congress would have had a chance to actually start a bipartisan discussion. Now Trump is throwing our health care system into chaos, doing even more to hurt poor people, older Americans, and people with pre-existing conditions. Sadly, evidence on how the health of Americans can actually be improved at lower cost has had no role in Republican plans. Opposing President Obama seems to have been a priority. For the evidence is clear-- it is the private health insurance system that gave us the most expensive health care system in the world, one that yields worse health results. The way to make care cheaper and better is to move to single payer, such as, for a first step, by making an expanded Medicare available to all."

Dan Canon is running against right-wing Indiana freshman Trey Hollingsworth (IN-09) and the two couldn't be more different when it comes to healthcare. "I've been very clear that I believe healthcare is a human right," said Canon, "and should be accessible to everyone regardless of how wealthy they are. Representative Hollingsworth voted to repeal the ACA but, like most of his colleagues, hasn't offered any solutions to replace it. Now, as Trump unilaterally dismantles the ACA from the inside out, Hollingsworth lacks the integrity to speak on the matter at all, even as his fellow Republicans are finally starting to show some courage. Hollingsworth knows full well that Trump's actions will take away meaningful access to healthcare from hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers. He just doesn't care."

Today the DCCC was railing against Republicans who support Trump's healthcare plans and who voted against aid for the victims of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Virginia Foxx fits both categories to a "t." Yet, for all their bluster, the DCCC is just collecting money for itself and doing absolutely nothing for the candidates running against these Republicans who fit that description. Nothing! Jenny Marshall is taking on Foxx on her own. Yesterday she told us that Foxx "has sought to dismantle the ACA at every turn since it's passage. In Foxx's opinion 'The American people desperately need relief from a failed health care law that has increased costs, taken away choices, destroyed jobs, and burdened small businesses. Republicans are committed to delivering that relief.' Well, the past 24 hours gave Foxx what she has been seeking, the dismantling of the ACA. A position that will increase costs and raise the uninsured rates across the country. I, on the other hand, advocate for a single payer universal healthcare system that would cover everyone without worry of co-pays or deductibles. We must join the rest of the industrialized countries by investing in our citizens and accepting that healthcare is a basic human right."

Lots Of Retirements By Incumbents Always Precede A Political Tsunami-- Most Recent: Charlie Dent

Leading his party to doom and destruction

Before you get a political tsunami that wipes out your party, you get ripples-- entrenched swing state incumbents in the tough seats start announcing their retirements. This year the first to throw in the towel was Ileana Ros Lehtinen-- first elected in 1989 and never seriously challenged in an increasingly blue district because her crony Debbie WassermanSchultz always protected her. The 2006 Almanac of American Politics listed her South Florida district's PVI at R+4. She had drawn the boundaries herself in the state Senate. A decade later, the 2016 Almanac of American Politics rated the same district-- no longer FL-18, but FL-27-- as a PVI R+2. McCain had beaten Obama there 51-49% in 2008 but Obama turned it around in 2012 and won the district 53-47%. Last year Hillary eviscerated Trump there-- 58.5% to 38.9%, Hillary's best performance in a Republican-Held congressional district anywhere in the country. That and Wasserman Schultz's loss of power within the Democratic Party was the writing on the wall for Ros-Lehtinen. When the new PVI for the district came out-- D+5 (an unprecedented swing)-- she announced her impending retirement. The DCCC has never fought an election there are has no idea how to win the district, so in a non-tsunami year, the GOP would have a chance to hold the district. But in 2018? Not even DCCC bumbling will save this seat for them.

Ros Lehtinen is a mainstream conservative and she was just the first of her breed to face the bitter reality. Next came Dave Reichert in WA-08, most of whose voters live in the suburbs of Seattle and Tacoma. Reichert was first elected in 2004, the same year Kerry beat Bush in the district 51-48%. 4 years earlier, Gore had beaten Bush there 49-47%. The PVI in the 2006 Almanac of American Politics listed WA-08 as D+2. Reichert proved popular and he hung on as Obama beat McCain 51-47% and then beat Romney 50-48%. Last year, Hillary beat Trump 47.7% to 44.7%, though the district had been slightly rejiggered and was sporting an R+1 PVI. The new PVI, though, is an ominous "EVEN." Reichert was considered fairly safe but in a tsunami year... the calculations for that Beltway safety are mostly moot. The Democrats will have more than half a dozen candidates vying for the nomination in the jungle primary. The district is no slam dunk for an incompetent and bumbling DCCC but if a good candidate emerges in this district that went overwhelmingly for Bernie, we should see a flip blue there.

And then Thursday, came the third mainstreamer calling it quits: Charlie Dent. His Lehigh Valley district-- including both Bethlehem and Allentown-- had a PVI of D+2 right after he was elected in 2004. Both Gore and Kerry had won the district, albeit very narrowly and by 2014 the PVI had slipped to R+2. Obama still managed to bet McCain, 52-47%, but in 2012, Romney took the district 51-48%. Hillary expected to win but she came nowhere near Obama's numbers and Trump out-performed Romney. Trump won 51.8% to 44.2%. In 2014 the Democrats didn't even bother running a candidate against Dent and in 2016 the DCCC ignored Rick Daugherty's challenge entirely. He spent $21,560 against Dent's $1,746,125. That's how the DCCC was looking at the "swingyness" of PA-15. In any but a wave election, the district would have to be seen as having swung too far into red territory for the DCCC to handle. The PVI is now R+4.

There are 5 counties that make up PA-15-- Leigh, Northampton, Lebanon, Dauphin and Berks. It wasn't Bernie country. Hillary and Trump dominated the primaries and in the general Trump was viewed as the lesser evil. Democrats can't count on this one for a flip but with Dent out of the picture they have at least a theoretical shot at it.

Far right-wing nut and Trumpist, state Rep. Justin Simmons had already thrown his MAGA hate into the primary ring earlier in the week with this anti-Dent ad:



Dent was the chairman of the centrist Tuesday Group. His formal retirement announcement will come tomorrow in Allentown.

In a district that has become more Republican-leaning during his tenure but still is viewed as a potential swing seat, Dent has drawn a reputation as someone liked by both sides of the aisle. In his general elections, he’s been bolstered by support from Democrats and independents.

His decision Thursday drew reactions of shock and expressions of praise from both Democrats and Republicans, many of whom caused his phone to continually buzz with text messages and calls as the congressman headed to a round of evening House votes.

Bethlehem Mayor Robert Donchez described Dent as a good congressman who works across the aisle and served the Lehigh Valley well.

“I may not have always agreed with him on every issue, but he was accessible and worked really hard,” said Donchez, a Democrat.

State Sen. Pat Browne, R-Lehigh, who represents the district that Dent held during his tenure in the state Senate, said he was caught off guard by Dent's decision. He has known Dent since childhood, and described him as someone unlikely to be frightened by a primary challenger.

"I can say unequivocally, with 100 percent certainty, that's not the case," Browne said. "I know Charlie. It would not be because of a campaign by Justin Simmons."

Dent said that with his exit, he expects “serious, credible Republican candidates” to announce campaign bids for what he expects will be a competitive race.

National Democrats said they’re aiming to take advantage of the opportunity. Evan Lukaske, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said they “are confident that a strong candidate will step up to run and represent the people of the 15th Congressional District in November.”

While Dent may be leaving his post after next year’s election, the outspoken legislator doesn’t sound like he’ll be quieting down after that. He said he hasn’t given much thought yet to his exact plans for his next phase, but said he wants to remain part of discussions on where his party is headed.

“I think we need to bring a stronger voice to the sensible center, of not only our party but of the country,” Dent said. “Both political parties are in a pretty bad place right now and I want to be part of that conversation but maybe from a different seat, from the outside.”

You'll know the Republican mainstreamers see the congressional party really collapsing when we see retirement announcements from folks like Erik Paulsen (MN), Fred Upton (MI), Leonard Lance (NJ), Bruce Poliquin (ME), John Katko (NY), Jeff Denham (CA), Lee Zeldin (NY), Mike Simpson (ID), Martha McSally (AZ), Dan Newhouse (WA), David Valadao (CA), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), John Faso (NY), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Ryan Costello (PA), Adam Kinzinger (IL), Tom Reed (NY), Paul Cook (CA), Dan Donovan (NY), Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA), David Joyce (OH), Pat Meehan (PA), Mike Turner (OH), Peter King (NY), Tim Murphy (PA)... That would signal a real realignment in Congress-- mainstream versus neo-Nazis. Could happen; but still way to early to predict any of these members are seriously considering retirement.

Josh Kraushaar wrote something smart for the National Journal yesterday about the retiring Republicans. "The decisions to step down by Reps. Dave Reichert of Washington and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania expanded an already-growing map of vulnerable GOP seats next year. Neither seat was on The Cook Political Report’s list of most competitive races, given the incumbents’ impressive track records back home. Dent’s retirement turned his seat from a near-Republican lock to one that 'will be in the thick of the battle for control of the House,' as The Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman wrote. With Reichert’s departure, his district shifted from solidly Republican to pure toss-up. Such drastic shifts don’t happen often... Trump’s scattershot approach to governing-- not to mention his historically low approval ratings-- has driven these rank-and-file Republicans to depart. In a statement announcing his decision, Dent referred himself as part of the 'governing wing' in Washington and took a swipe at 'outside influences that profit from increased polarization.' One of Reichert’s last comments before retiring was decrying Trump’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals decision as 'not in the American DNA.' Since retiring, Ros-Lehtinen has loudly slammed President Trump for his record on gay rights, race relations, and treatment of immigrants."

“Trump is fracturing the party to the point where the risk of wholesale retirements and resignations will be high from mainstream lawmakers who came to Washington to do business,” said one senior GOP strategist. “The people who got into public service because they had a successful life, wanted to have rational conversations with rational people on a regular basis, and are now finding the idea of coddling activists around Trump’s daily Twitter habits not very appealing.” Already, Republicans are bracing for additional pivotal retirements. The GOP watch list includes two swing-district members from Michigan: Reps. Fred Upton, the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Dave Trott, a junior lawmaker from suburban Detroit. Trump carried both their districts, but these R+4 seats (according to the Cook Report’s Political Voting Index) would be vulnerable in a Democratic wave.

With every Republican retirement from a competitive district, the GOP math of holding its House majority becomes increasingly difficult. Retirements both serve as a signal that the political environment is bad, while also opening up opportunities for the opposition that hadn’t existed before. Name-brand members of Congress can win under tough circumstances, but it’s exceptionally difficult for lesser-known recruits-- even the most talented among them-- to run against punishing political headwinds.

But the issue of whether Republicans can maintain power in 2018 feels secondary to the more consequential long-term development-- that the ideological disposition of elected Republicans is changing before our very eyes. Most of the Republicans who are leaving politics feel like throwbacks to a bygone era-- more serious about governing than showboating. Meanwhile, the next generation of Republican candidates are more likely to be running in the image of Trump-- substance-free, needlessly confrontational, and playing to a hardcore base. When Trump loyalists characterize House Speaker Paul Ryan as a squishy RINO, it’s clear that antiestablishment forces care more for revolutionary zeal than party affiliation.

It’s no secret why Republican leaders have been working tirelessly for years to prevent such candidates from emerging in primaries. But with a president egging on nihilistic elements, it’s becoming a thankless undertaking. If the pace of congressional retirements accelerates, it’s not just the House majority that will be at risk. It’s the future of the Republican Party.

Future MSNBC contributor and Trump critic

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Announces Her Retirement-- Too Bad She's Not Taking Wasserman Schultz With Her

It was just a matter of when, but sooner or later everyone knew Ileana Ros-Lehtinen-- first elected to Congress in 1989-- would retire and FL-27 would go to the Democrats. The district has long ago left the realm of purple and has been deep blue for some time now. Only the furious on-going efforts of neighboring congresswoman and crooked crony Debbie Wasserman Schultz have kept Ros-Lehtinen safely ensconced in her seat and without serious Democratic challengers. Although the ridiculous and irrelevant clowns at Cook calculate the current PVI at R+2, Obama beat Romney 53.0% to 46.3% in 2012 and Hillary eviscerated Trumpanzee 58.6% to 38.9% last November. FL-27 was Trump's worst performance in any Republican-held congressional district in America.

So today's Miami Herald exclusive by Patricia Mazzei was huge news. With the loss of Wasserman Schultz's power to protect her, it was probably inevitable but, in Mazzei's words, "Ros-Lehtinen, the dean of the Florida legislative delegation and the first Cuban American elected to Congress, is retiring at the end of her term next year, saying it’s time to move on after 38 years in elected office... Her unexpected retirement marks the end of a storied career in which Ros-Lehtinen repeatedly broke political ground as a Cuban-American woman-- and gives Democrats an opportunity to pick up a South Florida congressional seat in 2018."

Ros-Lehtinen, 64, was elected last November to Florida’s redrawn 27th district, a stretch of Southeast Miami-Dade County that leans so Democratic that Hillary Clinton won it over Donald Trump by 20 percentage points.

Ros-Lehtinen defeated Democratic challenger Scott Fuhrman, a first-time candidate, by 10 points. It was her closest reelection race in years and forced her to deplete her $3.4 million campaign account, but she said Sunday she wasn't worried about 2018.

“There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I would not only win in this election, but I would win by a greater percentage,” Ros-Lehtinen said, adding that she would have been able to raise at least $2.5 million and win in a midterm election without a Democratic presidential candidate leading the ballot.

But she said the prospect of another two or four or more years in Congress just didn’t appeal to her anymore.

“There was no epiphany. There was no moment, nothing that has happened that I've said, “I've got to move on,’” Ros-Lehtinen said. “It was just a realization that I could keep getting elected-- but it's not about getting elected.”

She also said she’s not leaving Congress because of her differences with President Trump or with House GOP leadership, though Ros-Lehtinen has been one of the most vocal moderate Republican critics of the White House and the conservative House Freedom Caucus. Ros-Lehtinen, who said she didn’t vote for Trump last year, has disagreed with the president on deportations, transgender rights and budget cuts, and with House Republicans on health care.

“I've served under all kinds of different dynamics in all these years that I've been in office here,” said Ros-Lehtinen, who was first elected to Congress in 1989 after seven years in the Florida Legislature. “Though I don't agree with many, if not most, positions of President Trump.”


Having Republicans control the White House, House and Senate “gives me an opportunity to stand out more and have people realize that I'm a moderate,” she said. “I'm not one of those name-callers that think the Democrats don’t have a single good idea. Too many people think that way, and I think that's to the detriment to civility and of good government.”

But, she insisted, “it's not been part of the calculation of retiring.”

“I would be talking to you even if Hillary Clinton were president,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

There were already 3 Democrats running-- the wealthy Patrick Murphy-like conservaDem who she beat last year, Scott Fuhrman; a pretty weak Miami Beach Commissioner, Kristen Rosen Gonzalez; and Berniecrat Michael Hepburn. Mazzei (and everyone else) predicts that with Ros-Lehtinen out of the picture, "others are likely to become interested now." Annette Taddeo, who was very publicly sabotaged by Wasserman Schultz when "Deadly Debbie" was the chair of the DCCC's Red-to-Blue program in 2008, is a probable candidate who could win a primary and the general election, especially if she follows her own progressive instincts and doesn't run as an EMILY's List milquetoast candidate walking on eggshells.

Will The DCCC Finally Take On Ileana Ros-Lehtinen In Her Bright Blue Miami District?

Before she was exposed as the corrupt and poisonous hack she's always been, Debbie Wasserman Schultz reigned supreme among South Florida Democrats. She has been able to protect her Republican cronies, particularly Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for cycle after cycle after cycle. But this days are gone. Now Wasserman Schultz will have to use all her energy and clout to protect herself from another primary challenge. Once going up against Ros Lehtinen was considered a death sentence inside the Wasserman-Schultz-controlled Democratic Party. Now people spit in Wasserman Schultz's face on the way to the microphone announcing they're running in the Miami district Ros-Lehtinen still represents.

This was the most anti-Trump Republican-held congressional district in the country. And it's been trending blue for years, something Wasserman Schultz has successfully covered up and prevented either the Democratic Party of Florida, the DNC or the DCCC from ever "noticing." In 2008, FL-27 gave McCain a 51-49% margin over Obama. By 2012, that had flipped to a 53-47% win for Obama. Last November-- very predictably-- Hillary stomped on Trump 58.6% to 38.9%, Trump's worst performance in a district with a Republican member of Congress. Even in Florida, Trump did better in several Democratic districts. But, once again-- thanks to Wasserman Schultz and her Democratic allies in DC-- Ros-Lehtinen didn't have to fight off a serious challenge. She beat an unelectable, wealthy Patrick Murphy-style quasi-Democrat 157,763 (54.9%) to 129,548 (45.1%). Scott Fuhrman funded his own campaign to the tune of $843,189 and spent a total of $887,550 against Ros-Lehtinen's $3,410,165. Neither the DCCC, the Florida Democratic Party nor the DNC lifted a hand to help him. People still weren't sure if Wasserman Schultz could bite a hand off. But her exposure as across who worked to throw the presidential primary to Hillary-- which ultimately resulted in Trump winning the White House-- and her own vulnerability in barely surviving a primary from first-time candidate Tim Canova, a Bernie backer-- she cheated flagrantly and still only managed to win 28,279 (56.8%) to 21,504 (43.2%)-- has left her weakened and almost universally despised. Hopefully Canova will end her disgraceful, moribund career in 2018.

Fuhrman is running again but Miami is buzzing this week with a serious candidate, Miami Beach Commissioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez, jumping in against Ros-Lehtinen. Gonzalez, a single mother of three and a a Miami Dade College professor is in her first term as a City Commissioner. In declaring she contrasted herself with Ros-Lehtinen: "We deserve a member of congress who will hold President Trump accountable. Instead of the President’s lapdog, I’ll be a watchdog who stands up for science against climate change deniers, stands up for immigrants against persecution, and fights back against partisan attacks on women’s health care."

Political Cortadito reported yesterday that "Rosen Gonzalez has already met with members of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has probably talked to a couple of different people (though the blue bench is not too deep). Other names that have come up for this seat are Jose Javier Rodriguez-- but he just moved to the Florida Senate from the House so another jump so soon would not look too good-- and State Rep. Daisy Baez, but she was just elected so she’s even more of a freshman." Local businessman Michael Hepburn is also seeking the Democratic nomination. I'll look into Hepburn and try to find out more about Rosen Gonzalez, who my Miami friends tell me is just a garden variety Democrat and not worth bothering with. Stay tuned.


UPDATE: An Endorsement

Brand New Congress just endorsed Michael Hepburn. A Bahamian-American, Hepburn is a Miami native, a member of the Miami Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and serves on the Allapattah Neighborhood Association and the Miami Dade Democratic Executive Committee. He works as a senior academic advisor for the School of Business at the University of Miami.

Is Trump's Approval More Likely To Continue Collapsing Because He's Lazy And Ill-Prepared Or Because Of His Toxic Discombobulated Agenda?

Earlier today we looked at the blossoming civil war inside the White House. It's very much related to nothing much getting done-- and there is no issue besides repeal and replace where there is as much finger-pointing and fury. Trump may not care what's in the bill, but he certainly wants a "win." He blames different people daily, although Ryan and the Freedom Caucus seem get the bulk of it on various days. Jonathan Chait minced no words in his description: Republicans Tearing Each Other to Pieces Over Trumpcare Debacle. Trump is consumed with this because it gets talked about all the time on his favorite cable news shows. CNN reported that he wishes he hadn't been pushed-- presumably Ryan and Pence-- into trying to pass the next-to-impossible repeal and replace "before working on tax reform or an infrastructure package-- both areas in which he’s better versed than health care. (Trump does not actually understand infrastructure policy or tax policy well at all, but he believes he does, which is not the case with health-care reform.)"

Wednesday night Trump help another "intense" meeting with House Republicans at the White House with Pence insisting there would be "dire" consequences if they didn't mass a bill quickly. Trump has no credibility and his threats don't work anymore with most House members, and certainly not with most Freedom Caucus members. Several-- Sanford and Amash-- have found it politically expedient in their districts to lure Trump into attacking them by name-- which has made them heroes with most voters in each district.

At one point, according to three sources briefed on the meeting, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus suggested it could be detrimental to Ryan’s speakership if Republicans fail to pass a bill. Others disputed that characterization, saying the comments were not aimed specifically at Ryan’s but more broadly: As in, all Republican lawmakers’ jobs are in jeopardy if they don’t deliver.

One source described the meeting as having ended "in total meltdown, total chaos mode." Could anyone who knows anything about how Trump runs his life have expected anything else. Meanwhile "Bannon is fighting back against his internal enemies. Bannon has lashed out at Jared Kushner and Gary Cohn, his internal rivals for Trump’s ear. Bannon is calling Cohn 'Globalist Gary,' according to CNN, an apparent reference to Cohn’s background at Goldman Sachs. (Bannon also worked at Goldman Sachs, but sees himself as less of a rootless cosmopolitan international-banking elitist.) Jonathan Swan reports, 'the hatred between the two wings is intense and irreconcilable,' and that 'the Bannonites believe the liberals'-- another Bannonite term for the conventional Republicans advising Trump, who are not liberal-- 'staged a coup and will turn Trump into a conventional squish who betrays the very voters who brought him to power. The Jared wing thinks the Bannonites are clinically nuts.' Evidence suggests both sides are correct. Team Bannon has been referring to Kushner-in-law as a "cuck" all week. And Bannon is mobilizing his forces against Jared. one of his closest allies " predicts that Bannon's close relationship with the al-right media-- after all, the Mercer's own it-- will result in "some bad press in [Jared’s] future." If Bannon has the transcript of the Jared's taped conservsation of the Russian spy/bankster, Trump's son-in-law's patina could be gone in one agonizing news cycle.

In Maggie Haberman's NY Times piece, Pence was demanding passage of something "before the House left for its spring recess on Thursday. Mr. Ryan, who is close to Mr. Priebus, rejected the idea, explaining that the Republican leadership needed more time to secure votes to pass anything."

Meanwhile Trump slinked off to his Palm Beach mansion for a meeting with the president of China and to showily order an utterly ineffective $30 million pin prick of a wrist slap against Syria. The next day Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) was on the Fernand Amandi Show on 610-WIOD in Miami, calling for the ouster of Bannon. She said his departure would be "welcome news for the nation" and that "his days are numbered in that administration... His views are not in line with our country... And I think profound changes will be coming" predicting "a shakeup in the White House in the coming months."