The Eric Bauman Quandry

Nevada Democratic congressman, Ruben Kihuen, didn't run for reelection because he was accused, credibly, of sexual harassment of women over whom he had some degree of power. Last week the House Ethics Committee concluded that he was, indeed, a sexual harasser, detailing repeated instances of Kihuen harassing women who either worked for him, worked for a company that he'd hired or lobbied him during his time in the Nevada State Senate. I think he's planning on running for the Las Vegas City Council. (Hey, two weeks ago, Nevada voters elected Republican brothel owner Dennis Hof to the state legislature. Hof was a Trump-like reality TV celebrity, who had died several weeks earlier. He won!) Kihuen is hardly the only member of Congress who gets carried away with a sense of his own power and last week the 10 members of the House Ethics Committee urged Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to quickly pass anti-sexual harassment legislation to overhaul the Congressional Accountability Act.

Do you know what "gay panic defense" is? Usually it involves a heterosexual man who is trying to accomplish something-- perhaps defending himself in a murder or assault case-- by claiming a gay man's advances triggered a psychotic state in him. Since 2014 California became the first of only 3 states to ban it from jury trials. This morning a seemingly coordinated effort was reported in the press claiming that California Democratic Party chairman Eric Bauman is a serial sexual harasser and assaulter. I imagine some of the straight guys who he touched-- innocently enough from his own perspective-- may have been panicked by a superior rubbing their shoulder.

Recently, I was sitting with a young Democratic consultant in a posh DC restaurant when a prominent political figure swept down the aisle with an aide and plopped herself down at our booth. Congress isn't a big enough playing field for her; she's running for president. She's around my age-- triple the age of the young consultant, "Jolting Joe," who I had brought along so she could interview him for a campaign job. She must have found him attractive because introductions were barely made before she started fondling his hair. That happens to him a lot-- older women and horny guys politics are drawn to him. Joe shrugs it off. He's good at his job and feels secure in his skin. Not everyone is so sure of themselves.

A longtime top Democratic Party activist, who first introduced me to Eric Bauman, told me this morning that "These so called shoulder massages, which I have witnessed myself, last maybe 30 seconds. They are done in public, usually while several people standing around talking. They are just Eric's way of saying 'thank you' for a job well done. There is nothing sexual about them. Eric has been in a  monogamous thirty year relationship with his husband whom he adores and who adores him. I find the timing of this attack, coming after Eric and the Democratic Party's spectacular success in the midterm primaries, particularly  suspect. There is a clean way to become Chair of the California Democratic Party-- run against Eric and win-- but I guess if you can't beat him in a fair election then you have to play dirty."


And Here's To You, Mrs. Robinson

by Jolting Joe

Hide it in the hiding place where no one ever goes
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes
It's a little secret just the Robinson's affair
Most of all you've got to hide it from the kids

Koo-koo-ka-choo, Mrs. Robinson,
Jesus loves you more than you will know
Wo wo wo
God bless you, please, Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
Hey, hey, hey hey, hey, hey

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates' debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose

Donald Trump is a sexual predator. In addition to the countless women who have come out and said as much, Trump himself boasted about it in a tape recorded conversation between himself and spoiled imbecile turned fake-news anchor Billy Bush. Trump fits one classic definition of a sexual predator-- a rich, silver spoon fed child-man who believes he is entitled to whatever he wants. He's at the top of the food chain among sexual predators; his actions are disgusting. Period.

Eric Bauman, chairman of the California Democratic Party, on the other hand, is not.

The #MeToo movement has played an important role in exposing reprehensible behavior. There are a lot of malicious, disgusting men and women who have used their positions of power inappropriately and their punishments are welcomed with open arms. However, there' a flip side.

I can tell you firsthand that after spending 10+ years in the political industry, men and women in office are often aggressive in their physical-- not necessarily sexual-- expression. Just look at men and women courting votes on the trail and you'll see a male politician hug a female voter for more than a few seconds as a way of expressing affection or gratitude or some kind of relief. You'll see a female politician throw her arms around a male voter and stand there with cameras on her as she tries to express her desire to earn his vote. It happens every day. Assault? No.

I can tell you that in office settings, male and female politicians express affection, admiration, and often gratitude, physically-- not sexually-- and sometimes its met with appreciation and sometimes its not. For example, recently, a politician had his arm around me for a bit too long and I simply said, "enough, please." And he stopped and that was it. We even laughed about it. I didn't think I was being assaulted, because I wasn't! It was a politician being a politician. Don't like 'em, don't work for 'em.

One time I was at a restaurant with a prospective female candidate and in the middle of the dinner she began stroking my hair like Mrs. Robinson did to Dustin Hoffman's character in The Graduate. Strange, but well, she was (and is) an extrovert. I'm sure she still does that type of thing often! Weird and annoying? Yes. Assault? NO.

My point is, the nature of a politician leads them-- men and women-- to be touchy and quick to express their emotions and feelings. That is not assault. Are people on the receiving end not able to simply say "please stop," or "no thanks," or "get off me?" We are losing the fight against the true abusers-- the rich CEO's who use their power for unwanted sexual gain and even the gross President of the United States who boasts about this type of behavior freely-- if we let politicians' behavior blind us from the actual realities of a very serious topic.

I do not know Mr. Bauman's accusers and I agree that protecting them is key. But, this apparent witch hunt is now apparently consuming California Democratic politics. It's just wrong to launch a coup without properly examining the situation at hand. Maybe Eric crossed the line. Then it's time for him to go. But I would bet that there is an awfully good chance he didn't. And this current exercise in finger pointing and demonizing will lead us off track on the real fights at hand.

We should all look forward to Daraka Larimore Hall's investigation here. I'm sure he is prepared to adequately assess the situation. But if he's not, and this is just another one of his ego-driven power grabs, lets move on.

Politicians are extroverts, it's in their nature.

Donald Trump is a predator.

There's a big, big difference there.

Let's not forget that.

Nevada Electoral Action Is High In Las Vegas This Year-- Churn, Churn, Churn

Right-wing lunatic Cresent Hardy (left) is sporting a hipster look for his 2018 congressional run

The population of Nevada is 2,940,058. The population of Clark County (the Las Vegas Metro) is 2,155,664. That's where the state's people live. (The only other county with a significant number of people is Washoe--Reno and Sparks-- with 446,903 people.) Clark County elects 3 of Nevada's 4 members of Congress and last year there was turnover as voters ousted a GOP incumbent, Cresent Hardy, in NV-04, with Democrat Ruben Kihuen, and replaced Republican JoeHeck, who left his NV-03 House seat to run, unsuccessfully for the Senate, with Jacky Rosen. Kihuen ran as an unabashed progressive but joined the New Dems, ran up a miserable voting record (ProgressivePunch rates him a "D") and was forced to retire after being caught molesting women. Jacky Rosen is worse. She ran as a nothing and ran up one of the worst voting records in Congress-- ProgressivePunch rates her an "F"-- which, of course attracted Chuck Schumer's attention, who offered to back her in the Senate race against Republican Dean Heller.

That means the same two Clark County seats that flipped red to blue in 2016 are up for grabs again this year. Obama won both districts both rimes he ran. In 2016 Hillary and Trump had close elections. Trump won NV-03 47.5% to 46.5% and Hillary won NV-04 with a more comfortable 49.5% to 44.6%. The 3rd flipped from an even PVI to an R+2 and the 4th went from a PVI of D+4 to a D+3. This cycle's DCCC candidates includes extremely wealthy Mob-connected socialite Susie Lee among their shitty candidate in the list of disastrous Red to Blue program. She's beyond horrible and when she ran in 2016 (in the 4th district primary) she spent the most money ($1,492,274, of which $674,805 came out of her own bank account) and came in a distant 3rd behind Kihuen and Berniecrat Lucy Flores. So far there are 7 candidates running as Democrats in NV-03-- Lee (who was endorsed by EMILY's List and has no issues on her website, Jack Love, Hermon Farahi, Richard Hart, Guy Pinjuv, Steve Schiffman (who seems to be running for mayor of Jerusalem, not for the U.S. Congress) and Michael Weiss (who sounds like a Berniecrat)-- and 6 candidates running as Republicans-- Victoria Seaman, Scott Hammond, David McKeon, Eddie Hamilton Stephanie Jones, and Michelle Mortensen. Some of them may have dropped out by now. By the end of the 3rd quarter only 5 had raised any money:

• Susie Lee (D)- $315,178
• Victoria Seaman (R)- $114,008
• Scott Hammond (R)- $51,700
• David McKeon (R)- $39,695
• Jack Love (D)- $10,950

Now let's look at the 4th district, the bluer one, to replace the disgraced Kihuen. Democrats in the race so far include state Senator Patricia Spearman, Berniecrat Amy Vilela and high school principal John Anzalone. There has been constant chatter that both Steven Horsford, the district’s first representative (who was defeated by Cresent Hardy in 2014) and North Las Vegas Mayor John Lee, are also about to jump into the race. On the Republican side, GOP frontrunner Las Vegas City Councilman Stavros Anthony just announced he's getting out of the race, presumably to make way for Hardy, the ex-Congressman Kihuen had defeated in 2016. Anthony had already raised $141,145 by the end of the third quarter and probably as much by the end of the 4th (which hasn't been reported yet).

Lots Of Tragedy To Go Around-- Due Process Could Be Very Helpful

In his delineation of the tragedy of Ruben Kihuen, Jon Ralston wrote Monday that it was Reid who elevated "someone with so many known ticking time bombs in his past." Ralston expressed sympathy, not with the Democratic Party establishment or even Kihuen but with so many people who "had reposed faith in and who so many must now re-evaluate. His announcement that he will not run for re-election, as inevitable as August triple-digit temperatures in Las Vegas, is unalterably sad for so many young people, especially Hispanics, who believed in the first DREAMer in Congress... [They] saw Kihuen as a symbol of hope in a Trumpian world where their futures are uncertain. And it wasn’t just DREAMers-- Kihuen has been a heroic figure to many younger Hispanics and others, too, people who saw him as the embodiment of the American Dream. Imagine their nightmare now.

I find some of the rationalizations I have heard whispered-- he was single, women threw themselves at him, the women never said anything, back then-- to be grotesque. I understand denial by those close to him, perhaps. But everyone else needs to open their eyes and see Kihuen for what he is: A playboy-as-predator who has exploited many professional situations with women and caused them to feel he cared only about sleeping with them. He was relentless in his pursuit, not taking “no” for an answer and either not considering or not caring that they were people who were dependent upon him, be it for votes or a salary.

...There are other stories out there. There are women who have experienced Kihuen’s relentless and juvenile attentions, unwanted and parried, who simply do not want to have their stories told. That is their right, and we will apply no pressure on anyone put in a difficult situation by Kihuen or any other elected official who has misused the power dynamic. The women these men have diminished and demeaned have the right to say when and whether their stories are told.

Which brings me to the question of whether Kihuen’s attempt to stave off resignation will work.

Kihuen, too, is a gambler. Just as he bet that none of these women he harassed would ever come forward-- maybe he thought they were thrilled he was coming on to them or believed his superior position would intimidate them-- he is rolling the dice that he can survive for a year with the floodgates not opening.

I thought the New York Times’ Alex Burns put it well, describing what Kihuen and fellow harasser Blake Farenthold are doing as a “plea-bargain,” trying to get their parties to allow them to have the lesser punishment of not running to avoid resigning.

(My guess is that in his current state of delusion Kihuen might actually believe that by March, when filing opens, the Ethics Committee will clear him and he can run again. Denial is powerful when one is clinging to one’s job title for dear life. More on that in a moment.)

The thought is ludicrous that Kihuen can possibly be effective-- as if he ever has been-- when the leaders want him gone and his Democratic colleagues from Nevada have either said he should resign or implied he should.

There was also a post Monday morning from Politico noting that several Democratic senators are urging Al Franken to reverse his resignation. In fact, Joe Manchin "who urged Franken not to step down to begin with-- at least not before he went through an Ethics Committee investigation-- said the Minnesota senator was railroaded by fellow Democrats," calling Gillibrand's lynch party "atrocious." They also noted that Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who issued a statement calling for Franken's resignation, has since told him privately that he regrets doing so."

“I think we acted prematurely, before we had all the facts,” said a third senator who has also called for the resignation, and has since expressed regret directly to Franken. “In retrospect, I think we acted too fast.” The senator asked not to be named because of the political sensitivity of the issue among Democrats.

As we mentioned yesterday, state Senator Daylin Leach-- the front-running candidate for Pat Meehan's suburban Philly seat-- has come under attack and and that attack became more serious as Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat up for reelection-- a weak, insecure, frightened guy, in way over his head, who is deathly afraid of pissing anyone off-- called for Leach to resign from the state Senate. "This disturbing behavior is absolutely unacceptable. Sen. Leach should resign," the governor said in a stinging rebuke of a fellow Democrat. "While he has been a leader on important policy issues, this conduct cannot be excused. As I have said previously, this is not a partisan issue. The lack of adequate structure for victims to report this type of behavior and feel protected is inexcusable, and underscores that Harrisburg’s culture must change." Leach is an old friend. I asked him if he was planning on resigning or withdrawing from the congressional race.

He told me he is "absolutely" staying in the race and absolutely not resigning. "Nobody can make me resign. And I never would. And if anyone wants a different nominee, they are going to have to beat me in a primary. Lets see if they can do that." A couple hours later I got a press release from his office saying "I am taking a step back from the congressional campaign to focus on my family..." Sunday night Daylin sent me a very long, "too long," he told me explanation of what was going on from his perspective. Monday I asked him if I could run it and he said ok. I doubt you'll see anything like it anywhere else.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has released a story which mentions me in connection with the #MeToo movement. I feel compelled to respond. First, I will lay out a chronology of how this story came to be, then I will tell my side of the story, and finally, I will offer some thoughts on where we are now as a country.

In 2014, when I ran for Congress, a woman (Colleen Kennedy) volunteered for my campaign. She worked enthusiastically and the campaign ended without incident. In fact team and I helped her find another job in politics and for some months after the campaign, she continued to express her support for me on social media.

I was therefore surprised when 6 months later, this supporter attacked me on twitter for what she mistakenly believed was me missing a vote on an education bill. She said I was a false progressive and a hypocrite, etc. When I tried to explain, she continued to attack me, so I disengaged from her and have not interacted with her since.

In June of this year, the first press stories about me contemplating a run for Congress in PA-7 appeared. At that time, out of the blue, I began hearing about a whisper campaign claiming that I was a sexual predator. Such whisper campaigns, while insidious, are not uncommon in politics. When I first ran for office in 2002 there was a whisper campaign that I was an anti-semite. Given that I was a life-long practicing Jew, (albeit with a non-Jewish last name) this was easy to disprove.

After several weeks, we heard from numerous people that my former supporter from 2014 was behind this. She did not claim that I had ever done anything to her, and in fact I was never alone with her in my life. This was just something she believed.

She proceeded to approach numerous press outlets and tell them that there were all kinds of sexual harassment complaints filed against me with the Senate, and she encouraged reporters to file “Right to Know” (RTK) requests to access said complaints.

Despite this former supporter’s representations, the answers to the RTK requests revealed that no ethical, civil, criminal or employment complaints had ever been filed. Most of the media then abandoned the story.

The exception was a pair of reporters from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Despite clear evidence that their “source” was not credible, they persisted and filed a second RTK request for the names of all “employees, interns or contractors” who had ever worked for me.

The Inquirer then began calling select former staffers and asking leading questions with no basis in fact. For example, “Did Daylin Leach ever do or say anything that made you uncomfortable?” If they said no, they were asked “Did he ever make jokes that made you uncomfortable.” If the answer was still no, they asked, “Did he make jokes that COULD make someone uncomfortable?” If still no, then “Would it surprise you to hear that others were uncomfortable?”

I know these things because many of the staffers, colleagues and political opponents they contacted, called me immediately afterwards asking me what the calls were all about, and to tell me word-for-word what was asked. The people who called were unanimous in their feeling that The Inquirer reporters were really hoping to hear something unseemly about me.

It is important to note that at this point, no one had come forward and complained that they were either the victim or had first hand knowledge of anything improper I had done.

If someone files a suit, or holds a press conference, it is perfectly legitimate to contact that person to check out the story. But what The Inquirer did in attempting to manufacture a scandal was so antithetical to basic journalistic ethics that I, and people I told about it, found it hard to believe.

Also since this started in June, I had been hearing that my primary opponent, Dan Muroff, was pushing the whisper campaign started by my former supporter. Several people called me to say that members of Mr. Muroff’s team and Mr. Muroff himself were calling them and saying versions of “something bad is going to come out about Daylin, so you had better support Dan.” [Ed- I might add at this point that, s an officer of a PAC, I've heard exactly the same thing from Muroff supporters and have heard the same thing from several campaigns in other parts of the country about other candidates trying to take advantage of what I sometimes refer to as "The Terror."]

We then became aware of the very close personal relationship between my former supporter and the Muroff campaign. Specifically, it was relayed to us that my former supporter and Dan Muroff’s campaign manager were “best friends.”

Concurrent with The Inquirer filing their initial RTK request, the Muroff campaign and my former supporter started referencing The Inquirer as where the damaging story about me was going to appear (despite the fact that there was no appropriate reason that either of them would have been notified of the RTK request).

I can’t express how personally painful the Muroff connection to this story was for my wife Jen and me. We had thought of Dan as a very close friend. We had been to each other’s homes (and his boat) and hung out as couples many times, and I had always supported Dan when he ran for office previously. This year, Dan chose to move into district I’ve lived in for 19 years to run for Congress, which he has every legal right to do. But he was very angry that I was running for the same seat.

Despite calling many of my former employees, The Inquirer was still coming up empty. In fact, the

I never claimed to be anybody’s Meow. But I knew I always treated my employees well. That’s why I have one of the lowest turnover rates in the Senate, and why many of my employees have stayed with me for well over a decade.

Over the course of the 31 years since I graduated law school, I have had more than 300 female employees, interns, and students. Not once has any ethics complaint, lawsuit, or criminal charge ever been filed against me. Further, nobody has ever complained to me, or quit a job, or dropped a class because of any conduct I engaged in.

This does not mean that I was a perfect person or that it’s not possible that someone could have disliked me, or felt unhappy with something I said or did. Certainly in the course of normal human interaction, very few people never say the wrong thing or are never perceived as annoying. But it seems like the bar which triggers some sort of full investigation by a respected newspaper should be higher.

Eventually after calling numerous people, the Inquirer notified my office that there were “allegations”. As presented to us, there were 4 allegations. They were all anonymous. The reporters wouldn’t tell me who was accusing me, or when specifically the incidents happened, or even what exactly they were about. Here is what I was told:

1. Someone said that in 2008, at the campaign office I told a joke referencing a wet T-Shirt contest as a fundraiser.
2. Also in 2008, also at the campaign office, there was a discussion of the attractiveness of Hollywood actresses, and I had offered my opinion.
3. In 2012, I had said “something” that “made a DNC volunteer mad” at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte. Said what? To who? Where? What context? The reporter indicated she didn’t know any of that information.
4. An unnamed attendee at a political fundraiser who did not work for me, said that during a conversation about getting petitions signed, I had momentarily touched her leg, not in a sexual way, but that she had felt uncomfortable nonetheless.

It is important to know that the RTK requests did not provide the names of the people described above as the RTK does not cover campaigns. It only applies to state employees. These were not state employees. So how did they find these people? It turns out that they are connected to the Muroff campaign and my former supporter.

In fact, 3 of these 4 allegations were from Aubrey Montgomery, a woman who now claims she was very upset about my sense of humor when she worked on my campaign in 2008, but who has continued to donate to me, come to my house for parties, give me advice, and pretend she was my friend in the years since.

I would now like to respond to these allegations. As I see it, they fall into 2 categories. The first one is humor.

I find it ironic that the Pennsylvania media loves to write stories tut-tutting about my humor. These same reporters have enthusiastically invited me to raise them money by performing comedy at their annual charity Gridiron Dinner for the past 9 years. The lead Inquirer reporter on this story has come to see me perform many times.

Some may remember that a reporter named Mario Cattabiani wrote a long expose about my humor 12 years ago. Yet after one of my gridiron performances, he took the time to call me and say that I was the “funniest comedian he had ever seen.”

Those who know me know that humor is an integral part of my personality. Frankly, it literally saved my life during a difficult childhood. I never met my father who ran off before I was born. My mother did her best, but had a lot of issues and was not a particularly engaged parent. I was placed in a series of foster homes which were often neglectful and even abusive. It was only by seeing the world through an absurdist lens was I able to cope.

I also think humor is a force for good in a very dark world. It helps us get through tough times, and is invaluable to me as an elected official. I am one of the most requested speakers in the state because I give a good speech, which is usually, in part, funny. Humor diffuses tension and makes people feel included. It’s one of my few traits of which I am unambiguously proud (as opposed to my hairline, singing voice, pole-vaulting ability, etc.)

The vast majority of my humor is not in any way sexual. Like most people, i joke around about food, or New Jersey, or the news or something Donald Trump said, or…New Jersey. But I am not pure. I have on occasion laughed at or told off-color jokes. I will admit to liking Sarah Silverman, or South Park or Chris Rock. But while I laugh at that sort of thing, that is not the brand of humor I usually use.

My humor is never mean. It is never directed at someone present. It is mostly self-deprecating, and if anyone is the butt of my jokes it’s almost always me. (or Trump, but…I mean..come on!). I’d also note that my jokes have gotten tamer over the years. Maybe its just a function of aging.

As for the specific jokes allegedly told in the campaign office, I honestly don’t remember them. It’s a lot of years to remember a joke. And frankly, without any context, or even hint as to who else was present, they don’t sound like things I’d say. But putting all of that aside, are silly jokes told in the presence of other adults a decade ago really worthy of an expose in the Philadelphia Inquirer?

The other allegation involves me touching someone’s leg. And to be clear, I do not know this person. She did not work for me. I have had no contact with her before or since. I am told I had a brief conversation with her about getting ballot petitions signed. As for touching the leg, I have absolutely no memory of this conversation or any interaction with her leg.

That said, as a general matter, it is possible that I touched her leg. I do sometimes touch people, men and women, when I am talking to them. I might place a hand on a shoulder, or clasp a fore-arm, or punctuate the end of a conversation with a pat on the back or the knee and a farewell. Some of you have seen the recent viral video of Representative Matt Bradford touching Representative Darryl Metcalfe’s arm, and Rep. Metcalfe freaking out.

Well, I sometimes do the same thing (the Bradford thing, not the Metcalfe). I always viewed it as a way to connect, and often do it without even noticing. Again, I have never received a complaint.

Further, I will concede that it is not all that difficult to tell me and George Clooney apart. Yet, for whatever reason, I am touched all the time. My shoulder or arm is clasped, strangers and acquaintances put their arms around me for photographs, I am hugged, kissed and patted on the back a number of times every day when I am out in public. I never interpret these touches as sexual, because they aren’t.

But maybe this woman didn’t like some man touching her leg. And she has every right to not like it. It’s her body. But there was nothing sexual about it, and nobody alleges there was. In fact, the reporter specifically told me that nobody alleged that I touched them in a sexual way.

And again, why this is a story in the newspaper is not clear. I am far less touchy than many other people we all know (see e.g. Joe Biden). And if we are doing a story on everyone who ever touches anyone else in politics, or in life, the Inquirer will have to add a new daily section to the paper.

As someone who has been dragged through this for several months, I’d like to conclude by offering some thoughts on where we are.

First, to be clear, the recent discussion of sexual assault is long overdue. Harvey Weinstein is a monster. He has raped or assaulted scores of women. He should be in prison. Kevin Spacey, Roy Moore and Donald Trump appear to be serial predators. No person should have to endure or fear this sort of assault, not only on their body, but on their dignity and their very worth as a human being.

I have spent my life fighting to change the laws to reflect our highest aspirations for gender equality. Equal Pay legislation, access to emergency contraception, contraception equity, the banning of shackling of pregnant prisoners, and mandatory paid family leave are all my bills. All of my employees who have children may take 3 months of paid maternity (or paternity leave). If you search Youtube, you will see my repeated and passionate floor arguments against efforts to restrict women’s reproductive choices.

I hire and promote women aggressively. Women have been my Chief-of-Staff on the legislative side, and four of my campaign mangers on the political side. I have supported groups like Emerge to increase the number of women elected to office in our Commonwealth. I am married to an incredibly strong woman who is among the most talented psychologists practicing. Our daughter Brennan, at 16 has already taken on the national right-wing attack machine and is currently in Washington DC as a US Senate Page.

Obviously, a good history on women’s rights is no justification for bad conduct. But I do believe in assessing allegations as thin and obscure as the ones against me, intent is important. And whether one has a history of respecting or disrespecting women is relevant.

However, I worry that there are some off-notes about the current frenzy over sexual misbehavior. We want to stop predatory and demeaning behavior. We don’t want to stop all normal human interaction. We don’t want to metaphorically turn every humorous quip or innocent pat into an unpardonable crime.

If a man or a woman is uncomfortable with a non-sexual squeeze of the arm or an offered high-5, then they should feel free to say so and that should be respected. But the default option should not be that men and women view each other as radioactive. We shouldn’t all wear Hazmat suits to work for fear that the slightest arm-brush will trigger an investigation.

Men who have done horrible things to women, using force, or groping or persistently propositioning or sending unwanted obscene photos, etc., should be held to account. But having men steeped in terror, staying up nights wracking their brains for who in the last 40 years they may have told the wrong joke to, or who might have misinterpreted a congratulatory hug on the receipt of good news as a sexual come-on does not help women. Fear is not respect. And avoidance is not equality.

We must also remember that our entire system of justice is founded on the notion of due process. Credible accusations of serious misconduct must be taken seriously. But blind belief of either side in a dispute is not a part of our justice system for a reason. Remember, in the context of the current discussion, some of those accused will be our brothers, sons, fathers. They deserve to be heard too.

What I’m saying is that exposure and reckoning have their place, but so does proportionality and a recognition of how people actually live their daily lives. I’ve been to many work-places, not just my own. People pretty much are the same in all of them. They like to be friends, or at least friendly with their co-workers. They like to laugh and feel connected. They want to feel safe within a bond of trust. And trust comes from seeing your colleagues as real people.

I wish the media was more responsible and focused on how our elections are being stolen or what its like to live in deep poverty, or maybe how our current economic policy disproportionately harms women, and less on gotcha stories designed to earn clicks. I wish they covered actual stories rather than tried to create sensational ones. But I can’t control that.

What I can do is refuse to let a newspaper, which allowed itself to be weaponized by a rival political campaign stop me from fighting for what I’ve fought for all my life. And that’s exactly what I will do.

The Terror Will End When Men Get Time Machines And Go Back Into Their Pasts And Stop Harassing Women

by Nancy Ohanian

Ruben Kihuen was one of my favorite congressional candidates in 2018. Blue America did a dual endorsement for him and Lucy Flores, but his progressive record of leadership in the Nevada legislature. A former Harry Reid aide, he was elected to the state House in 2006 and then the state Senate, where he served as Majority Whip, pushing an agenda to benefit working families. As you know by now, the #MeToo movement has destroyed his political career-- supported by DCCC chairman (and closet case) Ben Gay Luján and Nancy Pelosi. If the House had any real rising stars, Ruben was certainly one of them.

Personally I became disenchanted with him once he was elected to Congress and joined the corrupt, corporately-owned New Dems and started voting consistently against progressive legislation in the House. His ProgressivePunch crucial vote score earned him a "D" rating, from from the "A" we expected. But that doesn't mean he deserved to be railroaded out of Congress-- the DCCC cut off his funding-- without any due process. My guess-- and it's just a guess-- is that he's probably a pig, but I'm not a judge, jury or a House Ethics Committee member. Over the weekend Kihuen, the son of a mother who works cleaning hotel rooms and a dad who worked as a n agricultural laborer, announced that he would not seek re-election. This was his sad statement:

Nothing is more important to me than my family and serving my constituents. It is the greatest honor of my life to represent Nevada’s Fourth District as a Member of the United States House of Representatives.

The support and encouragement of my constituents provides me with the strength and guidance to represent Nevada to the best of my abilities.

I want to state clearly again that I deny the allegations in question. I am committed to fully cooperating with the House Ethics Committee and I look forward to clearing my name.

Due process and the presumption of innocence are bedrock legal principles which have guided our nation for centuries, and they should not be lost to unsubstantiated hearsay and innuendo.

However, the allegations that have surfaced would be a distraction from a fair and thorough discussion of the issues in a reelection campaign. Therefore, it is in the best interests of my family and my constituents to complete my term in Congress and not seek reelection.

I want to state clearly again that I deny the allegations in question,” Kihuen, D-Nev., said in a statement to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “I am committed to fully cooperating with the House Ethics Committee and look forward to clearing my name.

The accusations were enough to do him in, something that is going to cause a very serious backlash for Democrats, many of whom seem not to care, claiming that the movement is more important than the politics. Eugene Puryear made a crucial point we should all keep in the backs of our minds: "[H]istorically here, there was always a push for the Civil Rights movement to moderate itself, or subject itself purely to the political demands of the Democratic Party at the moment. The argument was that if they did not it would cause a white backlash that could kill the momentum on civil rights legislative priorities... This moment is bigger than the Democrats or the Republicans, it is bigger than partisan politics. We are seeing truly mass steps towards an extremely necessary, critical, indispensable cultural change in this country. We need to fan the flames. The time to fight to take on (and hopefully crush) the patriarchy is now, women are fighting and leading, we need to join them not lament that some pissed off dudes are gonna vote next year."

Democratic Party leaders first called for Kihuen to step down over allegations of sexual harassment made public in a BuzzFeed story Dec. 1. A former campaign finance aide said she quit in 2016 after Kihuen made unwanted advances and touched her inappropriately.

A second unnamed woman, who worked as a lobbyist in Carson City when Kihuen was a state senator, came forward this week with similar accusations of harassment against the lawmaker, according to the Nevada Independent.

The Ethics Committee will now empanel a subcommittee to investigate the accusations against Kihuen, a process that could take months. House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the panel should review the allegations. If true, Hoyer said Kihuen should resign.

Sunday, Politico's Elena Schneider reported that "the wave of sexual harassment allegations on Capitol Hill is already beginning to reshape the 2018 election landscape, crushing some campaigns under its pressure but providing breakthrough opportunities for others."

What’s still unclear is how the spate of sexual harassment scandals might sway voters in 2018. Early public polling suggests Democratic voters are more likely to believe accusations of misconduct than Republicans. A Monmouth University poll released this week found that 37 percent of Republicans believe such reports about GOP legislators are accurate, while 63 percent of Democrats trust those reports about Democratic lawmakers.

...Some GOP strategists’ worry their party’s response to various scandals could further hurt them among suburban voters and women, two blocs that they can’t afford to lose as they try to defend their 24-seat majority in the House.

“The loss of urban and suburban voters in 2016 plus sexual harassment scandals is probably not a good way to secure these moderate Republican and Independent voters long-term,” said Kevin Schuvalov, a Republican strategist based in Texas. “It’s an opening for Democrats to go get voters who aren’t naturally available to them.”

Republican pollster Robert Blizzard warned that “women voters, especially Independent women, are a key audience in the ‘18 election up and down the ticket across the country,” so to “be perceived as weak on this issue at your own peril.”

photo by (and of) Kourtney Roy

And... another one-- a really good one this time-- looks like he's biting the dust. State Senator Daylin Leach, the "Liberal Lion" of the Pennsylvania state legislature and the hands-down favorite for the PA-07 congressional race has been accused. A Philadelphia Inquirer report yesterday noted that "None of the women who described seeing or hearing questionable conduct by Leach told the Inquirer and Daily News that they had been assaulted, denied promotions, or had their careers threatened. Each said that he created and promoted a culture in his office that objectified women and that he often framed his comments as harmless jokes. Leach, in his statement, said he never 'intentionally or unintentionally touched' these women inappropriately. 'It did not happen.' Although in the same statement he said of the two incidents: 'I recall one not at all and one only vaguely.' ... Leach's supporters have argued that allegations about his conduct are politically motivated." Meanwhile...

#MeToo Caught Up With Itself Today... In Kansas

Pelosi's closeted DCCC chair demands purity, but not due process

Yesterday, repulsive Texas sex predator, Blake Farenthold, finally felt enough pressure-- both from his district and from his congressional colleagues-- to raise the white flag and announce his retirement from Congress. Obviously, he should resign at once, the way Trent Franks was forced to do last week. Ryan and NRCC chair Steve Stivers repeatedly told Farenthold to resign. Pig man still insists he's not guilty; his excuse: "I'd never served in office before. I had no idea how to run a congressional office. And as a result, I allowed a workplace culture to take root in my office that was too permissive and decidedly unprofessional. I understand fully that this issue has become a political distraction and I would be forced to engage in a monthlong campaign for personal vindication. Quite simply, my constituents deserve better... Therefore I'm announcing my decision not to run for re-election... It accommodated destructive gossip, offhand comments, off-color jokes and behavior that in general was less than professional. And I allowed the personal stress of the job to manifest itself in angry outbursts and too often a failure to treat people with the respect they deserved. That was wrong." Too bad he didn't wear his ducky pjs when he made this pathetic video, a classic case of denial and typical patriarchal, conservative misleading:



Next up: Wyoming's Secretary of State-- and, until today, a probably candidate for governor-- Republican Ed Murray, sexually assaulted a young female intern, Tatiana Maxwell, in his law office.

Maxwell said in a Facebook post Monday that she was working at Dray, Madison and Thomson during the summer after she graduated from high school in Cheyenne. She said Murray was five years older than her and had taken a job at the firm after recently graduating from law school.

“He was older, handsome and from an old Cheyenne family but I didn’t really know him,” she wrote.

According to Maxwell, Murray invited her to meet him at the office after working hours and said she sat with him in the reception area of the law office. She recalled there being Domino’s pizza and beer.

She said that Murray put his hands on her and attempted to kiss her but that she resisted, told him she was a virgin and stopped him from taking off her pants.

“Ed wrestled me down to the carpet in front of the receptionist desk, opened his pants, lifted up my blouse and ejaculated on my stomach,” Maxwell wrote. “I was disgusted and horrified.”

Murray (R-Denial): "This baseless claim about an encounter from thirty-five years ago is unequivocally false. There is no basis to this falsehood whatsoever and it is deeply hurtful to me and to my family, as well as to everyone I serve." (Maybe we'll find his body on a bridge tomorrow after he blows out his brains.)

And that brings us to one of the worst stories of Thermidorian Reaction yet-- the DCCC's conservative corporate recruit to run against Republican Kevin Yoder, Andrea Ramsey. KS-03 (all of the Kansas part of Kansas City plus all of suburban Johnson and Wyandotte counties and part of rural Miami County) is a swingy district that Trump lost to Hillary 47.2% to 46.0%. The DCCC ran one of their terrible GOP-lite candidates, Jay Sidie, and he lost in a rout. He's running again, but the DCCC found another Republican-lite corporate shill instead, Andrea Ramsey. Maybe-- just maybe-- the DCCC should have been paying attention when Bernie won every district in Kansas, including KS-03, where he beat Hillary 62.1% to 37.9%. Maybe that indicates what Kansans what in their candidates. Maybe? And EMILY's List candidate Andrea Ramsey isn't that. No worries, though. She withdrew from the race today after a Kansas City Star reporter asked her about accusations in a 2005 lawsuit that she sexually harassed and retaliated against a male subordinate who said he had rejected her advances. Her statement sounds uncomfortably like Farenthold's: "In its rush to claim the high ground in our roiling national conversation about harassment, the Democratic Party has implemented a zero tolerance standard. For me, that means a vindictive, terminated employee’s false allegations are enough for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to decide not to support our promising campaign. We are in a national moment where rough justice stands in place of careful analysis, nuance and due process."

Multiple sources with knowledge of the case told The Star that the man reached a settlement with LabOne, the company where Ramsey was executive vice president of human resources. Court documents show that the man, Gary Funkhouser, and LabOne agreed to dismiss the case permanently after mediation in 2006. 
...The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has not endorsed anyone in the race, said in a statement that members and candidates must all be held to the highest standard.

“If anyone is guilty of sexual harassment or sexual assault, that person should not hold public office,” said committee spokeswoman Meredith Kelly.

Emily’s List said in a statement on Friday that the group supported Ramsey’s decision to drop out of the race and wished her well.

Happy to see her out of the race-- but not over these probably bullshit accusations. I don't care that the DCCC is driving Ruben Kihuen out of Congress-- because he disappointed me politically... but this lynch mob mentality is the completely wrong way to go about this. And now there are widespread rumors inside the Beltway that the Washington Post is about to drop a story about accusations against between 30 and 40 members of Congress-- of both parties-- and that there was a prostitution ring being run out of the Capitol Grille. Sounds more plausible than a child prostitution ring run out of the basement of a pizzeria. No one gains from any of this but the Koch brothers and Bannon, who want to destroy everyone's faith in government and democracy. Great job, Kirsten Gillibrand; you will never be president.


UPDATE: State Senator Tony Mendoza

Tony's an old friend who has been a stalwart progressive in Sacramento, one of the best. Now he stands accused of inappropriate behavior towards 3 women and the Senate president, Kevin De León, once Mendoza's roommate, has asked him to take a leave of absence while the allegations are being investigated. Mendoza has demurred. My instinct is to believe the accusers, especially because there are 3 of them and because I know the culture in Sacramento has been fast and loose. But I detest the lynch mob mentality that is sweeping the country and I agree with Mendoza that he is entitled to due process. Eventually every straight male politician-- as well as gays and even some women!-- will be accused. People should start standing up for due process. Below is a letter I got from Tony Mendoza yesterday; I haven't discussed the accusations with him but his letter sounds reasonable:

I am very disappointed that certain Senate Rules Committee members are apparently asking me to take a leave of absence or resign before any investigation has even begun and without giving me an opportunity to defend myself. This is contrary to the very concept of due process which is a pillar of our American system of fairness and judicial prudence. These actions bypass any process in a rush to judgment.

The Senate Rules Committee made a public commitment to a new, open, transparent and fair process which would be independent of the Senate. I have welcomed the Committee's decision. However, I am disappointed with the statements and it leaves me concerned about the independence, transparency and fairness of the new process.

I have been diligent in adhering to the rules of the Senate and in following direction from the Senate Rules Committee in refraining from making any comments on the allegations against me.

I have noted that my adherence to Senate rules and the Senate Rules Committee's directive has put me in an untenable situation where I am unable to respond to various media reports without any opportunity to defend myself. This has been very unfair and unjust to me and my constituents.

I was not appointed to the position I hold but was elected by the voters in my District. I am grateful to the voters in my District and thank them for their trust and their continued support. The Senate owes them an opportunity to hear the truth. I assure them that I will vigorously defend myself to clear my name.

Republicans Are On Another Planet And Can't Be Shamed For Their Sexual Transgressions

Thursday night I was at Norman Lear's 95th birthday party. Almost everyone I talked with beyond "hi, how are you?" asked about Al Franken. I had a post in the can-- since then, published here-- that I was able to refer to when people asked me for my thoughts. Most people I spoke with, like me, were torn, not wanting to lose a stalwart progressive senator but supportive of the fight against thousands of years of patriarchal injustice. Marge Baker, executive vice president at People For the American Way, which was throwing the shindig, brought up an important point-- namely that the #MeToo movement has had and will continue to have a great deal of success shaming Democrats but that Republicans can't really be shamed on this topic. They basically just don't care what women think.

And that made me recall a short essay for the Daily Beast that Franken pal Michael Tomasky wrote a couple days ago, Here’s Why Democrats Forced Al Franken to Do the Right Thing—And Why They May Come to Regret It, filed under "Irony Alerts." Tomasky makes it clear that he thinks Franken had to go-- though the freak in the Oval Office has to go much more urgently. But what he wrote was that "There’s a great historical score to be settled here, in the name not only of the women Al did wrong, but the thousands of women down the years who’ve been treated disrespectfully by men using their power-- who didn’t get that promotion, were passed over for that writing gig at Saturday Night Live, never made it to the United States Senate.

A part of me does wonder, though, what exactly would have been wrong in this case with letting the ethics process play out, seeing what the committee found, and determining his fate then? Liberals are supposed to love and respect process, which they sometimes do to a fault. So why short-circuit it here?

This is where I see some opportunism at work, in two ways. First, let’s cut to the chase: Do you think we’d have heard all these calls for his resignation from his Democratic colleagues if Minnesota had a Republican governor? No way. Maybe a couple senators would, but as a group they wouldn’t be nearly so cavalier about dumping him if they knew a Republican was going to replace him. And that’s fine; that’s politics. Newsflash: Politics is political. But it does make me take these high-moral-ground statements of his colleagues with a few grains of salt.

Now Gov. Mark Dayton is throwing a wrench in the works by evidently appointing a caretaker on the condition she not seek to keep the seat, which opens the seat up to the real possibility of Republican capture in 2018 (maybe by Norm Coleman, the Republican Franken defeated in 2008). I wonder how many Senate Democrats calling for Franken’s head would have thought twice if they’d known Dayton was going to pull that boneheaded move, instead of appointing a younger star like state Attorney General Lori Swanson who could build a real Senate career.

Second, obviously, the Democrats are hoping to present to America a contrast between them and the Republicans. And that contrast is real. But it, too, is not really about morality. It’s because rank-and-file Democrats take sexually inappropriate behavior a lot more seriously than rank-and-file Republicans do. This week, Quinnipiac polled about 1,700 people and asked them whether an elected official accused (and only accused) of sexual harassment or assault “by multiple people” should resign. Among Democrats it was 77 percent yes to 14 percent no. Among Republicans it was 51-37.

Good for rank-and-file Democrats. They’re in the right place on this question, and Republicans are in the wrong one. I’m just positing that if the polls weren’t coming out like this, maybe many of these moral high horses we’ve seen mounted in the last 48 hours would have been kept in the barn.

The Democrats want to be able to say: See, when Al Franken and John Conyers are discovered to have done wrong, we don’t equivocate. We take care of it. Meanwhile, look at those Republicans. They’re all-in behind Roy Moore, whose alleged attacks on women make Franken’s look awfully tame. They have a congressman, Blake Farenthold of Texas, who reached a $84,000 settlement of his sexual harassment charge-- paying it with taxpayer money-- and still holds his seat with no one batting an eye. And of course, they have Donald Trump. When’s he going to be filing those lawsuits against those 16 women, by the way?

It’s a contrast, and maybe it will impress some female swing voters in Alabama. But it seems more likely that the Republican way of handling these things is going to win. Deny, deny, deny. Lie, lie, lie. Pushback, pushback, pushback. Be so outrageous-- the Republican National Committee officially supporting an accused child molester!-- that people can barely wrap their heads around it. Sad to say, it wins.

I’m not saying the Democrats should reduce themselves to that level. As I said, Franken should go. But I’m not sure what the Democrats are getting out of it. They’re losing one of their best and smartest senators, somebody who would have been a quite plausible presidential contender in 2020; and failing that would have been a great and important lifetime senator.

But there’s more. They’ve circumvented process and the principle of hearing from both sides. They’ve completely ignored the possibility that a person can reform himself. (Maybe Franken used to be a sexist jerk but has genuinely changed; aren’t liberals supposed to welcome that?) And they’ve blurred the line, which I think should exist, between different categories of sexual crimes, some of which are obviously worse than others. The day will almost surely come when they’ll regret having established these precedents.

And back to one of the least trustworthy Democrats in the Senate: Kirsten Gillibrand. Before she found it politically opportune to lead a lynch mob against Franken, she had co-written a bill on gender equality with him, but it wasn't introduced once the revelations about his behavior started coming out. Then, just before Franken took to the floor of the Senate to make his announcement Thursday, Gillibrand, always the opportunist, squeezed herself in in front of him and introduced the bill as though it were written entirely by her. I wonder when the buzz about her running for national office will finally die the death it so richly deserves.

UPDATE: Someone Else Who Can't Be Shamed

When he was running for Congress, then state Rep. Ruben Kihuen, conned. He persuaded me he was a unswerving progressive and that he would be an unswerving progressive in Congress. He had been in the Nevada legislative leadership and I was hoping for another young, progressive leader. My one hesistation was that he was part of the corrupt, opportunistic and consistently dishonest Harry Reid Machine. I told myself that virtually all successful Democrats in Nevada are and that there was no way around it. So we did a duel endorsement for Kihuen and someone who actually had found a way around it: Lucy Flores.

Kihuen won the primary and Blue America went all in for Kihuen, even after another member of Congress who I trust warned me that Kihuen is a snake. And sure enough, almost as soon as Kihuen got to Congress he threw his lot in with the New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. His ProgressivePunch crucial vote score rapidly sunk and now stands at 76.92. They rate him a "D," better than an "F" but far from the promise he held out when he sat here in my office in Los Feliz.

And now he's facing serious sexual harassment charges and putting a seat he won against GOP crackpot incumbent Cresent Hardy 128,985 (48.5%) to 118,328 (44.5%)-- underperforming Hillary but a point-- into serious jeopardy. Pelosi and DCCC chair Ben Ray Luján have both called for him to resign, which he refuses to do, denying he did anything wrong. Does he have any allies willing to back him up? Not that I'm noticing. Kihuen notes that Pelosi and Luján knew about the charges last year when they first surfaced but campaigned for him. The DCCC spent $3,150,877 on his race and Pelosi's House Majority PAC picked in $967,635. Nancy and Ben Ray claim they didn't know-- a lie-- and sat he can't prove they did. The DCCC just kicked him out of their Frontline incumbent protection program.

David Cohen, who ran former Obama’s Nevada campaign: "It’s only a matter of time for Kihuen. If he stays and runs again, there’s no way he makes it through a primary-- let alone a general election."

The GOP Civil War Is On-- What About A Much-Needed One Among Democrats?

Sinema-- This is how Upchuck Schumer defines "a Democrat"

There's no denying that Roy Moore is far less fit for office-- any office-- than even Trumpanzee. That said, I admire Republican Party insurgents for successfully derailing a swampy lobbyist who oozed his way into the Senate and represents, more than anything, the repulsive, soul-murdering corruption of the establishment. By defeating-- gloriously defeating-- Luther Strange (despite the blandishments of their beloved Trumpanzee), a right-wing populist base sent a chilling message to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and their coteries of swamp creatures. This week every establishment Republican in Washington was shaking in his or her boots. More of them are contemplating early retirement. Not shaking: Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They feel confident that populists on the left will do nothing of the kind.

Shouldn't Democrats be working furiously to end the vile political careers of Joe Manchin (WV), Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Clare McCaskill (MO) and Jon Tester (MT)? Maybe... but that isn't really analogous. You may-- you should-- dislike those conservative Democrats but those are really red states:

• West Virginia- R+19
• Indiana- R+9
• North Dakota- R+19
• Missouri- R+9
• Montana- R+11

That is tough territory. And although the anti-Trump/anti-GOP tsunami may be big enough to defeat Moore in December and replace him with Doug Jones... well, that would have to be the biggest tsunami in history. Alabama's PVI is R+14. So Bannon and Mercer and that crew weren't really taking that big of a gamble they would give away a red seat. In fact, every poll shows Moore winning. (Google Consumer Surveys: Moore- 58%, Jones- 42%; Opinion Savvy: Moore- 50%, Jones- 45%.) We'll get to situations that are analogous below, but first, let me share some typical Politico conventional Beltway "wisdom": Bernie backers give Dem incumbents a pass in 2018. Gabriel Debenedetti reassures Beltway Dems that they have nothing to fear. No Democratic civil war brewing anywhere.

“What Democrats right now care about more than anything is winning,” veteran Democratic pollster Jefrey Pollock said of divisive Democratic primaries. “I don’t think the ultra-progressives have abandoned their principles-- not at all-- but I think they looked at the challenge and said, ‘This is not the right place.’”

...[T]he relative peace on the left wasn’t preordained-- the divisiveness of last year’s presidential primary was widely expected to manifest again in 2018 statewide elections. Yet with next year’s Senate and gubernatorial races shaping up, it’s Democrats whose sighs of relief are echoing around the country.

Democrats have escaped the brunt of their own party’s populist fury largely because they’re heading into the midterms in a defensive crouch, with 10 of their incumbent senators on the ballot in states that voted for Donald Trump. So instead of going after their own senators, progressive activists are focused on gaining Republican-held seats in the House.

“There’s some reluctance to put a lot of time into [unseating Democrats], versus [building] a more progressive Congress overall,” said former Communications Workers of America union president Larry Cohen, a top Bernie Sanders advisor who now chairs the board of the Our Revolution political group that was spawned from the senator’s 2016 presidential campaign. “There’s going to be a lot more activity where it’s possible to change the makeup of the Congress.”

Not all statewide Democratic incumbents are home-free: Actress Cynthia Nixon has been encouraged to mount a long-shot challenge against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo from the left next year-- much like the one he fended off in 2014. Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee has suggested he may take on first-term Gov. Gina Raimondo, criticizing her for not being sufficiently progressive on an array of issues.

And in California, fourth-term Sen. Dianne Feinstein has faced fury from the left for not challenging Trump more aggressively. State Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León, who made the rounds in Washington this month, and liberal activist Joe Sanberg have gained notice as potential challengers... [L]liberal challenges to West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill have so far failed to gain traction... [N]one of the many Democratic senators running in liberal states in 2018-- such as Delaware’s Tom Carper, Maryland’s Ben Cardin, Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar, Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse, or Washington’s Maria Cantwell-- have seen any reason to sweat their own positions.

...Still, messy Democratic primaries are still expected in several House districts where vulnerable Republicans are running for re-election. One conservative Democratic House member-- Illinois’ Dan Lipinski-- already faces a primary fight.

That’s reason enough for establishment-oriented and moderate Democrats to avoid complacency, insisted a handful of party operatives.

What Debenedetti missed are the two Senate primaries in the two states Democrats expect to flip from red to blue. Schumer and Van Hollen recruited 2 of the absolutely worst, most abysmal excuses for Democrats to run, grotesquely corrupt Blue Dog Kirsten Sinema (who actually-- by voting record-- is the single worst Democrat in the House) and almost-as-bad-as-Sinema worthless Jacky Rosen. Arizona progressives haven't gotten their shit together yet, but Nevada progressives sure have-- and with a far more qualified candidate that the swampy establishment is offering: Jesse Sbaih. Schumer, Reid and Van Hollen ar doing everything they can to bury Sbaih's campaign but progressive voters in Nevada are taking note-- and seeing who he is and who Jacky Rosen is. (Shamefully, the imbeciles at HRC have endorsed Sinema on the day she announced. She may be right-wing on everything else, but went it comes to her own private parts...)

Jesse Sbaih is upbeat and hopeful, if wary. "Democrats across the nation have awoken," he told us. "The days of Super Delegates, interfering with primary elections, and embracing corporate money are no longer tolerated by the majority. The more the Democratic Party insists on pushing its anointed candidates, disrupting the democratic process, and advancing the interests of greedy corporations (not the people), the more registered Democrats refuse to come out to vote in general elections. The 2016 election cycle was a perfect example of such intolerance. As we approach 2018, it behooves the Democratic Party to change its old ways or it shall face the peril of continuing to lose elections."

And progressives need to pick off corrupt and Republican-lite reactionaries in blue district primaries. One of the most important this cycle is the Chicagoland seat occupied by Blue Dog throwback Dan Lipinski. He can be beaten because the Democrats have an extraordinary candidate-- a stalwart progressive with deep community roots and the right message for the middle and working class voters in IL-03, Marie Newman. Yesterday she told us that "We have to start upgrading the party to have members of Congress who have real ideas and are willing to both fight and collaborate to get things done. Mr. Lipinski is the epitome of Blue-dog, Do-nothing establishment Dems. This district deserves a real Democrat with real ideas who will actually work and get results."

Normally, it takes 2 cycles to dislodge an entrenched incumbent and progressive champion Tim Canova is on his second cycle to replace the odious Debbie Wassermann Schultz in South Florida. "It's crucial we hold incumbent Democrats accountable," he just told us, "when they've shown a repeated pattern of selling out voters to corporate interests and personal political gain. There are none more in need of scrutiny and challenge than Debbie Wasserman Schultz-- for her many failures when chair of the Democratic National Committee, for undercutting so many other Democrats in and outside of Florida, and for taking millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the largest Wall Street banks and big corporate interests. Wasserman Schultz talks like a liberal and progressive, but she shills for predatory payday lenders, private prisons, fossil fuels and other big business donors. She personifies all that's wrong in our politics and with the Democratic Party. Wasserman Schultz will remain a danger to democracy and drag down Democrats as long as she's in public office."

As Humanist Report host Mike Figueredo reported at HuffPo yesterday, Yes, Medicare For All Is Definitely A Litmus Test For Democrats, not for swamp creatures like Schumer or Reid or Van Hollen, of course, but for actual Democrats.

Medicare for All is absolutely a litmus test! Democrats that refuse to cosponsor Sanders’ or Conyers’ bill in the Senate or House, respectively, will not only lose support (read: votes) from progressives, but we will actively find primary opponents to challenge and defeat them. If incumbent Democrats won’t support Medicare for All, progressives will find somebody else that will. In fact, we’re already doing that. Our intentions have been quite clear from the beginning.

On my podcast, The Humanist Report, I discussed a town hall that took place in Nevada’s 4th congressional district with newly-elected Rep. Ruben Kihuen. An activist named Amy Vilela showed up to ask Kihuen-- a self-proclaimed “progressive” and member of the congressional progressive caucus-- why he refuses to cosponsor Conyers’ Medicare for All bill. More importantly, Vilela’s question was accompanied with her daughter’s poignant story. Vilela explained to Kihuen that her daughter, Shalynne, died at the young age of 22-years-old because she was denied basic medical screenings that would have undoubtedly saved her life. Shalynne couldn’t prove that she had medical insurance and was instead told to go get insurance and find a doctor. But Shalynne’s story didn’t resonate with Kihuen, apparently. Not only did he refuse to commit to cosponsoring Conyers’ Medicare for All bill at that town hall, but even got arguably defensive, as constituents kept pushing the issue further. After reporting on the events that took place at this town hall, and how a so-called progressive couldn’t provide his constituents with one good reason why he wouldn’t support Medicare for All, my viewers submitted hundreds-- if not thousands-- of voicemails to both of Kihuen’s offices, demanding that he cosponsor Conyers’ bill. He still wasn’t moved.

[Note: Kihuen pretended to be a progressive to help him beat actual progressive Lucy Flores last year. Once he got to Congress he joined the corrupt, Wall Street-owned New Dems and quickly reversed his progressive positions and started running up a dreadful voting record. His ProgressivePunch Crucial Vote grade is a "C," far from what he promised when he sat in my living room and portrayed himself as a progressive champion. For Blue America, he was 2016's biggest disappointment.]

As a direct result of Kihuen’s unwillingness to do what he was elected to do (i.e. represent his constituents), he is now facing a primary challenger. His opponent is the mother he didn’t take seriously during that town hall: Amy Vilela. She announced her candidacy on July 19 on The Humanist Report, and she intends to cosponsor H.R. 676 herself since her representative refused to do it. But Amy isn’t the only progressive challenging an incumbent Democrat that refuses to support single-payer.

After months of putting pressure on Rep. Denny Heck in Washington state’s 10th congressional district, he’s now being challenged by a progressive named Tamborine Borrelli, namely because Heck refuses to cosponsor John Conyers’ bill.

...[C]onventional wisdom tells us that Democrats residing in relatively conservative districts-- or red and purple states-- shouldn’t get on board with an idea that presumably won’t resonate with more conservative voters. This line of thinking, however, is outdated. First and foremost, Democrats have lacked the courage to embrace bold progressive policies in conservative states and districts and have played it safe for years; and yet, they still managed to get wiped out at all levels of government. Playing it safe obviously hasn’t been a successful strategy for them.

Second of all, we’re witnessing a rapid cultural shift akin to the wave of social acceptance we saw in the early 2010s towards marriage equality. The “big government” and “socialist” boogeyman arguments just don’t work any longer. A majority of Americans now support single-payer. A recent Harvard-Harris poll found that 52% of Americans back Medicare for All. Some polls even find that single-payer is supported by a plurality of Republicans; that is, more support it than oppose it. Even in polls indicating single-payer doesn’t yet have a majority of support, attitudes towards Medicare for All are still becoming increasingly positive. Additionally, there’s overwhelming support for the general idea that “government is responsible” for ensuring citizens have healthcare. So even in polls that are less kind to single-payer as a policy, there’s still a great deal of symbolic support for it-- which is a strong indicator that Bernie is changing hearts and minds. In fact, Vox’s Dylan Matthews reports that even the alt-right “loves” single-payer, surprisingly.

But even if momentum wasn’t shifting towards single-payer among the general public, it would still be a winning strategy for Democrats. That may sound counter-intuitive, but it’s actually strategically sound. As Democrats have continued to shift to the right—in an effort to court moderates turned off by the Republican Party’s increasingly extremist right-wing views-- they’ve disenfranchised their core base that still exists on the left. America’s Overton window is almost exclusively right-wing, and the Democratic Party has abandoned their populist ideas in an effort to cater to what they think are more moderate voters. This is a strategy that has lead to the Democratic Party being completely annihilated at all levels of government. Moderates don’t like Democrats. When given the choice between a Republican candidate and Republican-lite candidate-- they’ll almost always opt for the real deal. The Democratic Party’s constituents have always been working class voters, and those individuals aren’t going to take time off of work and spend hours in line at the voting booth supporting a candidate whose neoliberal policies will only harm them slightly less than the Republican. They’ll just stay home.

If Democrats actually move back to the left and embrace a bold, progressive message, the voters they’ve abandoned just might come back to them and vote for the first time in a while. So, Democrats should be thanking progressives for making Medicare for All a litmus test because, if anything, it will help their electoral chances. Running away from progressive ideas is a losing strategy in conservative regions of the country because you need your base more than ever in these particular areas. Republicans don’t court moderate voters on the left because they know their core base on the far right won’t go for that; and in a time where Americans are incredibly polarized, it’s time Democrats acknowledge the reality of our current political landscape and opt for a strategy that will actually help them defeat Republicans. They must reinvigorate their demoralized base.

But everything I’m saying would be considered blasphemous to the Democratic Party’s overpaid strategists. Why listen to ordinary Americans when elites in D.C. and the media reinforce all of their bad decisions? More importantly, why alienate potential donors from the health insurance industry when Democrats know they only have to wait for Americans to grow so tired with Republicans and Trump that they’ll inevitably come running back to them even if they change nothing? That’s what the Party is banking on, which is why progressives have made Medicare for All a litmus test. We know Democrats won’t back Sanders’ or Conyers’ bills unless we force them to-- and that’s exactly what we intend to do.

Progressives (and left-leaning Democrats) would be dimwitted to not capitalize on the momentum and grassroots enthusiasm we currently see for single-payer. But besides Medicare for All being a practical and advantageous strategy for Democrats, it’s a litmus test because it’s the right thing to do. If Democrats don’t support a policy that would literally save countless lives, then what good are they? Really, Medicare for All is the easiest litmus test for Democrats to pass. If you don’t care about helping people, and only care about appeasing your donors, why did you run for Congress in the first place? If Shalynne’s story doesn’t tug on your heartstrings, then you’ve become too detached with the struggle of ordinary citizens. This is a moral issue.