Who Better To Replace Robert Menendez Than Rush Holt?

-by Jersey Jack

"Everything's legal in New Jersey."
-Alexander Hamilton

How is the State of New Jersey like the Democratic Party? Both have image problems. And those image problems converge in the corruption trial of Robert Menendez, the state’s senior U. S. Senator.

Menendez is facing bribery charges stemming from his intercession with various federal agencies on a variety of matters for his friend, contributor and co-defendant, Dr. Salomon Melgen, a Florida ophthalmologist. (The indictment is available here.)  His trial began on Wednesday, September 6, and it’s expected to last six about eight weeks, but could go past November 7, when New Jersey will elect its next governor.

If Menendez is convicted, he won’t automatically lose his Senate seat. He won’t have to resign, and he may not resign until he’s exhausted all his appeals.

And the Senate won’t expel him, either. Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote. At least 15 Democrats would have to vote with all 52 of their Republican colleagues, and they won’t do that before Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s term ends in mid-January-- not when it looks like New Jersey’s next governor will be a Democrat.   Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Murphy holds a commanding lead in the polls over his Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno. Governor Bridgegate is the most unpopular governor in the state’s history, and it’s hard to imagine any member of his administration, even one not implicated in the Bridgegate scandal, winning the election.

If Murphy wins-- and if Menendez leaves office after Murphy is sworn in-- Murphy could appoint a Democrat to complete Menendez’ current term.

Of course, the Republicans won’t want to expel Menendez next year if it means giving Murphy the chance to appoint another Democrat, who could then run for a full term as an incumbent next year. But if the trial doesn’t go well, Menendez will face pressure to step down both from the New Jersey Democratic establishment and from his fellow Democrats in the Senate.

And if Menendez does resign, who will Murphy pick to replace him?  Former Congressman Rush Holt would be the ideal choice.



Holt is the polar opposite of a corporate Democrat. He supports single payer health care, a financial transaction tax, and strengthening Social Security by eliminating the cap. And perhaps most important, Holt, a physicist by training, understands anthropogenic climate change. He knows that we need better environmental regulations, and that we need to develop renewable energy as quickly as possible—and his scientific background would make him a formidable opponent of climate denying Republicans in Senate debates.



As longtime DWT readers may remember, Blue America supported Holt in the special August, 2013 primary for an unexpired Senate term, following the death of Frank Lautenberg in June. Holt lost that race to consummate corporatist and shameless self-promoter Cory Booker, who enjoyed generous financial support from Wall Street, as well as the backing of the New Jersey Democratic establishment, most notably that of South Jersey machine boss George Norcross.

And now,according to Newark Star-Ledger columnist Tom Moran, Norcross wants to move his brother Donald, who currently represents New Jersey’s First Congressional District, into the Senate-- and he still wants to control the House seat, too. From Moran’s August 27 column;

Rep. Norcross, of course, is the kid brother of George Norcross, the political boss from South Jersey whose team controls seven votes in the Senate and 16 in the Assembly, give or take. By appointing Norcross, Murphy would be doing a huge solid for a man he’s going to need to govern successfully.

And it could set off a game of musical chairs that would help Murphy even more, many Democrats say. Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) could fill the vacant seat in Congress. And Sweeney's post as Senate president could go to a Democrat from northern New Jersey, presumably a close ally of Murphy’s. Everyone wins.

Murphy is trying to present himself as an outsider and a progressive—not an easy sell for a former Goldman Sachs executive. Toward that end, he’s now an advocate of public banking, and that’s helping. He’s even had one of his campaign videos on that subject embedded in a page on the website of the non-profit Public Banking Institute.

But if Murphy cuts a deal with Norcross, he’ll instantly destroy whatever credibility he now enjoys with progressives. The Norcross brothers are opposed to single payer health care and GMO labeling, and in favor of charter schools, fracking and pipelines. They’re anathema to progressives.

If Murphy appoints Donald Norcross to the Senate, he will further tarnish not only the image of New Jersey, but also that of the Democratic Party.

On the other hand, if he appoints a real progressive like Rush Holt, that would help improve the image of his state and of his party. And if the Democratic Party is going to take over Congress next year, it will need all the help it can get.

People Want To Know Why We Endorsed Bonnie Watson Coleman In NJ-12 Instead of Linda Greenstein. OK, Here's Why

Bonnie knows what team she's playing for-- New Jersey's working families

When Blue America decided to endorse Bonnie Watson Coleman one thing that weighed heavily on our decision was how-- when the climate was tough-- Bonnie stuck with Barbara Buono while the Linda Greenstein was running ads touting her fealty to Christie. It drove many of us at Blue America up the wall at the time and it made our endorsement of Bonnie pretty much inevitable. There have been a lot of people telling us that either would be a good replacement for Rush Holt and that both are "progressive Democrats." That's patently absurd. Technically it's true but the reality is far more nuanced. Linda Greenstein is a progressive... she is a conservative... she is a moderate... she believes in Chris Christie's policies… she is against Chris Christie's policies... she is essentially whatever the polling and focus groups tell her to be in order to win her next election.

In this race, Bonnie Watson Coleman is the only true progressive, and the real Democrat. Bonnie has always been there fighting on the front lines for working families and has always stood up for her beliefs and her principles when others were silent. She doesn't follow along with tough positions when it's easy. She leads when it's hard. That's why Blue America endorsed her.

When it came time to vote to abolish the death penalty in New Jersey, Bonnie proudly did so. Linda Greenstein did not. And, when the New Jersey Assembly was debating their marriage equality bill, Bonnie spoke up, loud and proud, when many were silent. Including Linda Greenstein. Here is Bonnie’s floor speech.

And, like I said, the kicker, when it came to standing up to that bully Chris Christie, Bonnie proudly stood with our friend Barbara Buono. While some Democrats like Linda Greenstein stood silently and took cover when some members of the party helped Chris Christie, Bonnie took on an even larger leadership role and became Barbara's Campaign Chair. While Bonnie was out there with Barbara fighting day in and day out against Christie’s transactional, self serving politics Linda was running ads saying that she would work with Christie.

The truth is that Linda is not a progressive Democrat, and she has not considered herself progressive until polling came back to suggest that she should be. Here is a link to an interview that Linda gave just after Rush Holt announced that he was not running.  Go to 1:42 to hear how progressive Linda considers herself to be. The fact that she can't even say if SHE is progressive, let alone as progressive as our friend Rush Holt, frightens me.

Linda voted time and time again with Chris Christie’s Bridgegate hatchet man Bill Baroni when he was also in the New Jersey Legislature because she was more concerned with maintaining her position then she was standing on principle. She voted against our values on bills that would limit campaign contributions from entities with government contracts, benefit those making real estate transactions that are over one million dollars and voted against legislation to provide financial aid to public school districts that need it the most. She also chose not to vote on a bill that would criminalize racial profiling.

Linda is not progressive, Linda has never been progressive, and Linda will not be progressive. The truth is that she has flirted with being progressive because her polling and focus groups said that is what the voters of the 12th district want. The truth is that you can’t lead from behind, and you can’t lead based on polling.

Please join me to support Bonnie Watson Coleman, and fight to ensure that Rush Holt’s progressive legacy is carried on. You can donate to Bonnie’s Campaign here!

Why The National Organization For Women Endorsed Rush Holt

Tuesday is election day in New Jersey-- not the general election, which is in November, but the special election primary for the open Senate seat. Wall Street has been successful in creating the conventional wisdom that their puppet, Cory Booker, can't be stopped. But a late summer special election primary is really about turning out voters more than anything else. Cory Booker may be a TV celebrity but he has a putrid record of failure and a sleazy relationship with Big Business special interests. That's why I was so buoyed to see the National Organization for Women endorse Rush Holt, the progressive alternative to Booker over the weekend.

This is as strong a case from a third-party validator as anyone has gotten heading into the final days of this election. I suppose the CEOs and lobbyists from JPMorgan and BankAmerica could send something like this for Booker, but that might confuse his low-info backers. Jennifer Armiger is the chairwoman of NOW-NJ PAC and the case she makes about why her organization decided to back Rush, instead of the front-runner or even instead of a prominent woman also running in the race, is very compelling.

I’ve spent the last month diving into the records of every candidate in Tuesday’s Senate election, working on behalf of the National Organization for Women’s New Jersey PAC. I studied their votes and public statements, and I reached out to each candidate for an in-person meeting.

I came away absolutely convinced that Rush Holt is the best candidate to uphold former Senator Frank Lautenberg’s legacy in support of women’s rights, progressive issues, and equality for all.

Earlier this week, the National Organization for Women’s PAC endorsed Rush Holt for Senate...

Rush has a record of leadership on women’s and progressive issues-- in sharp contrast to some of the other candidates in the primary race. He has been willing to stand up and defend the rights of women, the LGBTQI community, and the hardworking voters in his district, even when it has meant challenging the political status quo.

While I was able to schedule interviews with three of the candidates in this race, Mayor Cory Booker’s campaign was entirely unresponsive to the NOW-NJ PAC requests for interview, despite repeated attempts to contact his offices by phone, email, and other means. For this reason, the PAC could not consider a recommendation for endorsement of Booker’s candidacy.

Feminists and progressive allies will not simply hand over a Senate seat in the face of the pressure of public celebrity...

My difficulties with the Booker campaign speak plainly to the broad concerns about his bid for office and the running of his Senate campaign-- that he is strong on style and ideas, but weak and unproven on the issues. He is unresponsive to his constituency and has produced little in terms of real outcomes that improve the lives of residents and voters in the city of Newark, most especially women and the underserved.

Not so with Rush Holt. A longtime member of the board of Planned Parenthood of Mercer County, Rush supports and will continue to defend abortion rights and reproductive freedom. He supports the Equal Rights Amendment, pay equity for women, marriage equality, labor rights and public sector workers' rights, environmental protection, and single-payer health insurance. Rush also strongly defends civil liberties, and he is unwilling to bargain away workers' rights and protections, as well as United States industry and sovereignty, in the name of free trade.

New Jersey voters deserve a candidate who will have their best interests at heart. That candidate is Rush Holt. I ask for your help in sending him to the United States Senate.

With appreciation,
Jennifer Armiger
Chair,
NOW-NJ PAC

Blue America has endorsed Rush Holt as well, not because he's a Democrat-- there are plenty of worthless Democrats running for Senate seats we would never consider endorsing-- but because he's a proven progressive. Here's our full Senate list so far.



UPDATE: And The Corruption

Cory Booker is not just unworthy of Democratic votes in Tuesday's primary because he's bad on the issues-- which he is-- and because he's a pathetic Wall Street puppet-- which he is-- but also because he's a ticking time bomb liable to explode before the general election and saddle New Jersey with some kind of rightwng lunatic senator like that Lonegan character. Today's NY Post reported that he was taking "condidential" payoffs from his former law firm while serving as mayor of Newark.

Cory Booker pocketed “confidential” annual payouts from his former law firm while serving as Newark mayor.

Booker, the front-runner in New Jersey’s Senate race, received five checks from the Trenk DiPasquale law firm from 2007 until 2011. During that time, the firm raked in more than $2 million in fees from local agencies over which Booker has influence.

...Booker did not list Trenk DiPasquale as a source of income on the financial-disclosure report he filed as a Senate candidate in May. One part asks for a listing of compensation of more than $5,000 paid by one source for services provided from 2011 to 2013.

If you live in New Jersey, please vote for Rush Holt Tuesday.

The Failure Of Identity Politics-- And It's Not Just Wall Street Shill Cory Booker

Yesterday we noted the endorsement of Rush Holt, who is white, by African-American civil rights leader Edith Savage-Jennings. In her OpEd at the Times of Trenton, she wrote that "The decision to answer the call to service was never easy. Often, it was terrifying. I faced the very real possibility of imprisonment or violence for standing up for civil rights. But I could not abide the idea that some human beings were less equal than others. As much as I valued my safety, I valued my principles even more highly. When I look at Rush Holt, I see someone who feels equally called to service and equally committed to his principles. I am not being paid by his campaign. And I have never been paid by any campaign. I just think he is the best person to elect to the Senate." Holt is a Blue America backed candidate and I was glad that someone of Edith Savage-Jennings' stature and integrity didn't back the "Black candidate" or the woman candidate" but went for the BEST candidate.

I am a black woman who helped lead the civil rights movement. At the request of NAACP National, I arranged for Mrs. Rosa Parks to come to the Mount Zion AME Church in Trenton in January 1956 to give her first national speech after her Montgomery bus sit-in. And in 1957, I organized the first visit of Martin Luther King Jr. to Trenton at the Shiloh Baptist Church and became his fund-raiser and lifelong friend. In addition to my other work and interests, such as the National Conference of Christians and Jews, I have served in major national, state and local civil rights leadership positions.

Some people believe that my history should compel me to vote for a black candidate as New Jersey’s next U.S. senator. But if I learned anything from the civil rights movement, it is that we must look past the color of a person’s skin.

We must examine the content of his or her character. We must ask ourselves: Who has heard and answered the call to service?

...Mr. Holt has been honest, fair, hard-working and committed. He has earned the respect of all his constituents regardless of race or ethnicity. No matter who asks for his help, Rush Holt is there.

When the National Security Agency was caught spying on innocent Americans-- calling to mind the surveillance abuses of the civil rights movement, when the FBI spied on Martin Luther King Jr. and others-- Rush Holt was there. He has introduced a bill to end warrantless spying on Americans. He is respected nationally as a true progressive.

When my city of Trenton was forced to lay off much of its police force during a budget crisis, Rush Holt was there. He fought for funding from the Justice Department to help the city rehire police officers. He also helped the police department and emergency medical services buy new equipment, and he helped renovate the Trenton train station. Rep. Holt can often be seen in all the neighborhoods of Trenton, my home town, as well his entire district, hearing from the people he represents.

At every opportunity, Rep Holt has answered the call to service. In him I see a kindred, compassionate spirit-- someone I can count on to carry on the work that I have done for so many years.

Without a lot of posturing and flamboyance, Rush Holt has become an effective leader for progressive causes and, therefore, in my opinion, he is the best person to represent us in the United States Senate.

Cory Booker isn't the first-- nor will he be the last-- African-American candidate to sell his soul to Wall Street. He's just another version of corporate whores like Harold Ford, Al Wynn and Artur Davis. The most conservative Hispanic Democrat in Texas is Henry Cuellar. Where many Democrats who vote with the Republicans as much as Cuellar does, whine that their districts demand it because they're purple of even red, Cuellar's Texas district is strictly out of bounds for a Republican. The PVI is D+7 and Romney couldn't even win 40% there last year. No, Blue Dog Henry Cuellar doesn't vote like a Republican because he's a coward; he votes like a Republican because he is like a Republican.

In their seminal 2006 book on grassroots politics Crashing the Gate Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong eviscerate many notions of old school politics, narrow identity politics being one component. Writing last year about how EMILY's List has devolved into an organization that primarily helps wealthy conservative women-- who are pro-Choice-- target progressive men, I noted that when the book first came out I didn't fully appreciated that point-- "about how the single-minded, single interest groups that make up the Democratic coalition are a force for dysfunction. EMILY's List, far more than any other group, is the poster child for that destructive attitude that has been, in recent years, so harmful to the progressive movement." They are the organization you can LEAST count on to "examine the content of his or her character" when looking at candidates.

Sean Patrick Maloney-- nice family, crap voting record

Lately, the Democratic Party has elected more proud, up front gay men and women than ever before. That's wonderful, but there's a but. Unlike gay congressional pioneer Barney Frank, most of these gay candidates are not progressives. Oh, they're very progressive on LGBT issues and on Choice, but when it comes to economic justice, many of them are cut from the same cloth as reactionary Republicans from the Greed and Selfishness wing of the GOP. According to ProgressivePunch's crucial vote score, Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) is the least progressive freshman Democrat in Congress. His wretched 32.69 score is more conservative than several Republicans and much worse than many homophobic right-wing Blue Dogs. But he's proudly gay and has a lovely husband and lovely children that he uses to get progressives to donate to his campaigns. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), who tells everyone she meets that she's "bisexual," is basically just as bad. Her abysmal score is 40.62, just above conservative North Carolina Republican Walter Jones' 40.38-- though not quite as "good" as Maloney's closest congressional neighbor, conservative Republican Chris Gibson (41.35), who is facing a wealthy Maloney clone next year, Sean Eldridge. Let me point out at this moment that the BEST Progressive Punch score for any freshman this year belongs to Madison, Wisconsin progressive Mark Pocan, an upfront gay man who sees the fight for LGBT equality as a part of the universal struggle for equality and the dignity of all men and women, something that Maloney and Sinema seem-- at least in their voting records-- unable or unwilling to grasp.

EMILY's List endorses worthless conservative women. Victory Fund has even endorsed reformed homophobes who are conservative Republicans-- and expect them to back Richard Tisei against LGBT equality backer John Tierney again, like they did last year. Both organizations need to look more closely at how Edith Savage-Jennings came to her conclusions-- selflessness dedication rather than jonesing for a weekly paycheck and empire-building being one important factor. It's always a good time to watch this short video by Alan Grayson again:

Corrupt Wall Street Hedge Fund Managers Electing An Ally To The U.S. Senate?

A week from today, we'll wake up knowing who won the Democratic nomination-- tantamount to election-- for the open New Jersey U.S. Senate seat. Will it be another progressive dedicated to representing working families? Or will it be a shameless careerist who takes his every move from his Wall Street benefactors. Last week, Blue America and Progressive Democrats of America made the case for Rush Holt against Cory Booker. We raised nearly $7,000 for Rush on our two ActBlue pages, here and here. And Rush was able to use that money to help build the ad above.

As he says, "Cory may be the frontrunner in this race but he's no progressive." No, progressives don't talk about "fixing" Social Security by adopting Republican plans to raise the retirement age for working families. Again, Rush: "We need to pass a carbon tax to stop climate change, break up the Wall Street banks, and stop the government spying on innocent Americans. Cory Booker doesn't support any of these ideas."

Booker is in bed with every corrupt New Jersey political crime boss and he's tight with Chris Cristie. The two of them practice the same kind of sleazy, ego-driven careerist politics. Booker isn't just the candidate of the Wall Street banksters. He's the candidate who has the hedge fund managers as excited as they were by Mitt Romney and Scott Brown. He's been a showy celebrity mayor of a city sinking into worse poverty and worse crime since he was first elected. "Carjackings-- the signature Newark crime; they used to call it "the carjack capital"-- have gone up for four years in a row," according to a comprehensive report in The Guiardian. "Violent crime, which had been declining in Booker's first years, has spiked again; in summer, things will get worse. Police have been laid off, firefighters too, as Booker has slashed city budgets. And when the mayor recently tried to get an ally of his on the city council, the meeting devolved into a ruckus, with police officers resorting to pepper spray."

The NY Times also did an extensive report about how unfit Booker is for high public office.

Cory Booker’s promise-- captured in two books, two documentaries and frequent television appearances-- was to save a city that had been hemorrhaging residents, industry and hope since the riots that ripped it apart 45 years ago. But a growing number of Newarkers complain that he has proved to be a better marketer than mayor, who shines in the spotlight but shows little interest in the less-glamorous work of what it takes to run a city.

...Business leaders say he dazzles at news conferences, but flags on the follow-through. Residents have wearied of the outside fascination for the mayor whom Oprah Winfrey called “a rock star” and Jon Stewart on Wednesday referred to as “the superhero mayor of Newark.”

Taxes have risen more than 20 percent over the past three years, even after the city laid off about 1,100 workers, including more than 160 police officers. Crime has risen, and unemployment is up. Schools remain under state control, and the city’s finances remain so troubled that it cannot borrow to fix its antiquated water system. While new restaurants have risen near the Prudential Center downtown, those in the outer wards were placed under a curfew this year because of shootings and drug dealing.

“There’s a lot of frustration and disappointment,” said Assemblyman Albert Coutinho, a Democrat representing Newark. “People feel that the mayor basically is out of the city too much and doesn’t focus much on the day-to-day.

...[Booker and Christie] have an unusually good relationship, even filming a video parody together, but the political benefits have not been enjoyed equally. Mr. Booker provided bipartisan backing for the governor’s plan for pension and benefit cuts to government workers. But when the state reached a landmark contract agreement with Newark teachers, Mr. Booker was not invited to stand with other officials to make the announcement.

While Mr. Christie has held scores of town-hall-style meetings in his strategy of “governing on the offensive,” Mr. Booker has been far less aggressive in selling his proposals, most critically a 2010 plan to create an authority to control the city’s water system, which would have helped close a $180 million budget gap.

When opponents of the plan packed churches and neighborhood meetings, Mr. Booker made almost no effort to counter them, said members of the Municipal Council who were elected on Mr. Booker’s platform. That failure forced 866 layoffs, a 16 percent property tax increase and the sale of 16 city buildings, including Symphony Hall and police and fire headquarters.

Similarly, one of his biggest education initiatives-- to allow charter schools to pay rent and about $50 million in maintenance to share buildings with schools where the student population had plummeted-- was voted down after strong opposition in 2011.

The school superintendent, appointed by Mr. Christie, overrode the vote by the school board. But proponents of the plan criticized the mayor for running to the state for cover, even as he has said he wants Newark schools to be controlled locally.

“How come you can’t persuade the people who elected you twice?” said one person who shares the mayor’s ideas on how to overhaul schools. “When’s the last time you did a town hall? Why do we have to go to Twitter to find out what you’re talking about?”

The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retaliation from the Booker administration.

And that Guardian piece was even more plain spoken about Booker's many shortcomings, although the two reports are in sync when it comes to Booker's bad attitude towards public education. "He is a long-time advocate of charter schools and, more quietly, of voucher programs: a favorite hobbyhorse of the men of high finance. George Will, the paleoconservative columnist of the Washington Post, is a big fan. Michelle Rhee, the fallen DC schools chancellor whose union-busting, corporatist education reforms resulted in a citywide cheating scandal, is someone Booker calls "a friend of mine"-- and we should add that Newark's charter schools were embroiled in a cheating scandal of their own last year."

And of course, Booker has the unwavering support of the big bad industry just across the river from Newark. Since his days as a city councilor, he has hoovered up cash from the financial services sector-- but unlike many other tri-state Democrats who seduce the Street in a marriage of a convenience, Booker legitimately thinks that big money knows best and the public sector should do its bidding. When, in May 2012, Booker confessed that he found it "nauseating" for the Obama campaign to impugn Mitt Romney's career in private equity, Democrats were shocked. They shouldn't have been. Booker's whole career has been a testament to a poisonous financial-corporatist consensus, which dresses up the interests of big money in post-ideological garb. (That helped him win the support this weekend of the most powerful man in New Jersey: George Norcross III, the feared political boss and owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who said he liked Booker because he was "a Democrat that's fiscally conservative yet socially progressive.")

Remember that $100m donation to the Newark schools from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, promoted with its very own Oprah episode? The cash didn't go into the Newark school system; it's controlled by a non-governmental fund, with Booker on the board, and has been so unaccountable that the ACLU had to sue the city to learn what was going on. (Booker's office first denied that the emails the ACLU sought existed; when a judge ordered the emails to be made public, the Booker team released them on Christmas Eve.)

Add to this Booker's privatization of the Newark sanitation department, and his repeated attempts to do the same to the water supply, and the picture becomes clearer. In the world Booker and his cohort inhabit, there are no systemic problems and no class interests. There are only pesky inefficiencies, to be fixed with better data and more money from smart, happy, rich people who can spend their cash far more sensibly than the public sector.

...[I]t seems far more likely that the next senator from New Jersey will be the anti-Lautenberg: a neoliberal egomaniac who sees government as nothing more than a charity for billionaires and corporations to support as they please. There may be no stopping the rise and rise of Cory Booker. But let's at least recognize his impending triumph for what it is: another victory for the men in the glass towers, enabled by a nonstop publicity campaign waged 140 characters at a time.

New Jersey hasn't elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate in decades. Cory Booker conveniently identifies himself as a Democrat but, at this point, he'll be New Jersey's first Republican-- at least when it comes to economic justice-- in many years. Unless Rush Holt stops him. Please consider helping here... or here. Yesterday civil rights leader Edith Savage-Jennings endorsed Rush. She said, "Some people believe that my history should compel me to vote for a black candidate as New Jersey’s next U.S. senator. But if I learned anything from the civil rights movement, it is that we must look past the color of a person’s skin."

Less Than Two Weeks To Go Before The New Jersey Primary-- Don't Give Wall Street Banksters Another Senate Seat

This week Blue America and Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) sent a joint letter to all our members asking them to support Rush Holt for the open New Jersey Senate seat. The August 13 primary has 4 Democrats vying for the nomination-- Rush Holt and Frank Pallone, both progressive congressmen, General Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, a kind of boss-affiliated garden variety Democrat, and the Wall Street candidate, Newark Mayor Cory Booker. The special election itself will be held October 16. Digby penned the letter:

Last April, just three months before he passed away, the ailing liberal lion Senator Frank Lautenberg issues a strong statement in opposition to proposed cuts to Social Security. He said: "We can't afford to further balance our books on the backs of middle-class families and seniors. The proposed cuts to Social Security benefits are a major problem that would hurt countless Americans.”

Sadly, the man considered to be the front runner to succeed him, Newark mayor and media darling Cory Booker, isn't willing to hold that line. He said just this week that he'd consider raising the retirement age for younger people, a patented Republican dodge and a sure sign that he cannot be trusted to protect the Democratic Party's greatest achievement.

But there is someone in the race who will protect Social Security and his name is Congressman Rush Holt.

Holt not only opposes all cuts to our most important social insurance program, he is a co-sponsor of the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which would expand Social Security benefits not cut them. Where Mayor Booker has said that he has "not formed an opinion" on a carbon tax, something which 41 Democratic Senators have already voted for, Rush Holt is card carrying scientist who strongly supports it.

Where Mayor Booker thinks calling for repeal of the Patriot Act is "irresponsible", Rush Holt sponsored a bill in the House just this week to do just that. He said: "The executive branch’s groundless mass surveillance of Americans has turned our conception of liberty on its head. My legislation would restore the proper constitutional balance and ensure our people are treated as citizens first, not suspects.”

Where Mayor Booker considers Wall Street a strong friend and ally, Rush Holt... doesn't. 

The last thing we need in the US Senate is another Wall Street friendly centrist with a propensity for government secrecy and a willingness to cut our most important social insurance programs. There are plenty of those already.

In the upcoming primary, New Jersey can choose an establishment celebrity who plays a progressive on TV or it can choose a real progressive. We strongly believe the choice for progressives in this race is obvious and urge you support Congressman Rush Holt for US Senate. Please donate what you can and spread the word among your friends and acquaintances in New Jersey.

Wall Street Licking Its Chops As It Sees Christie And Booker Ahead In Their New Jersey Races

By now you're probably well aware that GOP presidential rivals Chris Christie and Rand Paul are already slugging it out-- over national security and governing philosophy. It looks to be pretty ugly, as anything Christie gets involved in always turns out to be. But their disputes aren't just a matter of two ambitious Republicans trying to knock each other out of presidential contention. Christie, in fact, sounds exactly like Democratic Wall Street shill Corey Booker. They're like the Jersey Bobbsey Twins.

Christie, at a forum in Colorado on Thursday, pointed to a “strain of libertarianism” coursing through both parties as a “very dangerous thought” more than a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks. Christie was asked whether he was referring to Paul, a fellow potential Republican presidential candidate who has been at the forefront of the party’s libertarian wing.

“You can name any number of people and he’s one of them,” said Christie. “These esoteric, intellectual debates-- I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have.”

Paul on Sunday rejected arguments that the National Security Agency’s collection of hundreds of millions of U.S. phone and Internet records are necessary to prevent terrorism.

“I don’t mind spying on terrorists,” he said. “I just don’t like spying on all Americans.”

Paul said the issue resonates particularly with young people, a key demographic Republicans need to attract in order to succeed in national elections.

“If you talk about some privacy issues like that, I think you will find youth coming to you,” said Paul, who said his own decision on whether to run for president won’t come until next year.

...Christie last week criticized Paul’s opposition to warrantless federal surveillance programs, saying it harmed efforts to prevent terrorism. Paul told reporters after speaking at a fundraiser outside Nashville on Sunday that Christie’s position hurts GOP chances in national elections, and that spending priorities of critics like the governor and Rep. Peter King of New York do more to harm national security.

“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending, and their ‘Gimme, gimme, gimme-- give me all my Sandy money now.’” Paul said, referring to federal funding after the hurricane last year. “Those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.”

Christie sounds exactly like Booker when he's criticizing Rush Holt's proposal to protect American citizens' constitutional rights to privacy under the 4th Amendment. It isn't something Booker, a grubby pol and creature of Wall Street banksters, has any understanding of.

And he said he believes the federal government has gone too far in its secret surveillance programs, but he called Holt’s position that Congress should throw out the Patriot Act and start over “a little irresponsible.”

Similarly, Booker is one of the ConservaDems willing-- eager-- to wreck Social Security on behalf of the banksters who have financed his career.

For Social Security, Booker said he opposes raising the retirement age for most people in the country-- except, perhaps, for people in their 20s or younger-- because the country made promises to them.

New Jersey voters probably don't realize they're about to go from having one of the most progressive Members of the Senate to having one of the worst Democrats, on a par with garbage like Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln. Take a look at how Rush explains it himself-- and then consider contributing to his campaign.

What Should We Do About Obamacare?

Obamacare was a flawed, compromised "solution" from day one, based on a mediocre conservative set of ideas that were meant to prevent the passage of a single payer system (Medicare for All) by progressives. At best, people see the benefits, overlook the flaws and are coming to accept it, despite partisan GOP hysteria. I hope you read Norm Ornstein's report for The Atlantic about the unprecedented, contemptible GOP quest to sabotage Obamacare. "What the Republicans are doing now," he assets-- and proves-- "goes beyond mere hardball politics-- and could hurt millions of Americans affected by health-care reform."

The video up top is by New Jersey Congressman Rush Holt who is currently running for his state's open Senate seat in a primary against a conservative Wall Street shill, Corey Booker. The video is very much worth watching closely, even if you don't care about what happens in the New Jersey Senate race. (If you do care, Blue America has endorsed Holt and is asking for people to contribute to his campaign here.) Holt, widely considered either the smartest Member of Congress or one of the 2 or 3 smartest Members, comes to the conclusion that the way to improve Obamacare would be to implement a single payer system. He's exactly correct.

This week, another Blue America-endorsed candidate-- Dr. Lee Rogers, a California surgeon running for anti-healthcare fanatic Buck McKeon-- addressed the same problem in a letter to his supporters.

Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech at Knox College in Illinois that focused on how to get the middle class back on their feet. He criticized the House of Representatives for their obstructionism and specifically for their 38 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The President said, "If you think you have a better plan for making sure that every American has the security of quality, affordable health care, then stop taking meaningless repeal votes and share your concrete ideas with the country."

"Repealing Obamacare and cutting spending is not an economic plan. It's not. If you're serious about a balanced, long-term fiscal plan that replaces the mindless cuts currently in place, or if you're interested in tax reform that closes corporate loopholes and gives working families a better deal, I'm ready to work."

Well, Mr. President, I'm ready to work with you to improve the Affordable Care Act! I agree that Obamacare is already benefiting millions of people across our country. California has largest number of uninsured people-- 7.3 million residents-- and the ACA is covering more people and for cheaper. California's recently released insurance premiums for the state exchanges were even far less than expected.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act is not the answer. Instead, I support making it better.

I've proposed 5 reforms that will lower costs and improve care...

1) Giving regulators the power to reject unjustified insurance rate hikes

2) Allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines by creating a national health insurance exchange

3) Providing the option for individuals and businesses to buy into Medicare at cost

4) Giving Medicare and Medicaid the power to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry

5) Guaranteeing that “medical necessity” is determined by a patient’s doctor rather than an insurance company

By 2016, health care will be the largest federal expenditure. We need people in Congress who are experts in health care.

I've been a patient. In fact, we will all be patients during our lives. I'm also a doctor and I've been in a room with a patient. I've had to help patients navigate our difficult health care system, many times arguing with their insurer, in order to get the treatment they need. That's the kind of person who should be driving the health care discussion in Washington.

Rogers is being understated and modest. He's a renowned surgeon and a national spokesperson for the American Diabetes Association. And proposal #3, above, is, in effect, the single-payer solution that will make the American health care system the best in the world for real. If you'd like to help replace Buck McKeon with Lee Rogers, here's the place to do it.

Funding War And Domestic Spying

This week I literally marveled at how deftly Alan Grayson was able to use congressional procedures beyond the ken of garden variety congressmembers to get five amendments to the defense-spending bill passed without controversy particularly one prohibiting torture. “This amendment," explained Grayson to any Members who might not be paying attention, "makes the intent of Congress clear; it makes the law clear: We. Don’t. Torture. The United States military is prohibited from torturing any human being, at home or abroad.” Another very important amendment he got through is being referred to as the "contractor death penalty," which disqualifies companies-- no matter how many contributions they've given Buck McKeon, John McCain or Steny Hoyer-- from government contracting work for 3 years after being indicted or convicted for any one of 12 offenses defense contractors are often guilty of-- from fraud, embezzlement, theft and forgery to tax evasion, bribery, or violations of federal or state law in connection with obtaining public contracts. The other 3 amendments Grayson got passed were for research for prostate cancer by the Pentagon, a 50% increase on research on Gulf War Syndrome (which was opposed by many of the Military Industrial Complex Democrats) and a cap on the number of generals at the current level. (Keep in mind that each new general costs tax payers over a million in staff per year). There is literally no Democrat in Congress who has managed to work more productively with Republicans on passing good legislation. That's VERY different from sell-outs like Patrick Murphy, Kyrsten Sinema and Sean Patrick Maloney who just vote with Republicans on their agenda. That isn't bipartisanship; it's cowardice.

The House passed-- by voice vote-- Trey Radel's and Peter Welsh's amendment to require Obama to come to Congress personally and make the case for going to war against Syria if he decides to do anything so foolish. Also passing by voice vote was the amendment banning funds to pay for any military operations in Egypt.

Another amendment I was watching closely was Jerry Nadler's proposal to free Guantanamo detainees who have already been found to have been held without any valid reasons. It failed 176-242, all but 6 Republicans opposing it. It sickened me to see 22 Democrats cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans on this-- all the regular conservative shitheads and cowards like McIntyre, Sinema, Gallego, Barrow, Patrick Murphy, Foster, Barber, Kirkpatrick, Bera, Sean Patrick Maloney, Lipinski, Cuellar, Owens... and Pennsylvania gubernatorial wanna-be Allyson Schwartz who ignore the Democratic grassroots in their own districts and cater to Republicans who aren't going to vote for them anyway. What passed instead, 238-185, was Indiana reactionary Jackie Walorski's mean-spirited and genuinely stupid amendment banning the transfer of innocent detainees from Gitmo to Yemen, a shameful and pointless act that defines what kind of a flaming asshole Walorski is. 14 Democrats voted for her amendment, all the usual suspects: worthless garbage like Barber, Barrow, Kirkpatrick, Lipinksi, Sean Patrick Maloney, Matheson, McIntyre, Owens, Gary Peters, Peterson, Ruiz, Sinema...

The big amendment, of course, was Justin Amash's and John Conyers' Amendment #100 which was meant to stop the NSA’s blanket surveillance of Americans. That really divided the wheat from the chaff-- and not along party lines. The amendment failed 205-217. Both parties' corrupt leadership whipped frantically against the amendment. Democrats were more willing to break from their leaders than Republicans were of course and 134 Republicans voted no, while 83 Democrats voted no. 111 Democrats voted for the Amash-Conyers proposal which would have limited the government’s collection of records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act to those records that pertain to a person who is subject to an investigation under that provision. According to Amash, the amendment has three important practical effects. 

First, it ends the mass surveillance of Americans. The government no longer is authorized under Sec. 215 to hold a pool of metadata on every phone call of every American.  Second, the amendment permits the government to continue to acquire business records and other “tangible things” that are actually related to an authorized counterterrorism investigation. The government still has access to this tool under the amendment, but it’s forced to comply with the intent of Congress when it passed Sec. 215.  Third, the amendment imposes more robust judicial oversight of NSA’s surveillance. The FISA court will be involved every time NSA searches Americans’ records, and the court will have a substantive, statutory standard to apply to make sure the NSA does not violate Americans’ civil liberties.

...The amendment does not affect foreign surveillance. FISA simply does not apply to the surveillance of purely foreign communications... The amendment does not restrict the types of records that the government can collect under Sec. 215.  NSA and the FBI can continue to collect telephone records, car rental reservations, hotel receipts, and any other “tangible thing” under Sec. 215. NSA can continue to collect telephone metadata without a warrant and without probable cause that a crime or other statutory violation has been committed. The amendment simply requires that there be a reasonable connection between the documents sought and the person under investigation.

This is what Amash sent his colleagues in the House: "As you go home for August recess, you will be asked: Did you oppose the suspicionless collection of every American’s phone records? When you had the chance to stand up for Americans’ privacy, did you?"

Rush Holt (D-NJ) immediately introduced the the Surveillance State Repeal Act to repeal federal surveillance laws that the government abused by collecting personal information on millions of Americans in violation of the Constitution.

“As we now know, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been collecting the personal communications of literally millions of innocent Americans for no legitimate reason,” said Holt. “Instead of using these powers to zero in on the tiny number of real terrorist threats we face, the executive branch turned these surveillance powers against the American people as a whole. My legislation would put a stop to that right now.”   Holt’s bill, the “Surveillance State Repeal Act”, would repeal the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act, each of which contains provisions that allowed the dragnet surveillance.  The bill would reinstate a uniform probable cause-based warrant standard for surveillance requests, and prohibit the federal government from forcing technology companies from building in hardware or software “back doors” to make it easier for the government to spy on the public. Additional features of the bill include the true legal protections for national security whistleblowers, as well as changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to give it greater expertise in reviewing and challenging executive branch applications for surveillance operations.

“The executive branch’s groundless mass surveillance of Americans has turned our conception of liberty on its head. My legislation would restore the proper constitutional balance and ensure our people are treated as citizens first, not suspects.”

The overall Pentagon budget passed 315-109, 8 Republicans and 101 Democrats, primarily progressives, voting against it. Progressive Caucus co-chairs Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) released this statement:

Republicans passed a bloated defense budget today that spends money on weapons programs the Pentagon doesn’t want. This comes a week after they voted to cut funding to feed America’s neediest children. The United States needs a leaner but more capable military able to defeat 21st-century threats. We also need to invest in jobs, education and affordable healthcare for working families. Republicans wrongly decided today that we can’t have both.

The Republican bill spends $47 billion more than the sequester-prescribed cap on defense spending allows and includes an additional $85 billion for overseas contingency operations, primarily to fund the war in Afghanistan. The bill increases spending on outdated programs and does little to help the 650,000 civilian Defense Department employees already being furloughed.

This bill is a missed opportunity to invest in what we need and cut what we don’t. In real terms, we actually spend more on defense today than we did on average during the Cold War. The Cold War is over. Our troops are out of Iraq. The war in Afghanistan is winding down. The security landscape we face today is radically different from 30 years ago, yet Republicans still want to spend like it’s 1985.

Republicans have asked working Americans to give up early education for their children, routine doctors appointments for their families and income security for their grandparents, while they spend billions on programs the Department of Defense doesn't want or need. Preparing for wars that have already ended won't feed our children. Investing in working families will.

Ex-Mobil Executive Spills The Beans About How Big Oil Is Fracking Up The Planet

The head of the California Democratic Party's Environmental Caucus, R.L. Miller, is starting up a national Climate Hawks Vote project. She was instrumental in getting a resolution calling for a moratorium on fracking through the sometimes tepid California Democratic Party and many of us know her as an intrepid environmental blogger at Daily Kos. The other day she and I talked about how we could work together to help defend environmental champion and Climate Change realist Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), who's being challenged by a New Dem sellout to pollution special interest lobbyists, Colleen Hanabusa. More about that soon. Earlier today Al Gore sent his supporters a message about Sen. Schatz: "Fortunately, we have a few strong leaders on climate change and clean energy in Congress, including my friend, Senator Brian Schatz from Hawaii. Fighting climate change and developing America's clean energy economy are more than just goals for Brian--they're his passion. And we're going to need Brian's strong, outspoken leadership in Congress for many more years to get the job done... [T]hanks to Brian's visionary leadership, Hawaii implemented its own groundbreaking Clean Energy Initiative. As a result, Hawaii has tripled its renewable energy production from 6% to 18%-- and is on track to reach 40% by 2030, the highest renewable energy portfolio in the nation... In my view, it is time to pick senators who not only have the right positions on climate issues, but are willing to really make solving the climate crisis a priority, and are passionate about it!"

Meanwhile, I asked R.L. to take a look at an outstanding candidate Blue America has endorsed in a Pennsylvania congressional race, state Senator Daylin Leach, who has an enviable record on environmental protection. She told me that the local politics of Pennsylvania make it nearly impossible for anyone to take strong stands against fracking and she asked me to see what Daylin feels about it. So I did. This is what he sent me:

"As the author and sponsor of two fracking moratorium bills in the Pennsylvania Senate, I have long believed that it is insane to dig in excess of 30,000 wells in the face of mounting evidence of environmental and health damage and in the wake of massive cuts to environmental enforcement funding. Sadly, Governor Corbett is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the fracking industry. Which is why we need stronger national environmental standards, which I will aggressively fight for in Congress."

Just as R.L., Daylin and I started going back and forth into the ramifications of fracking policies in Pennsylvania, Ellen Cantarow published an interview she did with Louis Allstadt, who, until he retired in 2000 and took up kayaking, was an executive vice president of Mobil Oil running that company's exploration and production operations in the western hemisphere. They didn't have fracking back when he worked for Mobil. He discovered fracking soon enough-- when it started threatening the water where he was teaching kayaking in upstate New York. Cantarow describes him as "an indispensable guide for one of the country's most powerful environmental movements, New York's grassroots anti-fracking resistance." Please hit this link to read the entire interview. Below are a few excerpts:

Louis Allstadt: The fracking that's going on right now is the real wake-up call on just what extreme lengths are required to pull oil or gas out of the ground now that most of the conventional reservoirs have been exploited-- at least those that are easy to access.

Ellen Cantarow: So could you describe the dangers of this industry?

LA: First of all you have to look at what is conventional oil and gas. That was pretty much anything that was produced until around 2000. It's basically a process of drilling down through a cap rock, an impervious rock that has trapped oil and gas beneath it-- sometimes only gas. If it's oil, there's always gas with it. And once you're into that reservoir-- which is really not a void, it's porous rock-- the natural pressure of the gas will push up the gas and oil. Typically you'll have a well that will keep going 20, 30 years before you have to do something to boost the production through a secondary recovery mechanism. That conventional process is basically what was used from the earliest wells in Pennsylvania through most of the offshore production that exists now, that started in the shallow water in the Gulf of Mexico and gradually moved down into deeper and deeper water.

Now what's happened is that the prospect of finding more of those conventional reservoirs, particularly on land and in the places that have been heavily explored like the US and Europe and the Middle East just is very, very small. And the companies have pretty much acknowledged that. All of them talk about the need to go to either non-conventional shale or tight sand drilling or to go into deeper and deeper waters or to go into really hostile Arctic regions and possibly Antarctic regions.

So when you talked about "the race for what's left," that's what's going on. Both the horizontal drilling and fracturing have been around for a long time. The industry will tell you this over and over again-- they've been around for 60 years, things like that. That is correct. What's different is the volume of fracking fluids and the volume of flow-back that occurs in these wells. It is 50 to 100 times more than what was used in the conventional wells.

The other [difference] is that the rock above the target zone is not necessarily impervious the way it was in the conventional wells. And to me that last point is at least as big as the volume. The industry will tell you that the mile or two between the zone that's being fracked is not going to let anything come up.

But there are already cases where the methane gas has made it up into the aquifers and atmosphere. Sometimes through old well bores, sometimes through natural fissures in the rock. What we don't know is just how much gas is going to come up over time. It's a point most people haven't gotten. It's not just what's happening today. We're opening up channels for the gas to creep up to the surface and into the atmosphere. And methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas in the short term-- less than 100 years-- than carbon dioxide.

...EC: So to go back to your earlier comments, what are the future consequences?

LA: 20, 30, 100 years down the road we don't know how much methane is going to be making its way up. And if you do hundreds of thousands of wells, there's a good chance you're going to have a lot of methane coming up, exacerbating global warming. … That is what Tony Ingraffea is talking about as part of the problem. [Anthony Ingraffea, Dwight C. Baum professor of engineering at Cornell University, in 2011 co-authored a landmark study on the greenhouse-gas footprint of high-volume fracking.]

What you [also] don't know [is that] when you plug that well, how much is going to find its way to the surface without going up the well bore. And there are lots of good indications that plugging the well doesn't really work long-term. There's still some pressure down there even though it's not enough pressure to be commercially produced. And sooner or later the steel casing there is going to rust out, and the cement sooner or later is going to crumble. We may have better cements now, we may have slightly better techniques of packing the cement and mud into the well bore to close it up, but even if nothing comes up through the fissures in the rock layers above, where it was fracked, those well bores will deteriorate over time. And there is at least one study showing that 100 percent of plugs installed in abandoned wells fail within 100 years and many of them much sooner.

EC: So what's the solution?

LA: I think we have wasted a lot of time that should have gone into seriously looking into and developing alternative energies. And we need to stop wasting that time and get going on it. But the difficult part is that the industry talks about, well, this is a bridge fuel [that] will carry us until alternatives [are developed] but nobody is building them. It's not a bridge unless you build the foundations for a bridge on the other side, and nobody's building it.

If you would like to contribute to Brian Schatz's and Rush Holt's Senate primary campaigns against polluter-friendly ConservaDems, you can do that on the same Act Blue page

In The Bag-- Most Of Congress... But Not Bernie Sanders

When Boehner and Cantor offer a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill, requiring a 2/3's vote for passage, it doesn't mean the bill isn't controversial; it does mean there's huge bipartisan support for the bill though. And, more often than not, it means lobbyists have greased the way for passage. When Congress got back in session Monday, they kicked off the proceedings with 3 such bills-- H.R. 1341, H.R. 1564 and H.R. 1171. The last of the three really was a nonpartisan vote that everyone-- except bizarre sexual predator Mark Sanford of South Carolina-- agreed to. It passed 387-1 and authorizes "the transfer of federal surplus property to a state agency for distribution through donation within the state for purposes of education or public health for organizations whose membership comprises substantially veterans and whose representatives are recognized by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims under laws administered by the Secretary." In other words, it gives veterans service organizations access to Federal surplus personal property. Don't ask me why Sanford voted "no;" he's a very sick man and should be in a mental hospital, not Congress.

It was the other two bills, however, that drew my attention to the voting Monday. Both passed overwhelmingly and with bipartisan support. But a quick look at who was pushing the bills and who voted against them, set off some serious alarms here at DWT. Both are Wall Street bills written by bankster lobbyists and both bills were opposed by the few honest Members of Congress who aren't in the pockets of the banksters. In the words of the NY Times this morning, Congress and "the Securities and Exchange Commission has all but invited hucksters, rip-off artists and other bad actors to prey on individual investors. The new rules are another disturbing sign that under the leadership of the new chairwoman, Mary Jo White, the S.E.C. will pursue deregulation at the expense of investor protection."

The first of the two, H.R. 1341 passed 353-24, all 24 being progressives Democrats-- Xavier Becerra (CA), Steve Cohen (TN), John Conyers (MI), Pete DeFazio (OR), Donna Edwards (MD), Keith Ellison (MN), Sam Farr (CA), Alan Grayson (CA), Gene Green (TX), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Mike Honda (CA), Barbara Lee (CA), Zoe Lofgren (CA), Alan Lowenthal (CA), Ben Ray Luján (NM), Ed Markey (MA), Jim McDermott (WA), Jim McGovern (MA), Jerry Nadler (NY), Rick Nolan (MN), Chellie Pingree (ME), Jan Schakowsky (IL), José Serrano (NY) and Louise Slaughter (NY). The bill was sponsored by 4 crooked Republicans-- Stephen Fincher (R-TN), Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-Mafia), and Bill Huizenga (R-MI) plus one corrupt Blue Dog/New Dem, David Scott (GA). The purpose of the bill is to allow even smaller margin requirements for Wall Street derivatives bets, a blueprint for calamity.

The second, H.R. 1564, amends the Sarbane-Oxley Act and attracted a lot more opposition, again all from Democrats. It passed 321-62, Democratic leaders Steny Hoyer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Steve Israel, and Jim Clyburn pushing the caucus to vote for what Wall Street wanted but with the Progressive Caucus leaders plus Nancy Pelosi and Xavier Beccera pulling in the other direction. Joining some of Wall Street's favorite shills like Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Ed Royce (R-CA) and Steve Stivers (R-OH) in sponsoring this were two of the most corrupt Democrats in the House, again Blue Dog/New Dem David Scott (GA) and, of course, New Dem Patrick Murphy (FL). All the crooked Democrats who have been working in the House Financial Services Committee to dismantle Dodd-Frank and allow the banksters to tank the economy again-- Jim Himes (New Dem-CT), David Scott (New Dem-GA), Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL), Gary Peters (New Dem-MI), John Carney (New Dem-DE), Denny Heck (New Dem-WA), Bill Foster (New Dem-IL) and John Delaney (New Dem-MD); Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ), one of the most odious of this lot, was stuck on a plane and couldn't vote and her hideous doppelganger from Florida, Patrick Murphy, ducked out of the proceedings and hid instead of voting-- joined the Republicans to pass this.

Bernie Sanders is a senator now, but he used to be in the House and was one of the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This kind of legislation is the antithesis of what his whole career has been about and there's no doubt that he'll be fighting these two bills when they come over to the Senate. He is still demanding-- tirelessly-- that "Congress and the White House start responding to the needs of ordinary Americans-- not the big money interests." More from Bernie:

You know as well as I what’s going on in our country today. The rich get richer while the middle-class continues to disappear. The multi-national corporations enjoy record-breaking profits, while unemployment remains sky-high and more and more Americans slip into poverty. And, as a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision the billionaire class has gained even more political power while, at the same time, right-wing governors are making it harder for low-income people to vote.

...I am also a co-sponsor of legislation that would impose a Wall Street financial transaction tax on the sale of derivatives, credit default swaps and large amounts of stock. Wall Street greed, illegal behavior and speculation helped drive this country into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. With Wall Street speculators today making huge profits, while continuing to endanger the stability of the world’s financial system, they must begin paying their fair share of taxes. With the six major Wall Street financial institutions larger today than they were before they were bailed out, having assets equivalent to two-thirds of our GDP, I have also introduced legislation to break up these huge financial entities.

...As you know the Republican Party, once a moderate-conservative party, has become a right-wing extremist party. With the help of the Koch brothers and their other corporate sponsors, Republicans in Congress are now trying to roll back virtually every piece of legislation passed in the last 80 years which protects the needs of working families. Whether it is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, nutrition, child care, tax policy, women’s rights or workers’ rights, the main function of Congressional Republicans is to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful against the middle class. They have also become an anti-science party-- rejecting the research of virtually the entire scientific community regarding the planetary crisis of global warming.

Poll after poll tells us that today’s Republican ideology-- tax breaks for billionaires and massive cuts to important social programs-- is way out of touch with what the American people want. And yet, Republicans stand likely to retain control over the U.S. House in 2014, have a chance to become a majority in the U.S. Senate and are doing well in state elections. Why is that? How is it that a party with such an extremist ideology has not been relegated to marginal status in American political life?

All of which brings me to the Democrats. While the Republicans have moved from a center-right party to a right-wing extremist party, the Democrats have also moved to the right-- going from being a center-left party to a centrist party. This means that while they attempt to address the needs of trade unions, seniors, low income Americans, environmentalists, women, students, minorities and the gay community, they also pay a great deal of attention to Wall Street, the wealthy, corporate America and their big campaign contributors. Needless to say, these competing forces have irreconcilable differences.

In my view, the great crisis of American politics today is the demoralization of the American people and their belief that virtually no one in Washington is fighting for the collapsing middle-class. In 2009, after eight disastrous years of George W. Bush as president, the Democrats controlled the White House and had large majorities in the House and Senate. Where was the simple, straight-forward legislation that took on the insurance companies and provided health care to all, that ended Wall Street domination of our economy, that created the many millions of jobs we desperately needed, that made college affordable, that allowed America to become the world leader in reversing global warming? Where was the political offensive which made clear to all Americans that the Democrats were fighting for working families while the Republicans were the party of Wall Street and the big money interests?

Now, in 2013, the Democrats control the White House and the Senate but it appears to many Americans that the Republicans determine the agenda. Why hasn’t there been a major effort to overturn Citizens United and move toward public funding of elections? Why has almost all of the recent emphasis been on deficit reduction, rather than creating the millions of jobs we desperately need? Why is anybody in the Democratic Party (least of all the President) talking about cutting Social Security and benefits for disabled veterans? Where is the outrage regarding the massive NSA surveillance practices recently revealed?

Clearly, what is needed right now is a massive grass-roots movement which fights for the needs of working families and which elects progressives at the national, state and local level. We should not accept the conventional wisdom of a red state/blue state America. There is no state in this country which is not heavily populated by working families. And they all need strong and effective representation to stand up to the billionaire class which dominates our economic and political life.

Rush Holt is a progressive congressman from New Jersey running an uphill race against Wall Street's top pick for 2013, shameless corporate whore Coy Booker, a so-called Democrat who once tried to privatize the Newark Water System and is the darling of the worst Big Money interests that normally back Republicans. Do you think someone like Booker could ever get behind anything like the Wall Street Speculation Tax?