Waiting To Remove Trump Is More Dangerous Than The Cost Of Allowing This "President" To Remain

Alan Grayson: "He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and he is unfit for office. You can’t un-ring those bells. This is why we have impeachment in the Constitution."

On CBS' Sunday Morning, Pelosi responded to a question from Jane Pauley about Congress' ability to reopen the government by saying that "the Speaker has awesome power. But if the President of the United States is against governance and doesn't care whether people's needs are met or that public employees are paid or that we can have a legitimate discussion, then we have a problem, and we have to take it to the American people." Does that sound like a prelude to impeachment talk? After all, the fact that Congress and neo-fascist Trump advisor Stephen Miller-- speaking through a nearly brain-dead "president-- is not amount an amount of money that can be compromised up or down but about whether building a vanity-wall as a monument to xenophobia, racism and Trump is something even a dime should be spent on. And whether or not Congress should buckle to the threats of an illegitimate "president" spewing threats and holding government hostage to his unpopular whims. Yesterday, the Washington Post quoted GOP strategist Alex Conant: "Trump’s base is unhappy after the three M’s: midterms, Mattis and market fall. Manufacturing a crisis around border funding unites and excites Republicans at a time when Trump’s base is softening. As long as Trump feels pressure from his base, he’s going to have trouble folding on the wall." (In contrast, notice how rapidly he folded on removing U.S. troops from Syria.)

When Pauley asked her if the new Congress will "be remembered for impeachment, or will they be remembered for something else," Pelosi replied that the Democrats won the elections by talking about "lower healthcare costs by reducing the cost of prescription drugs and preserving pre-existing condition benefit; building bigger paychecks by building the infrastructure of America. "So, pressed Pauley, "impeachment not high on your agenda?"

"Well," replied Pelosi, as though there were no Constitution, "that would be depending on what comes forth from the Special Counsel's Office. If and when the time comes for impeachment, it will have to be something that has such a crescendo in a bipartisan way." Impeachment should stem from an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, not by a branch of the Executive. It's imperative that Nadler-- a Pelosi puppet-- get started immediately.

Saira Rao was the Denver-based progressive Democrat who took on establishment zombie Diana DeGette last cycle. Like many of us, she's very simpathetic with the views expressed by Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) last week. This morning she told me that "Representative Tlaib's comments on impeaching Trump and calling him by name, namely a motherfucker, has shaken establishment Democrats to their core. First, she's exposed their inability to deal with the motherfucker. He should have been impeached last year. They passed the buck then and she's right to call for impeachment now. Waiting for Mueller is absurd-- and underscores just how ineffective the Democratic Party is. Second--- and perhaps more importantly-- Tlaib is a brown Muslim woman who speaks her mind. That's reason enough for establishment Democrats to hate her. Add to that a 'bad word' and she's practically a criminal in their minds. Those of us not living in the corporate establishment Democratic bubble applaud the FUCK out of Representative Tlaib."

In a WBUR interview with David Leonhardt about his powerful NY Times column calling for a commencement of impeachment hearings, Leonhardt asserted that "the dangers that President Trump presents to the country are growing. You can see that the moderating influences in his administration like Gen. Mattis are leaving. You can see him acting on more of his impulses, like pulling troops out or shutting down the government. And so we have long known that he is unfit for office, but Republicans are starting to have a sense for the political costs he creates for their party... [H]e already has less support from his own party in Congress than any other president in memory. So Republicans have not defied him the way I wish they would, the way I think it's their patriotic duty to do. But they have also not supported him the way Obama or Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan... were supported by members of their own party. I think his support right now is broad but shallow, and it would not shock me if he struggles to keep that support as Robert Mueller issues his report and as the year goes on."

Leonhardt's indictment of Trump, The People vs. Donald J. Trump-- He is demonstrably unfit for office. What are we waiting for?, is this week's first must read. He began by reminding his readers that "The presidential oath of office contains 35 words and one core promise: to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' Since virtually the moment Donald J. Trump took that oath two years ago, he has been violating it. He has repeatedly put his own interests above those of the country. He has used the presidency to promote his businesses. He has accepted financial gifts from foreign countries. He has lied to the American people about his relationship with a hostile foreign government. He has tolerated cabinet officials who use their position to enrich themselves." The idea of not opening impeachment hearings seems ludicrous... or worse.

To shield himself from accountability for all of this-- and for his unscrupulous presidential campaign-- he has set out to undermine the American system of checks and balances. He has called for the prosecution of his political enemies and the protection of his allies. He has attempted to obstruct justice. He has tried to shake the public’s confidence in one democratic institution after another, including the press, federal law enforcement and the federal judiciary.

The unrelenting chaos that Trump creates can sometimes obscure the big picture. But the big picture is simple: The United States has never had a president as demonstrably unfit for the office as Trump. And it’s becoming clear that 2019 is likely to be dominated by a single question: What are we going to do about it?

The easy answer is to wait-- to allow the various investigations of Trump to run their course and ask voters to deliver a verdict in 2020. That answer has one great advantage. It would avoid the national trauma of overturning an election result. Ultimately, however, waiting is too dangerous. The cost of removing a president from office is smaller than the cost of allowing this president to remain.

He has already shown, repeatedly, that he will hurt the country in order to help himself. He will damage American interests around the world and damage vital parts of our constitutional system at home. The risks that he will cause much more harm are growing.

Some of the biggest moderating influences have recently left the administration. The defense secretary who defended our alliances with NATO and South Korea is gone. So is the attorney general who refused to let Trump subvert a federal investigation into himself. The administration is increasingly filled with lackeys and enablers. Trump has become freer to turn his whims into policy-- like, say, shutting down the government on the advice of Fox News hosts or pulling troops from Syria on the advice of a Turkish autocrat.

The biggest risk may be that an external emergency-- a war, a terrorist attack, a financial crisis, an immense natural disaster-- will arise. By then, it will be too late to pretend that he is anything other than manifestly unfit to lead.

For the country’s sake, there is only one acceptable outcome, just as there was after Americans realized in 1974 that a criminal was occupying the Oval Office. The president must go.

Achieving this outcome won’t be easy. It will require honorable people who have served in the Trump administration to share, publicly, what they have seen and what they believe. (At this point, anonymous leaks are not sufficient.) It will require congressional Republicans to acknowledge that they let a con man take over their party and then defended that con man. It will require Democrats and progressive activists to understand that a rushed impeachment may actually help Trump remain in office.

But if removing him will not be easy, it’s not as unlikely as it may sometimes seem. From the beginning, Trump has been an unusually weak president, as political scientists have pointed out. Although members of Congress have not done nearly enough to constrain him, no other recent president has faced nearly so much public criticism or private disdain from his own party.

Since the midterm election showed the political costs that Trump inflicts on Republicans, this criticism seems to be growing. They have broken with him on foreign policy (in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria) and are anxious about the government shutdown. Trump is vulnerable to any erosion in his already weak approval rating, be it from an economic downturn, more Russia revelations or simply the defection of a few key allies. When support for an unpopular leader starts to crack, it can crumble.

Before we get to the how of Trump’s removal, though, I want to spend a little more time on the why — because even talking about the ouster of an elected president should happen only under extreme circumstances. Unfortunately, the country is now so polarized that such talk instead occurs with every president. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama were subjected to reckless calls for their impeachment, from members of Congress no less.

So let’s be clear. Trump’s ideology is not an impeachable offense. However much you may disagree with Trump’s tax policy-- and I disagree vehemently-- it is not a reason to remove him from office. Nor are his efforts to cut government health insurance or to deport undocumented immigrants. Such issues, among others, are legitimate matters of democratic struggle, to be decided by elections, legislative debates, protests and the other normal tools of democracy. These issues are not the “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” that the founders intended impeachment to address.

Yet the founders also did not intend for the removal of a president to be impossible. They insisted on including an impeachment clause in the Constitution because they understood that an incompetent or corrupt person was nonetheless likely to attain high office every so often. And they understood how much harm such a person could do. The country needed a way to address what Alexander Hamilton called “the abuse or violation of some public trust” and James Madison called the “incapacity, negligence or perfidy” of a president.

The negligence and perfidy of President Trump-- his high crimes and misdemeanors-- can be separated into four categories. This list is conservative [details of each category is here]. It does not include the possibility that his campaign coordinated strategy with Russia, which remains uncertain. It also does not include his lazy approach to the job, like his refusal to read briefing books or the many empty hours on his schedule. It instead focuses on demonstrable ways that he has broken the law or violated his constitutional oath.

• Trump has used the presidency for personal enrichment.
• Trump has violated campaign finance law.
• Trump has obstructed justice.
• Trump has subverted democracy.

The most relevant precedent for the removal of Trump is Nixon, the only American president to be forced from office because of his conduct. And two aspects of Nixon’s departure tend to get overlooked today. One, he was never impeached. Two, most Republicans-- both voters and elites-- stuck by him until almost the very end. His approval rating among Republicans was still about 50 percent when, realizing in the summer of 1974 that he was doomed, he resigned.

The current political dynamics have some similarities. Whether the House of Representatives, under Democratic control, impeaches Trump is not the big question. The question is whether he loses the support of a meaningful slice of Republicans.

I know that many of Trump’s critics have given up hoping that he ever will. They assume that Republican senators will go on occasionally criticizing him without confronting him. But it is a mistake to give up. The stakes are too large-- and the chances of success are too real.

Consider the following descriptions of Trump: “terribly unfit;” “erratic;” “reckless;” “impetuous;” “unstable;” “a pathological liar;” “dangerous to a democracy;” a concern to “anyone who cares about our nation.” Every one of these descriptions comes from a Republican member of Congress or of Trump’s own administration.

They know. They know he is unfit for office. They do not need to be persuaded of the truth. They need to be persuaded to act on it.

Democrats won’t persuade them by impeaching Trump. Doing so would probably rally the president’s supporters. It would shift the focus from Trump’s behavior toward a group of Democratic leaders whom Republicans are never going to like. A smarter approach is a series of sober-minded hearings to highlight Trump’s misconduct. Democrats should focus on easily understandable issues most likely to bother Trump’s supporters, like corruption.



If this approach works at all-- or if Mueller’s findings shift opinion, or if a separate problem arises, like the economy-- Trump’s Republican allies will find themselves in a very difficult spot. At his current approval rating of about 40 percent, Republicans were thumped in the midterms. Were his rating to fall further, a significant number of congressional Republicans would be facing long re-election odds in 2020.

Two examples are Cory Gardner of Colorado and Susan Collins of Maine, senators who, not coincidentally, have shown tentative signs of breaking with Trump on the government shutdown. The recent criticism from Mitt Romney-- who alternates between critical and sycophantic, depending on his own political interests-- is another sign of Trump’s weakness.

For now, most Republicans worry that a full break with Trump will cause them to lose a primary, and it might. But sticking by him is no free lunch. Just ask the 27 Republican incumbents who were defeated last year and are now former members of Congress. By wide margins, suburban voters and younger voters find Trump abhorrent. The Republican Party needs to hold its own among these voters, starting in 2020.

It’s not only that Trump is unfit to be president and that Republicans know it. It also may be the case that they will soon have a political self-interest in abandoning him. If they did, the end could come swiftly. The House could then impeach Trump, knowing the Senate might act to convict. Or negotiations could begin over whether Trump deserves to trade resignation for some version of immunity.

Finally, there is the hope-- naïve though it may seem-- that some Republicans will choose to act on principle. There now exists a small club of former Trump administration officials who were widely respected before joining the administration and whom Trump has sullied, to greater or lesser degrees. It includes Rex Tillerson, Gary Cohn, H.R. McMaster and Jim Mattis. Imagine if one of them gave a television interview and told the truth about Trump. Doing so would be a service to their country at a time of national need. It would be an illustration of duty.

Throughout his career, Trump has worked hard to invent his own reality, and largely succeeded. It has made him very rich and, against all odds, elected him president. But whatever happens in 2019, his false version of reality will not survive history, just as Nixon’s did not. Which side of that history do today’s Republicans want to be on?

Democratic Candidates Are Advocating A Progressive Agenda And Are Happy To Make The Election A Referendum On Trump

GOP candidates rallying behind Trump read an ABC News headline yesterday. Some are, of course... and some aren't. The line that interested me most, though, was "Republicans appear far more comfortable touting Trump’s leadership than Democrats do arguing against it." Again, some are and some aren't-- on both ends of that statement. More than a few Republicans are leaving Congress altogether rather than even attempt defending Trump, a compulsive liar-- on any level. As for Democrats not feeling comfortable arguing against Trump's leadership... what sort of Democrats are we talking about? I asked some of the savviest Democrats I know about their posture towards Trump.

Alan Grayson is running on his record when he was in Congress, as he works to take back his Orlando area House seat, held my a centrist Democrat with no record at all. Grayson was able to pass more legislation than any other member of Congress and he hopes to continue doing that when he's back in Congress... that and impeaching Trump. "Republicans," he told me, "started campaigning against Obama from the day that he was elected, with no basis whatsoever. As I said once on the Floor of the House, if Obama had a BLT sandwich, the Republicans would try to ban bacon. More recently, however, mysterious forces pushed the most unpopular presidential candidate in the history of polling across the finish line, with 54% of Americans voting against him even before we saw how miserable he is as President. Yet somehow, certain Democrats think that we should lay off him. Those are the Democrats who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

 Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has the highest ProgressivePunch score in Congress-- yes, he's #1, he's #1-- and he's the organizer of Democracy Summer, a program educating high school and college students on the dynamics of political change and deploying them to swing districts. "Our people," he told me today, "are sick of Donald Trump and the depraved corruption of this administration. From Virginia to New Jersey to Alabama to western Pennsylvania to Colorado, we’re winning elections across America because we’re focused on restoring government to the people. But there’s no popular demand for wallowing in Trump’s crimes against the common good. Our people want hope for progressive renewal and strategies for practical change to take America back from the abyss."

Saira Rao is running for the Denver seat occupied by middle of the road Democrat Diana DeGette. They have very different approaches. DeGette is basically a centrist looking out for her own career. Rao wants to make Denver-- and the country-- better. "Why," she asked, "isn't white supremacy an impeachable offense? We have a President who calls Nazis and members of the KKK 'very fine people,' countries with people of color 'shitholes' and undocumented immigrants 'animals.' Hitler used that word to describe Jewish people.  Democrats in Congress continue to tweet about Trump but when it came down to it, they voted to table the vote on impeachment. If more brown and black people were in Congress, we'd move to impeach him. White supremacy is life and death for us." It doesn't sound to me that with Jamie or Saira is having a tough time questioning Trump's leadership.

Before Levi Tillemann (CO-06) takes on Trump-adverse Republican, Mike Coffman, he has to beat a corrupt right-wing Democrat. Levi is sticking to running on his own progressive agenda. He told us today that as he's "spoken to thousands of voters around Colorado, it's clear that people want accountability in Washington, and that means impeaching Trump. He is unfit to be president and voters know it. Voters know that I'm fighting for universal healthcare, getting corporate influence out of politics, and protecting kids from guns, and along with that, they know that I'm fighting to impeach Trump."

Yes, people can walk and chew gum at the same time. Paul Clements (MI-06) is working to get through a gaggle of conservative Democrats before facing Trump rubber stamp Fred Upton, like Tillemann, he's fighting for progressive issues and holding Trump accountable: "Trump," he told me without flinching, "is the greatest threat to American democracy in my lifetime. He seems to think the separation of powers does not apply to him, that our judges and law enforcement officials should promote his political and personal agendas. His racism, lies, disrespect, and encouragement of violence undermine the civic friendship that democracy depends on. His economic policies continue our slide into oligarchy. His foreign policy supports authoritarians. His environmental policies threaten our common future. In world-historical terms this is a moment when we face an urgent call for real democratic leadership.

Of course, right wing extremists who are counting on the GOP base to turn out and not thinking about independent voters to get them over the finish line are adhering to Trump in a big way. But more Republicans are worried about Trump's toxicity with independents. If you're some crackpot in a crackpot district like Matt Gaetz (FL), Paul Gosar (AZ), Hal Rogers (KY), Doug Collins (GA), Phil Roe (TN), Liz Cheney (WY), Michael Conaway (TX) or Rob Aderholt (AZ) you can be reelected without one independent voter-- and without one person with a 3-digit IQ.

Trump's visit Tuesday to Nashville highlights the unmistakable trend: There is virtually no room between Trump and the Senate candidates hoping to maintain his Republican majority this year. And Republicans appear far more comfortable touting Trump’s leadership than Democrats do arguing against it.

Trump claimed that his sway drove Sen. Bob Corker from running for another term in Tennessee, and kept him out when he flirted with returning after all.

In his place is Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who faces only nominal opposition in August’s GOP primary. She is set to join nominees who have already emerged out of states including Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, by winning fights that centered on who the most staunch Trump loyalist would be.

It’s also telling that while Trump is primed to attack the likely Democratic candidate in Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, Bredesen is already on TV promising to "separate the message from the messenger."

"Look, I’m not running against Donald Trump," Bredesen said in a recent campaign ad.

Interesting race there in Tennessee. Bredesen has always run Republican-lite campaigns and his ability to be elected and re-elected governor of the deep red state has a lot to do with his innate conservatism and his ability to appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. He's consistently been running ahead of Blackburn in all polls because voters see her as an extremist and him as more mainstream. Progressives who vote for him will be voting against Trump in a referendum and for Bredesen as the lesser of two evils.

Katie Porter (CA-45), on the other hand, is running hard for an Orange County seat occupied by a total Trump rubber stamp, Mimi Walters. This morning she told us that she's "running to stand up to Trump's reckless and hateful agenda. Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have endorsed our campaign because they know that in Congress, I will hold Donald Trump and powerful special interests accountable, fight for Medicare for All, for common sense gun reform, and always protect a woman’s right to choose."

Sam Jammal (CA-39) works his disdain for Trump into the reasons that impelled him to run. "We are," he told me, "running a campaign focused on our values and the middle class-- two things Trump stands against. The 39th district is a diverse community that is welcoming. This is why the Fullerton City Council rejected attempts to join the sanctuary city lawsuit. We also have a lot of families who are working hard to get by. Trump's tax reform bill is an attack on these families. 80% of our homeowners will be hit by the lower mortgage interest deductions. Thousands of individuals have pre-existing conditions and are at risk of Trump taking away their health care. And the new $1.5 trillion deficit we now face thanks to Trump's tax reform means our schools have less money for educating our students and making sure our schools are safe places to learn. There is no neutrality in Trump's direct attacks on California families. We have to stand up and push back against not only his division, but the very real attacks on our economy."

Let's close this out with a few words-- and some excellent advise for candidates-- from the West Coast Regional Vice Chair of the DCCC, Congressman Ted Lieu. "Congressional Republicans," he told us, "are stuck between a Trump and a hard place. As they prepare to go before voters later this year, many Republicans find themselves in the unenviable position of having to defend the constant barrage of insanity that comes from the White House. Some will lean into Trump in the hopes that his popularity with a certain segment of the Republican base will save them (though there aren't really any great examples of his popularity transferring to other candidates). Others will try to walk the tightrope of finding common ground when possible and creating distance when Trump goes off the rails, and some will reject him altogether. None of those are great options when you are running a tough reelection campaign. In a world where many prominent conservatives (Bill Kristol, Mitt Romney, George Will, Jeff Flake, John McCain, Charlie Dent to name a few) have been critical of the President, all Democrats should feel free to point out the harm Trump has caused and will continue to cause to our great nation. In addition, the first rule of elections is you have to energize your base. If you don't do that, it becomes very difficult to win."

The Democratic Party-- Which Way?

Last month, Justice Democrats commissioned an important report, The Future of the Party-- A Progressive Vision For A Populist Democrat Party by Sean McElwee. You should read the whole thing at that link. The short version: "The Democratic Party is at a crossroads as the 2018 election approaches."

Generic ballot polling, historical trends, and recent special elections suggest that Democrats will perform well in November, likely enough to take back the House of Representatives.

But which Democratic Party will take the House?

Will it be a Democratic Party ready to combat plutocracy, white supremacy, and militarism, or a Democratic Party ready to be complicit in continuing the policies that have harmed so many Americans? While pundits debate the future of the party, the Democratic Party’s base is united around policies that would create a fair economy for all, racial justice, and gender equality. Still, many in the party leadership and wealthy donor class express concerns that such policies will endanger the party.

The report shows that a pivot toward the "center" is poison with the Democratic primary electorate, that marginal voters and nonvoters support key progressive policies and could form a durable base for the Democratic Party and that many Democratic incumbents are failing their constituents by opposing progressive policies with broad-based support.

These are the key findings:

The Democratic base is ready for multi-racial populism.

• Democratic primary voters want aggressive government action: More than 90 percent of Democratic primary voters support a tax on millionaires and increased regulation on banks. Eighty-six percent of Democratic primary voters support a government guarantee of health care. Eighty percent support the government taking actions to reduce inequality.

• Democratic primary voters increasingly reject racism:

Eighty-five percent of Democratic primary voters support a path to citizenship, and nearly 1 in 5 believe that it should not involve any penalties. For the first time since it’s been polled, a majority of white Democrats are more likely to blame discrimination than “willpower” for racial inequality.

It's time for a new nonvoter revolution.

• Nonvoters preferred Clinton to Trump 53/44.Full turnout would have lead to a Democratic Presidential victory in 2016.
• Nonvoters and marginal voters are more supportive of progressive policies. For example, 68 percent of nonvoters support increased regulation of big banks, compared to 52 percent of consistent voters.

Democrats can win elections without rejecting their base.

• The general public supports key, over-the-horizon Democratic priorities, from marijuana legalization and ending mandatory minimums to a $15 minimum wage and single-payer health care.
• Medicare for All and a $15 minimum wage are popular in purple states across the country.

Democrats are not representing the progressivism of their constituents.

• Many Democrats reject policies supported by the general public in their states and districts.

• Ninety-two percent of Democrats in the House represent districts where modeled support for repealing the Hyde Amendment is greater than 55 percent, but only 70 percent of House Democrats support repealing the Hyde Amendment. 

• Sixty-seven percent of Democrats in the Senate represent states where modeled support for Medicare for All is greater than 55 percent, but only 33 percent of Senate Democrats support Medicare for All.

This is one point that we often grapple with at DWT: "Democratic Politicians Falsely Believe Voters Are Less Progressive."

Politicians from both parties dramatically overestimate the conservatism of the voters they represent.

Academic research suggests that Democratic politicians may vote more conservatively because they fundamentally misunderstand the electorate. Political scientists David Broockman and Christopher Skovron surveyed 3,765 politicians and compared their views to modeled support for policies in their districts. They find that politicians from both parties dramatically overestimate the conservatism of the voters they represent. Another study examined party leaders, who often determine which candidates will end up running and who will gain the party’s backing. They find that Democratic Party leaders were far more likely than Republicans to favor centrist candidates and that leaders in both parties overestimated the conservatism of the electorate. In another study, political scientists Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, Matto Mildenberger, and Leah Stokes surveyed senior congressional aides as well as public opinion polling and find that these staffers “had a more conservative picture of their constituents’ opinions than the constituents actually expressed in polls.”

However, there is hope; research from political scientists Daniel Butler and David Nickerson suggests that when politicians are given accurate polling about their constituents, they move to align their policies with constituents.

Examining policies such as the minimum wage and racial justice, as well as tax policy, we find that Democrats are wrong to target the mushy middle. In fact, there is durable and consistent support for even over-the-horizon progressive policies across the country. Voters reject mandatory minimums, which have inflamed mass incarceration. Voters also reject the Hyde Amendment, an unnecessary limitation on a woman’s right to choose. Voters are more than ready for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action on climate change and new investment in infrastructure.

Data from the 2016 American National Election Studies further confirm that Democrats can run unabashedly pro-choice and pro-climate campaigns. ANES asks respondents to place themselves on a scale from 1-7, with 1 being “Some people think the federal government needs to regulate business to protect the environment. They think that efforts to protect the environment will also create jobs” and 7 being “Others think that the federal government should not regulate business to protect the environment. They think this regulation will not do much to help the environment and will cost us jobs.” Fifty-eight percent placed themselves on the 1-3 side, 20 percent at 4, and only 22 percent on 5-7. According to the Cooperative Congressional Election Studies 2016 survey, 58 percent of adults agree with the statement, “Always allow a woman to obtain an abortion as a matter of choice.”

"Since Democrats in DC decided that the way to win is to pretend to be Republicans, we have lost over a thousand legislative seats nationally" said Levi Tillemann (CO-06). "Voters want someone with real principles who they know will fight for them, not for corporations, millionaires, and DC insiders. Our campaign for medicare for all, requiring millionaires and billionaires to invest in America (not just their stock portfolios), and moving to 100% renewable energy by 2035 is resonating because people know it's what I actually believe and people know it's what's best for the country."

Yesterday, John Herrick, writing for the Colorado Independent noted that Diana DeGette is facing progressive primary challenger Saira Rao who wants to shape the future of the Democratic Party. Saira told him that "Blue isn’t working. We’ve got to go true blue." A former Hillary voter, she's broken with the corporate establishment side of the party and "says corporations are buying votes from Democrats through campaign contributions. As part of her campaign, Rao has pledged to not take any money from corporations. And so far, she has narrowly outraised DeGette this year pulling in $255,000 to Degette’s $240,000."

DeGette says one of her proudest accomplishments while serving as a representative is the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, which increased funding for disease research. Congress passed the bill and it was signed by former President Barack Obama in 2016. This legislation helped DeGette earn the Jacob K. Javits Prize for Bipartisan Leadership.

But liberals seem uninspired by consensus making. Rao points out that Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sanders of Vermont claim the law eased regulations and was essentially a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. One of DeGette’s top donors this year is AbbVie, a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company. ...Rao’s supporters also criticized DeGette for having voted for Hillary Clinton as a superdelegate at the Democratic National Convention when Sanders won the Colorado caucus.

These comments from some the Blue America-endorsed candidates about the Democratic Party came from a post asserting that the Democratic Party would be doing better if they had some discernible economic policies that voters identified with them. Alan Grayson was the first up to bat: "Polls show that voters-- not just Democrats, voters-- overwhelmingly favor a minimum wage increase, paid sick leave, universal healthcare, Social Security and Medicare increases, lower taxes on working people, etc. You have to wonder how long Democratic 'leaders' are going to continue to wear the hair shirt." Last night he added "Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do the voters. A vacuous Democratic Party is a loser Democratic Party. The voters are shouting, 'please-- stand for something!'"

"I feel like I’m being completely unoriginal" Paul Clements (MI-06) told me, "but still it should be said: people don’t know what the Democratic Party stands for. I’ve heard it time and again at house parties and Democratic events around the district. I’ve given my stump speech so many times: (besides Trump) economic inequality is the issue, money in politics the cause, yes fix taxes and raise the minimum wage but we need to fix the basics: health care for all, education, and criminal justice. Then I fudge a fourth one, calling it a forward looking economic policy, and include renewable energy, energy efficient technologies, agricultural research, and major infrastructure investments. Then, oh, of course, we have to deal with climate change or all of this is off the table. The details matter, but you can probably pretty much fill them in. I know that these planks and more are in the last Democratic Party platform, but, seriously, so what? The Democratic Party does not have a clear agenda and people don’t know what it stands for. I think the agenda should address the basics. It should speak to economic inequality. But at least there should be a vision, there should be a program, so in house parties and such we don’t have to do all the work."

James Thompson is the progressive Democrat running in the Wichita-centered 4th Kansas district. His primary is August 7. And then he'll be facing right-wing Republican Ron Estes. He's all about the issues that Democrats need to speak to the voters about. Here's what he told me today:

When I was homeless and struggling to make ends meet I didn’t give a damn about the stock market, I was worried about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over the heads of myself and my baby brothers. The stock market and trade agreements are important parts of our economy, but until Democrats get back to protecting the kitchen table economy it will be hard to pull people back into the Democratic Party. Before people can care about things outside their own circle, they must feel confident in their own financial situation, which means they must have a stable job with a livable wage. That means a guaranteed jobs program and affordable healthcare and education. It means expanding Medicare and Social Security not cutting it. It means taking care of the farmers who feed us. It is the basic hierarchy of needs. Democrats as a party need to return to being FDR Democrats looking out for working people rather than corporate shills for Wall Street. We must remember that this is a government not of corporation interests, but a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We can get there, we just need to keep moving forward with electing progressives.

Sam Jammal, running in Orange County against a pack of carpetbagger multimillionaires who are trying to buy the seat, is also a progressive trying to talk with the CA-39 voters about issues. "Democrats win," he said, "if we have a positive economic message focused on lifting up the middle class. This means focusing on the cost of prescription drugs, student debt, housing affordability and creating good-paying jobs so families can enter the middle class. We won't win by just being anti-Trump. We also won't win if our campaigns are not focused on people's pocketbooks. The reality on the ground is that families are still struggling. We need to be identitied as the party that actually has a plan for lifting people up."

Kara Eastman, the progressive Democrat who won her primary against a Blue Dog last Tuesday, was victorious, in large part, because she campaigned on issues that real people are excited about. "It is time for policy makers to put people first. Common sense policies that prevent illness, ensure families can make a living wage and provide jobs should be at the core of what elected officials want to accomplish. Raising the minimum wage (which is actually supported by 74% of Americans) is one federal policy that would have a huge ripple effect in the nation. Universal healthcare (also supported by more than 60% of Americans) would also boost the economy by freeing employers from the shackles of being in the healthcare business. In addition, investing in infrastructure such as replacing lead service lines and creating green and healthy housing would create jobs while making our children healthier and safer."

Over in Maine, Jared Golden, a proud working class progressive who understands what solidarity means, is running for Democratic nomination in a June 12th primary. "If America had its priorities straight we could fix our economy. We need to fight for a fair tax plan that doesn’t give away trillions to the wealthy-elite and multinational corporations that aren’t investing in America. Take that revenue back and put it to work rebuilding American roads, rails and bridges. We need to stand with unions for better pay, and healthcare and retirement benefits. And renegotiate and reject bad trade deals that undermine wages and safety for workers. We need to stop allowing corporations and billionaires to waste so much capital on buying elections, so they can instead put that money to work on Main Street, creating jobs and paying people their real worth."

Tom Guild is running in the Oklahoma City Metro and he's warning the party establishment that progressives are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, not just corporatists. "Channeling what President Lyndon Johnson said decades ago, 'I’d rather have people inside the tent pissing out, instead of outside the tent pissing in.' If we don’t support progressive ideals and policies, too many progressives who are registered as members of the Democratic Party, will be outside the tent when the November election arrives. This lack of enthusiasm among our foot soldiers will be fatal to many of the party’s candidates. Independents who identify with the progressive movement will lose interest and opt out of the process. This seems to happen in Oklahoma and nationally in election after election. To maximize our turnout, we must chart a progressive course, support progressive proposals, and maximize the support of our progressive base. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, if voters are forced to choose between a Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, they’ll pick the Republican every time!"

Ricardo Franco is the progressive Democrat up against Devin Nunes in California's Central Valley (CA-22). But, of course, there's also a conservative-- a very, very conservative-- establishment Democrat in the race as well. Ricardo read the Justice Democrats report and told me what he thought about it and how what it uncovers impacts his own race:

This report and recent election results throughout the country have confirmed what we hypothesized last summer: Progressive policies are what it takes to mobilize the Democratic base and swing over independents and Republicans. In my opinion this is because progressives speak directly to the issues affecting working-class Americans rather than traditional party politics.

When I started this campaign I was told I was too progressive to win. Now another Democratic candidate has adopted my platform and moved more towards the left. The centrist Democratic candidate in our race refused to even appear on television last night with another Democratic challenger and myself because they are presumably too afraid of going on the record on any issues.

Across the country we have seen progressives win elections and beat out establishment Democrats. In addition to having a winning policy, progressives are also proud of who they are and not afraid to stand for what they believe in. It's this combination of policy smarts and strong moral character that is leading progressives to victory.

Diana DeGette-- Smug And Out Of Touch After Too Many Years In Congress

Perhaps you noticed that Blue America is raising campaign contributions for Denver progressive Saira Rao this week. On Saturday Rao and DeGette debated. In the photo up top, the DeGette supporters-- old white people-- are on the right and the Rao supporters-- everyone-- else, is on the left.

Our sources in Denver who went told us that DeGette noted she didn't regret taking corporate money, including from AT & T or being a Super-delegate who voted at variance with her constituents. Apparently the candidates' supporters got into, yelling at each other during the debate, another sign that the party's progressive and corporate camps are growing apart by the minute. Again, note the demographic difference the Rao and DeGette supporters the future vs the past. One source told me, "it was like two separate political parties."

A New And Better Day In Denver?

Denver is not a swing district. Obama won it by double digit margins both times he ran and in 2016 Hillary beat Trump there 69-23%. The PVI is a healthy D+21. And in the 2016 caucus Bernie won 14,624 (54.4%) to 12,,097 (45.0%). The is exactly the kind of district that should be sending someone to Congress who is pushing the envelope for progressive ideas-- for someone on the cutting edge like Alan Grayson, Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Jamie Raskin or Mark Pocan. Instead Denver has a ho-hum, garden variety Democrat who has a "B" rating from ProgressivePunch and is basically, a waste of a seat, Diana DeGette, who takes money from the corporate PACs that pollute the political environment and isn't a single-payer enthusiast or anything that will overturn the status quo.

Denver deserves better than Diana DeGette-- and this year, on June 26, Denver has a golden opportunity to elect someone better: Saira Rao. I asked Saira about a specific issue that differentiates the status quo Democrats from the cutting edge Democrats: student debt cancellation, a key progressive plank. Saira: "It’s time to end the insanity of the cost of college tuition in our country and how we are handling the student-debt problem. Although there doesn’t seem to be an easy or quick fix, The College for All Act gets us closer to that place-- to the American Dream of attending college and being able to afford it. The bill creates a federal-state partnership where the federal and state government team up to provide families earning up to $125k per year, cover their tuition for public community colleges. It would also cut student-loan interest rates in half for new borrowers."

But there's even more that needs to be done and Saira is right on top of it. She told us with great enthusiasm:

A new study just came out published by the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College that shows us a path to digging out of the $1.4 trillion dollar hole we face in Colorado and across the country. The report states that if we eliminate the debt, "44 million Americans who carry it could boost GDP by between $86 billion and $108 billion per year, on average for the 10 years following the cancellation. It would also lower the average unemployment rate by 0.22 to 0.36 percentage points over 10 years and could add between 1.2 million and 1.5 million jobs per year."

In Colorado this legislative session, a bill was introduced to regulate student education loan services. The bill would have forced loan servicers to give students accurate information about their loans. There are over 761,000 Coloradans who owe over $24 billion in student debt. That is outrageous and we need to work with the state government to find a solution so the future generation across the country can get access to quality education, not live in fear of how they plan on paying that will help boost our job force and economy in the process.

That really is an American game-changer. And we all know that the only way to even consider getting this done is by having leaders in Washington who will fight for us rather than for their big corporate donors. Colorado Democrats voted overwhelming for Bernie-- not for Hillary and not for Trump. That wasn't random. But despite what her constituents wanted DeGette, a Super-delegate went to the convention and voted for Hillary anyway. When next generation legislation is introduced in Congress by people like Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Ted Lieu or Mark Pocan, DeGette is always MIA. The reason Blue America has endorsed Saira Rao is because she'll be part of that team, not avoiding it.

Clicking on the 2018 ActBlue congressional thermometer on the left will take you to the Blue America page where you can contribute to Saira Rao's grassroots campaign. Helping her win this race is a very worthwhile endeavor and I hope you'll join us in supporting her.

Impeachment-- Which Side Are You On?

Crucial Senate primaries today in West Virginia and Indiana-- states that Trump won by big margins in 2016 (68.5% to 26.4% in West Virginia and 56.8% to 37.9% in Indiana)-- are a mess for the Republicans. Both quickly descended into civil wars based around which candidate is more extreme and more oriented towards Trump-- messages that may be winners in a Republican primary by are toxic for independents, and even moderate Republicans-- and will help Democrats Joe Manchin (WV) and Joe Donnelly (IN) keep those seats in November.

And Trump isn't making matters any better for his party by running around with his hair on fire screeching that the midterms are all about himself. That's the opposite message Republicans up for reelection in swing districts need. Vulnerable members of Congress from California like Mimi Walters, Jeff Denham, David Valadao, Steve Knight, Paul Cook, Tom McClintock and even Davin Nunes need the campaigns not to be referendums on Trump if they will have any chance at all to keep their seats.Same for Barabra Comstock (VA), John Culberson (TX), Pete Sessions (TX), Will Hurd (TX), Carlos Curbelo (FL), John Faso (NY), Peter King (NY), Mike Coffman (CO), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Peter Roskam (IL), Fred Upton (MI), Sean Duffy (WI), Bruce Poliquin (ME), Keith Rothfus (PA), Rod Blum (IA), Don Bacon (NE), Steve Russell (OK), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Lee Zeldin (NY), Leonard Lance (NJ), Tom MacArthur (NJ) and dozens more. Trump's own needy messaging will wipe them all out.

Trump keeps whining that if the Democrats win control of the House, he's going to be impeached. Politico reports that "Trump appears to believe victory in the November midterms depends on turning the contests into a referendum on his leadership, rather than risking a district-by-district slog over conventional messaging about the Republican tax overhaul and the upbeat economy." Bannon agrees.

“You’ve got to make it an up or down vote Nov. 6. I want Trump on the ticket in every district,” Bannon said in an interview. “You have to put Donald Trump on the ticket. You’re not voting for Congress. You’re voting for Donald Trump.”

Democratic leaders have sought to tamp down talk of impeachment to manage expectations and keep Trump from using it as a GOP rallying cry.

By "Democratic leaders," Politico means the people whose strategic brilliance is responsible for not just Trump but for the loss of dozens and dozens of seats in Congress over the last decade. Fortunately many grassroots Democratic candidates are ignoring them entirely. In a message, for example, from West Orlando News editor, Mike Cantone, points out that Alan Grayson "is also itching for a return to Washington in order to be part of the national discussion regarding President Donald Trump and moving the Democratic Party forward."

"Absolutely," Grayson said when asked if he would stand up to President Trump... Few if any Democrats will stand up to Trump right now, maybe they are afraid of a mean tweet," he added. "Someone has to stand up to Trump. Absolutely, I will."

We need more Democrats that will help put an end to the Trump agenda, and replace it with our agenda of justice, equality, and peace. If you read our emails, you already know that Alan will fight Trump every chance he gets.

...Grayson added that his “greatest regret” running for U.S. Senate is the fact he is not currently in DC to stand up to Donald Trump. He lambasted Soto for twice voting against impeachment of Trump already. Anyone who remembers Alan Grayson knows he is the perfect match for President Trump’s style and is not someone who would be shy to share his take on what Trump and the Republicans are doing. Democratic voters nationwide are clearly missing Grayson as well, with thousands of campaign contributions being made before his official announcement was made on which congressional district.

“Florida hasn’t had a champion for years,” Grayson said. “Who was there for the people? Who’s been there advocating for what needs to be done? No name comes to mind. No one is pushing important matters forward. I’m going to get things done.”

Grayson isn't the only candidate who has woven impeachment into his campaign. I bet Grayson is going to be very excited to start working with Saira Rao (CO-01) in Congress. I hope he sees how she responded to the question about impeachment; inspiring. "We keep electing the same people over and over expecting a different result. The status quo is what gave us Trump-- and now here we are standing on a cliff, looking out at a fascist future. Where is the leadership? Where are the Democrats working ACTIVELY to impeach? Dear Congress, please spare us your tweets and Facebook posts and send us impeachment instead."

Hawaii's Kaniela Ing, for example, warns Democrats at the top of his issues page that "It's not enough to simply resist Donald Trump. People are struggling and feeling left behind. Leaders must offer hope and progress beyond resistance." He then goes on to offer 30 bold planks he's running on, from Medicare-For-All, expanding Social Security, Affordable Housing, Tuition-free college, and 100% Renewable Energy by 2035 to Job Guarantee and Net Neutrality. #30, though calls for Trump's impeachment: "Donald Trump is an affront to the values we hold dear in Hawaii. We're pulling America back from the past, when we should be looking to the future. Kaniela wil champion the impeachment of Donald Trump, so we can focus on progress beyond resistance (see above). In Congress, Kaniela will be an ambassador of tolerance, diversity, and aloha."

Levi Tillemann is running for a suburban Denver congressional seat held by GOP lapdog, Mike Coffman. The DCCC has another worthless lapdog they want to slip into the seat-- Jason Crow. One thing is sure, the progressive in the race, Levi Tillemann is nobody's lapdog. Early this morning he told us quite definitively that "Trumpism is fascism; and many seem to believe that our institutions will protect us from it. Unfortunately, that's not how it works: it's up to us to protect our institutions from fascism. On that count, and many others, Congress' failure to impeach Trump is an abject failure."

Another candidate with the guts to talk about the impeachment issue publicly? Well, of course... Randy Bryce, @IronStache: "If Paul Ryan did his job as Speaker of the House as opposed to Speaker of the White House he’d realize that Congress is part of our checks and balances, not an exclusive gym membership. With real leadership a question of impeachment wouldn’t be an issue-- Trump would have been made aware long ago that we fought a war in order to free ourselves from a monarch then set up a government to keep us from turning into one. Trump has made a mockery of the office of President. I’m already on record as being supportive of impeaching Trump. Recent events (his personal lawyer’s office being searched by the FBI) have done nothing to change my mind. (For a start let’s look at Republican thought while pursuing an impeachment of Bill Clinton.)"

Most of the progressive Democrats this cycle agree with the way Tom Guild (OK) put it. His district (PVI us R+10 and Trump beat Hillary there 53.2% to 39.8%). Remember though, the 2016 Oklahoma County primary saw Bernie beat Trump decisively-- 32,368 to 22,117. The other 2 counties in the district Pottawatomie and Seminole were also Bernie country. Pottawatomie voters went for Bernie 3,400 to 2,309 for Bernie and Seminole County primary voters gave Bernie 1,194 votes and Trump just 560 votes. Tom:

Donald Trump is America’s nightmare. He regularly prevaricates. He often runs rough shod over important American institutions, like an independent judiciary, that is directed by a moral and ethical compass to do what is right, not what is expedient or dictated by partisan political pressures. Mr. Trump openly hawks his wares, like Trump properties, to line his pockets. Don, Jr., Jared, Ivanka, and other members of the Trump family follow this example on a regular basis.

Trump is a bully. He bullies federal judges, special prosecutors, members of and sometimes entire minority communities, Congresspersons, and others who disagree with his narrow and warped view of the world. He behaves erratically and we can only imagine what a nightmare it must have been for others to share a sandbox with a young Donald during recess.

Donald is crude, vulgar, profane, and a committed and practiced egomaniac. He demands loyalty from others and then as a reward fires them with a cruel tweet, without remorse, and then moves on to the next victim. His paranoid glands are working overtime, and even though paranoid people have enemies, his twisted conspiratorial worldview always entitles him to claim victimhood status.

He runs through cabinet secretaries, aides, assistants, and other federal underlings like used underwear. He is mean, vicious, rude, overbearing, and refuses to do the hard work of informing himself on important issues. As a result, he is incapable of weighing competing facts (he’s into alternative facts) and interests. His megalomania makes it nearly impossible for him to consider the needs of others or to show them compassion or empathy or to put their needs or our country’s needs above his own.

He’s skating on thin ice and approaching the point of no return. Impeachment? If he fires Deputy FBI Director Rod Rosenstein or Special Counselor Bob Mueller, all political hell will break loose. Either act would further inflame the American people and force the issue of impeachment on the Profiles in Cowardice Crew who currently control many seats in Congress.

How would I cast my vote in considering articles of impeachment? I feel deep in my soul that I would do the right thing for the right reasons. Despite my profound disappointment and distaste with and for Mr. Trump and his coarse and harsh persona, I would be fair to him and try to dispassionately dispense justice. My ultimate consideration would be the public interest, justice, and safeguarding our American republic while preserving our great constitutional values and traditions. I’m certain my decision would be well considered, thoughtful, and based on facts and the rule of law. The ice is cracking under Donald’s feet. Is it too late? The clock is very close to striking midnight...

Closing In by Nancy Ohanian

Diana DeGette Isn't A Terrible Congresswoman But Denver Deserves Better-- Meet Saira Rao

Last year in Colorado, the state's Democrats went heavily for Bernie over Hillary. He took 71,928 votes (58.9%) to her 49,256 (40.4%). Wasserman Schultz and the DNC had rigged the convention rules so that Colorado sent 40 Clinton delegates and just 38 Bernie delegates. Denver County was Bernie Country by a similar margin as the whole state's, but Congresswoman and super-delegate Diana DeGette didn't care what her constituents wanted and had voted for; she went to the convention and voted for Hillary-- a slap in the face to local voters. DeGette always knows better than anyone else. Her constituents were furious-- and haven't forgotten. Her primary opponent this year is a Denver progressive, Saira Rao, who we just endorsed this week. I asked Saira to introduce herself to DWT readers with a guest post. The confessional headline below is her own. The ActBlue congressional thermometer below is Blue America's... a place where you can help Saira make sure she has a chance to get her message out to Denver voters:


Corporate Democrat-Turned-Progressive Runs For Congress
-by Saira Rao

My name is Saira Rao. I am 43 years old. I am running for Congress in Colorado’s congressional district one. I am a recovering neoliberal corporate Democrat.

There I said it.

A step back to the fall of 2016. I did what I always did—this time, with the kind of passion typically reserved for an excellent chicken vindaloo. My efforts to get Hillary Clinton elected bordered on mania. We housed Clinton volunteers from Canada at our home for three months. My 8-year-old daughter took a break from soccer season to join me. We phone-banked, we knocked doors, we carved HRC jack-o-lanterns, we lit candles.

Then Hillary lost. Like so many other neoliberals, I wept, I mourned, I tweeted about the “Orange Cheeto,” I broke up with friends who had been lukewarm about Hillary.

And then I woke up. We can all recall the horror of the first Muslim ban, with planes landing, people arriving at airports only to be told they’d be sent back, families destroyed, hysteria, confusion, TRAUMA. One of my best friends, Neeti Pawar, founding President of the South Asian Bar Association, did what she always does-- she helped. Neeti spent her weekend at the Denver International Airport fighting for people’s civil rights-- and then attended our Representative’s one annual town hall of the year, held a few days after the Muslim ban at the-- wait for it-- police building. Guess who isn’t feeling so safe going to the police building in that climate? Neeti was one of a handful of non-white people in a crowd of roughly 1000. She asked about immigration and DACA protections. Her questions weren’t received well. Neeti kept at it. She was told to leave or remain silent. Neeti followed up and was told by staffers that civil rights weren’t the representative’s “issue.” Civil rights are life and death for people of color.

Look, America has had a love affair with white supremacy since the beginning, only it was largely closeted. Trump emboldened folks to come out, the KKK, Nazis, etc. That’s all the obvious stuff. Less obvious, but equally insidious, are the neoliberal, corporate Democrats who flood the streets with pink hats, rail against Donald Trump morning until night but then turn a blind eye to Black Lives Matter. A friend recently said: “Conservatives are boots on the ground white supremacists. Neoliberals shine their boots for them before they go to battle-- and then talk smack about them on Twitter afterwards.”

After this thing with Neeti, I got to thinking-- and I know many of you will roll your eyes, wondering why it took me so long to connect the dots-- why is it that we don’t have a Clean Dream Act when the Democrats were in power for so long? Why is it that prescription drug prices soared on the Democrats’ watch? How is it that we have the greatest income inequality in nearly one hundred years? Why doesn’t Flint have safe drinking water four years later? Why are we allowing our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico suffer and suffer and suffer?

Corporate Money In Politics

Again, I realize you knew this all along. But this was a big awakening for me. And I have to say, the fact that it took me as long as it did, makes me deeply concerned about how asleep most Democrats continue to be. This dirty money isn’t a sideshow, it’s the main event.

If the Earth had a super pac, we’d stop trashing it. If Dreamers were rich and white, we wouldn’t be deporting them. If Democrats weren’t taking MILLIONS from Big Pharma, insulin wouldn’t have gone from $1.80 to more than $300 a shot in a few years.

We will never be able to have nice things-- healthcare, education, racial, social, environmental equity until the corporate money is out. It’s not rocket science: Eli Lilly cuts you a check, you answer to Eli Lilly. AETNA funds you, you answer to AETNA.

How is it that we give corporations a $1.4 trillion dollar tax cut, but we can’t figure out a way to eliminate student loan debt, which incidentally is $1.4 trillion dollars. The money is there-- our priorities are completely out of whack. We choose profits over people. We choose profits over the planet.

There’s a saying in the book business, of which I’m in in my normal life: “If you don’t see the book on the shelf you want to read, go write it.” I look around Colorado. All 9 members of our congressional delegation are white. There’s a ton of corporate PAC money lining coffers here, there, everywhere. We don’t have much time to turn this ship around, and I decided to stop hoping and praying a true progressive, not beholden to corporate money, would show up and run. So I did it myself.

The primary is June 26th but Colorado is a vote by mail state and the election will start when ballots drop June 4th! Let’s prove to America that we can do this and do it right. That we can choose people over profits. I don’t like talk of taking our country back. Let’s take our country forward.


UPDATE: Democratic Establishment Needs A Lesson From Voters

Today, Denverite published an article by Esteban Hernandez showing how the Democratic establishment tries to undermine grassroots progressives like Rao and Levi Tillemann.

An email sent out by the district and provided by Rao’s campaign shows only DeGette was given a speaking opportunity during a primary candidates forum. While the state district falling within the CD1 boundaries, only DeGette was listed as a speaking candidate.

After Rao’s campaign pointed this out, the committee organizers invited her the day before the event. But Rao decided not to go because it was such short notice. Rao said the party has gone out of its way to put up “institutional roadblocks” and treat her like “a second-class citizen.”

“It’s constantly this, ‘You should be grateful for what you have,'” Rao said.

Together with Levi Tillemann’s complaints against the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in CD6, it raises the question of whether the Democratic Party has moved on from its 2016 divisions as it hopes to ride its “blue wave” to this fall’s election.

“Those wounds still are raw,” Tillemann said. “What I tend to talk about is the fact that I did support Bernie, and I contributed to his campaign, and I was inspired by Bernie.”

Tillemann added he volunteered for Clinton’s campaign after she won the party’s nomination.

Rao, though, was a Clinton supporter. She bills herself as a progressive who’s running to help get the party back to its roots and to ensure the party has a robust primary process. There are areas where Rao said she differs from DeGette, including her supporting a single-payer healthcare system and keeping corporate money from politics. She also said she got into the race because it’s time for new leadership.

“We keep electing these same people over and over again. It’s obviously rigged in their favor,” Rao said.

DeGette, in contrast, has previously questioned support for single-payer healthcare and has taken donations from PACs.

...DeGette didn’t seem interested in discussing the Tillemann meeting with Denverite; when asked if the meeting had been cordial, DeGette declined to answer yes or no. A DeGette campaign spokesperson said DeGette told Tillemann she saw her role as a senior Democrat as someone who should stay neutral and ensure races stayed positive.

But Tillemann said his conversation last summer with DeGette had some similarities with the conversation he had with Hoyer.

“It didn’t go well,” Tillemann said, before continuing, “It ended rather abruptly at her discretion.”

DeGette said she doesn’t think it’s appropriate for the DCCC to be involved in “weighing in” on candidates, which she expressed to the committee. She said she hasn’t endorsed any candidate in the race and that Hoyer’s suggestion that Colorado’s Congressional delegation picked Crow over Tillemann didn’t include her. Tillemann said he was surprised to hear DeGette said she was being neutral.

DeGette was willing to share this about the CD6 race: “I find it deeply disturbing that a candidate, that anybody, without the knowledge of someone, secretly taped a conversation with a senior member of the House.”

Rao said she hasn’t been approached by DCCC members, but wasn’t surprised by the recordings. She called out U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, another long-time incumbent, for defending Hoyer after the recordings were made public.

“It sounds like the mob,” Rao said. “Nothing about that surprised me.”