Not Every Red District Is Susceptible To The Blue Wave-- But Blue Districts Are Susceptible To The Progressive Wave

After Blake Farenthold was forced out of Congress earlier in April for being a workplace perv, there was a vague hope Democrats could win his seat in a special election-- very vague. The DCCC gave the seat a thumbs down and refused to engage, especially after it was clear that the leading Democrat, Eric Holguin, is a progressive. The very gerrymandered district (TX-27) stretches along the Gulf from Corpus Christie and Port Aransas up through Victoria and Port Lavaca to Bay City and, incongruously, west through Shiner and Gonzales into the exurbs southeast of Austin. The PVI is R+13, very safely red, and Trump won the seat 60.1% to 36.5%.

In the 9-person jungle primary on Saturday, the winner was Michael Cloud, who was already primarying Farenthold when he resigned in disgrace.Saturday, Cloud won enough votes to avoid a runoff. He spent $326,449 compared to Holguin, who came in second, after spending $65,722. Virtually all the outside spending, around $700,000, was in support of Cloud. Neither the DCCC nor any other outside groups helped Holguin. All 3 Democrats combined didn't get to 40% Turnout was very low. Cloud, this time as an incumbent, will face Holguin again in November for a full two-year term. Every Beltway pundit rates TX-27 as "safe Republican."

Cloud has been endorsed by the far right-- Club for Growth and the Freedom Caucus, which he is expected to join. Like Holguin, Cloud came out against Trump's family separation policy. Holguin took a very strong stand against Trump's child abuse policies, making Cloud nervous. Holguin on election day: "The human rights violations that are occurring on our borders right now is reprehensible, inhumane, and against everything that we as Americans stand for today When our children and grandchildren look back on our history, they will be asking 'Why?' we terrorized children. Now is our opportunity to unite to speak out."

Holguin's issues page on his campaign website looks pretty progressive, especially for such a red district. He comes out for single-payer healthcare for example.

Eric is a real long shot for the November election. But he's been a long shot before. In the original March 6 primary, he just barely made it to the runoff with 23.31% of the vote, while the frontrunner, a perrenial candidate with plenty of name recognition, received 41.22%. Then came the May 22 runoff and Holguin went on to win with over 60% of the vote, putting him in position to become the first openly gay Latino congressman.

He's campaigning for the November general election already.

These long shot races are still long shots, "a venture," says the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "unlikely to succeed, an entry (as in a horse race) given little chance of winning, a bet in which the chances of winning are slight but the possible winnings great." When Alexandria asked for a Blue America endorsement I thought she was a long shot. In fact, I thought she had almost no chance to win. Blue America endorsed her because we hoped she would build up skill and name recognition and run again in 2020 and win then. We saw something special in her, worth investing in for the long game. She's a hard worker and a smart worker with a dedicated crew around her. We decided to do more than endorse her; we spent money in the campaign independently. There were only two outside groups that did-- the Sierra Club spent money-- albeit just a small symbolic amount-- on behalf of Crowley and the establishment they always suck up to. And Blue America put down our biggest investment of 2016 (so far) on behalf of the candidate we felt was working the hardest and earned our support... even if we didn't think she had a chance. Even as the votes started coming in on election night, the returns in her favor appeared to be to be errors that would soon be corrected by the Department of Elections. But that isn't what happened. The distance between her and Crowley continued to grow. I thought it was impossible and that maybe the early votes were from the Bronx where our I.E. had been concentrated and where she worked incredibly hard and where no one has ever heard of Crowley. But I was wrong again-- she was winning in Queens as well... by a lot. A long shot that paid off.

That pay off is giving hope to candidates and campaigns across the country. Pelosi tried to tamp it down, calling it a fluke and an outlier (while working her knuckles to the bone to sabotage Kara Eastman who won her primary in Omaha and who Pelosi's DCCC absolutely refuses to assist. NE-02 was a must-win district when Pelosi was backing disgusting Blue Dog Brad Ashford but as soon as progressive Kara Eastman won, the district vanished as a DCCC priority. Pelosi will be pleading with Democrats to unite for November but that's a one way street for the lousy corrupt establishment. We have to united around their crap candidates while they work to crush ours.

I saw another Democratic Socialist, Kaniela Saito Ing in Hawaii, renew his efforts after after Ocasio gave him a shout out on Chris Hayes' show the day after the election. The establishment candidates, a bunch of establishment conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, are ganging up against him, with the assistance of the establishment media. But Kaniela is flighting harder than ever now to win the crowded August 11 primary, which includes conservatives Ed Case, Doug Chin, Donna Mercado Kim and Beth Fukumoto. While the establishment freaks out at the thought of a Democratic Socialist representing Honolulu, Civil Beat featured him in an OpEd as The real progressive in the race. Before you read this, keep in mind that Hillary was endorsed by every single Democratic politician in Hawaii who endorsed at all except by two Kaniela and then Tulsi Gabbard. Bernie beat Hillary by a preposterous margin-- 69.8% to 30.0%. Hawaii was clearly ready for an alternative to the status quo the establishment was offering again. Last week:

For those inspired by Bernie Sanders’ mantra that we deserve better than career politicians who are bought and sold by corporations, we can now wrap our enthusiasm around Kaniela Ing, candidate for U.S. Congress-- the only real progressive in the race.

For so many of us, the Democratic Party’s charge to advocate for working families has been totally undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling our current president to masquerade as a voice for working people.

Prior to and since that election, progressive candidates have risen up in record numbers offering a different kind of Democrat who will truly represent and look like America, by virtue of  gender, race, religion, profession, economic status-- and most importantly-- who represent people, not corporations.

We’re fortunate to have one such candidate running for Hawaii’s 1st District seat in Congress-- Kaniela Ing. When Kaniela, a Justice Democrat, and his fellow progressive legislators arrive in Congress, they will start on day one, united around an agenda focused on people, not profits, to enact policies that the majority of Americans support:

Ending the corruption of big money in politics, allowing everyone access to a Medicare-For-All single-payer system, providing free tuition for public colleges, creating a renewable energy revolution, enacting common sense gun legislation, fighting for women’s equality and our LGBTQ family, enacting comprehensive immigration reform, implementing a real infrastructure plan, and more.

Not all Democrats are the same. A Democrat who takes corporate money, who’s been a Republican just before they became a Democrat, who talks about being “for the people” but whose votes imply influence by special interests, are not in this fight for the benefit of Hawaii residents and the American people.

It’s only Kaniela who has demonstrated the political courage to turn his back on big corporate donors. It’s only Kaniela’s track record that is long and strong in fighting for working families. Kaniela is the only candidate who supported and aggressively championed marriage equality for Hawaii, while one of his opponents, who claims to be “revolutionary,” opposed marriage equality, and another opponent’s history includes homophobic rants.

Kaniela is a long shot worth gambling on. Blue America is-- and you can support his campaign by clicking on the 2018 congressional thermometer on the right. But, alas, not every candidate inspired by Bernie has an equal chance to win, nor is every one of them as smart and as hard a worker as Ocasio and Ing are. If deploying your limited resources wisely is a factor, it's probably better to concentrate them strategically. (If you have unlimited resources just go wild and write checks for every candidate endorsed by Blue America, Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, DFA, People For Bernie, PCCC, etc.)

I want to point to a low-key campaign in Washington state that I hadn't really looked into until this past weekend-- the primary in the 9th district, which is a heavily Democratic area in the southern and eastern Seattle Metro including Mercer Island, Kent, Bellevue and Renton. When Adam Smith, a conservative Democrat first won the seat in 1996, it was a more competitive district. Now the PVI is D+21. Hillary won 70.5% to 23.3% against Trump, even stronger than the 68% Obama got both times he ran. The district's minority make-up has grown tremendously and it is now just 50% white. A trajectory not unlike Crowley's 14th in New York, although not as developed... and Smith isn't as bad as Crowley. Bad not but as bad. There are a couple of Washington state Dems in Congress who are even worse than he is. Smith has a lousy voting record and ProgressivePunch rates him "F." He's a New Dem, a corporate tool and a stooge for the Military Industrial Complex. The district has outgrown him.

The only way to replace Smith is through a primary. No Republican is ever going to win that district. Adam Smith has raised $426,466 and Sarah Smith, his very progressive opponent, has raised $36,968. $37,000 isn't enough to let voters know who you are-- or even that you are. But there's still time. The local Fox channel (Q13) reputed on the race last week: Could progressive newcomer Sarah Smith upset 11-term incumbent in Washington primary?. She could like Ocasio:

Thirty-year-old Sarah Smith and a team of volunteers are hitting the pavement, knocking on door after door to spread the word: She's running for Congress and taking on 11-term Democratic incumbent Adam Smith in the primaries.

"I had to struggle to overcome this thought in my head of: I'm not from a political dynasty; I'm not supposed to go into politics; I'm working class; I haven't gone up the ladder; I haven't done it the right way; I haven't asked for permission," Sarah Smith said. "I had to really get out of that mindset because at the end of the day, we don't need to ask for permission to run to represent our neighbors."

Sarah Smith is a candidate under Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, the same slates that supported New York's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who just dealt a crushing defeat to 10-term Democratic Congressman Joe Crowley.

"I cried when she got elected. I'm a sucker," Sarah Smith said.

Both women are part of a push to elect progressives aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders. In a state that caucused strong for Sanders in 2016, Sarah Smith's platform is gaining ground.

"I am for single-payer medicare for all; I am for debt-free education; I am for abolishing (Immigration and Customs Enforcement); I am for investing in our infrastructure; and I am for getting us out of, what is it, nine to 11 different military occupations we're in?"

Her opponent is on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman Adam Smith has a long history in the 9th Congressional District. So who is Sarah Smith?

"I work full time," Sarah Smith said. "I manage a mechanic garage. I have student debt. I have a husband. I can't afford to have a kid. I'm every person in this district."

This political novice is putting the Democratic establishment on notice. The full-fledged progressive told Q13 News Correspondent Simone Del Rosario that compromise is a last resort.

"If you are elected to Congress you are not just representing the progressives in District 9, you will be representing everybody who lives in District 9. Are you prepared to do that?" Del Rosario asked.

"Absolutely I am," she replied. "I recognize that my platform is going to get me elected, so I want to commit to my platform as much as possible and as strongly as possible, because if I get elected it's because of my values and it's because of what I stand up for."

That's what she hopes to take to Congress.

Rep. Adam Smith has served in Congress for 22 years. Q13 News spoke to him over the phone to talk about the progressive movement, his opponent and the upcoming primary.

"For me, this is not about a national movement," Rep. Adam Smith said. "This is about the people who live around Sea-Tac Airport who deal with the noise problems. This is about helping the very large immigrant community that I have with immigration issues. This is about helping the education system in the city of Seattle and south King County.

"I've lived my entire life in the district; raised my children here; sent them to public schools in the district; and I have a very, very strong connection to the people there and I have been very, very effective in being their voice in Congress."

Again, Bernie won Adam Smith's district; Adam Smith was out of touch with his own voters. While Sarah Smith volunteered and then caucused for Bernie's campaign, Adam Smith endorsed Hillary and was a super-delegate for her. Ocasio didn't have a great deal of money-- around $300,000-- but it was enough to get her and her message out to the voters. Sarah is going to need more if she's going to square the circle in time for the August 7th primary.

Can Idealists Accomplish Stuff? Their Progress Is The History Of America's Success-- Meet Pramila Jayapal From Seattle

The last Republican presidential candidate to win Washington was Reagan in 1984. Although Washington is basically a blue state-- Obama beat McCain 58-40 and beat Romney 56-41, both U.S.senators are Democrats and every governor for over 30 years has been a Democrat-- the state Senate is narrowly controlled by the Republicans + one renegade conservaDem, Tim Sheldon from a district across the Puget Sound from Seattle. Sheldon's idea of "bipartisan" is to hand the majority role to the Republicans and to join them in voting against marriage equality and backing their toxic agenda.

But there's a very different kind of bipartisanship, often practiced by some of the most progressive legislators in the country. We touched on it last week with a look at Mike Lux's book, The Progressive Revolution-- How The Best in America Came To Be, and the claims by conservative Democrats that Bernie's aspirations for single payer would cause political gridlock and were not feasible. American history is filled with good progressive ideas opposed by conservatives that, through hard work and determination, eventually become part of the fabric of our country, Social Security, universal suffrage, Medicare, public education, being just a few of them.

In the U.S. Senate, Bernie Sanders' bills for veterans affairs usually have massive support across the aisle. In the U.S. House, Alan Grayson has passed more legislation than any other member of Congress, even with the GOP in control. That's because they focus on items of common interest that are popular with the backers of both political parties. In Olympia, the most progressive member of the Washington state Senate, Pramila Jayapal, currently running for Congress, has been working the same kind of bipartisanship-- bringing up bills to lift the statute of limitations on rape and sexual assault sand for free community college education. There is plenty of common ground on issues like that with members of both parties.

Monday she testified at a hearing in the Senate Governmental Operations committee on her bill to expand democracy through automatic voter registration (SB 6379). She worked on the bill with Washington's Republican Secretary of State Kim Wyman. When the bill passes and is signed by the governor it will automatically register eligible voters who sign up for programs that already require citizenship verification, including enhanced driver’s licenses, commercial driver’s licenses, as well as certain programs through the Department of Social and Health Services or the state Health Benefits Exchange. The bill provides an opt-out opportunity for those who decline to be registered. The bill also would update addresses for those who are automatically registered. The idea was to design a bill that responds to the specific circumstances of a state that grants driver’s licenses to residence regardless of citizenship. She had to craft the bill so as to not inadvertently grant voting rights to any non-citizens.

"The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy," she explained when she introduced it. "Yet while our state is a leader in so many things, we are struggling to get Washingtonians to cast ballots and have their voices heard. It is the duty of elected officials, regardless of party, to ensure everyone has the opportunity to be heard. That is the goal of this bill. There should be no barriers between the people and voting, and with this bill one more barrier has been removed. We have worked very hard over the past several months to develop a bipartisan piece of legislation that fits Washington’s particular needs."

Secretary Wyman concurred: "I am pleased to join Senator Jayapal and a bipartisan group of legislators in proposing this welcome expansion of access to the voter rolls. We have a sizable group of people who have not chosen to register through the normal routes of online, motor-voter, mail or in-person registration. We know that some of these potential voters have already given proof of citizenship to the DOL or to health exchange, and so automatic registration should be allowed for them. Our goal in the election community is to register every eligible voter, to remove any barriers to voting, and to promote robust turnout."

Analysis shows that automatic voter registration boosts numbers of registered voters as well as turnout at elections. In addition to increasing voter rolls, SB 6379 reduces paperwork and streamlines the registration process, allowing agencies to integrate voter registration services into existing forms and online prompts. "Passing a bill like this with support from both sides of the aisle helps rebuild trust that we can break political gridlock," said Jayapal. "While voting issues can be divisive at times, we have a bipartisan mandate with this bill. Let’s get it passed through the Legislature and onto the governor’s desk for signature."

If you'd like to help bring this kind of approach to Congress, please consider contributing to Jayapal's grassroots campaign here at the Blue America page for candidates who have endorsed Bernie and are running on the same issues as he is. WA-07, by the way, is the most progressive district in Washington and has a PVI of D+29. Neither McCain nor Romney were able to get even 20% of the vote against Obama and Jim McDermott was reelected in 2014 203,954 (81%) to 47,921 (19%) against Republican Craig Keller. This is exactly the kind of district that is perfect for an innovative, stalwart, values-driven progressive like Pramila Jayapal.

Tomorrow Seattle Voters Decide If They Want Honest Elections... Or Not (Maine Too)

- By Shetha Alaskar

Seattle has a history of progressivism and innovation. In 2013, we were the first major city to pass a $15 minimum wage and set an example that was followed in by communities across the country. Tomorrow, November 3rd, we’ll have a chance to vote on campaign finance reform and change the way America thinks about fair elections.

Initiative 122, nicknamed Honest Elections, would institute some of the tightest campaign contribution limits and regulations in the country, target the big money interests that currently buy our elections, and empower Seattle voters through a public financing option. Almost every city council candidate, dozens of community leaders, and Representative Jim McDermott have all come together in support of I-122.

As a whole, it’s an impressive step for our city and one that the rest of the country is watching. This is particularly true of I-122’s Democracy Voucher program-- a public financing option that puts the focus on strengthening the voices of Seattle voters and promoting equity. In a recent interview with Policy Mic, Harvard professor and leading campaign finance reform expert Lawrence Lessig praised it as “the most attractive public funding system we can develop.”

The idea is simple. Seattle candidates will have the choice to forgo big money contributions in favor of the support of ordinary Seattle voters. Every voter will receive four $25 Democracy Vouchers with their ballot. They can contribute these to the qualified campaign of their choice.

In order to participate, candidates must collect a number of small donations first and agree to follow some rules. These include giving Seattle voters the chance to hear from them directly at three public debates, capping their campaign spending, limiting private contributions, and not fundraising for independent third party groups.

The outcome is a Seattle in which all voters decide elections, regardless of how much money they have or how well connected they are. That’s the vision of I-122: voters having the strongest voice in who’s elected in our city. Alan Durning, one of the original authors of I-122, wrote “the truth is that Honest Elections Seattle strengthens people power by giving candidates a way to run for office without dialing for dollars.”

For young voters, often seen as highly unengaged, this idea resonates. It’s an opportunity to vote for candidates that represent their community, not big donors. As one young voter in Green Lake wrote me, “At the heart of Honest Elections is the promise that ordinary people can not only have a voice in politics, but a strong voice that will be listened to.” She sees I-122 as key to making that shift towards fair elections and empowered voters.

In Seattle, that’s a particularly timely change. Our local elections are some of the most expensive in the country. A study of our 2013 elections found that half of the money funding campaigns came from .03 percent of the adult population-- mostly the wealthy owners of expensive waterfront properties.

After a recent scandal in which a prominent developer was accused of attempting to bribe and intimidate a candidate for Seattle City Council, the problem appears clear and close to home.

Tomorrow, Seattle voters can pass the solution. We can vote for a system that empowers our communities to choose elected leaders based on merit, not on the size of their budget. We can set another example for the rest of the country.

UPDATE: Maine Too

In Maine, voters will cast ballots to update the landmark Clean Elections law first passed in 1996 but screwed up by court decisions and political shenanigans. The Clean Elections system allows qualified candidates to receive a set amount of public funds if they raise a large number of small donations and take no large checks. Question 1 also increases transparency and levies new fines on lawbreakers. The campaign is spearheaded by Mainers for Accountable Elections. The initiative is opposed by Tea Party Governor Paul LePage who called it "the biggest scam on Maine people, this is truly, truly about getting the wealthy, wealthier and the poor people, dumb-- keep them dumb-- dumb them down. This is a scam. " Meanwhile Independent Senator Angus King is backing the bill and took to the pages of the Portland Press Herald to explain why:

It will toughen fines and penalties for those who break Maine’s election laws so they are truly held accountable to the people. And it will encourage strict campaign spending and contribution limits by strengthening the state’s landmark Clean Elections system so that candidates throughout Maine can run for office without being reliant on special interests and big money donors.

I’ve watched as Maine’s Clean Elections system has transformed the state’s Legislature and opened the door for everyday people like plumbers, teachers, carpenters and firefighters to be able to run for office and compete against deep-pocketed or well-connected opponents.

By putting a focus on low-dollar donations and taking special interest money out of the equation, Clean Elections makes a $5 donor become a political player in our system and ensure that politicians answer to the people. That’s why Democrats, Republicans, Greens and independents have been such strong supporters of the system.

Unfortunately, because of misguided changes at the state and federal level in recent years, our Clean Elections system has been severely weakened. Question 1 gives us an opportunity to make it strong once again.

By passing Question 1, we can halt the unprecedented shift in campaign financing and return control of our elections to the hands of the people, restoring faith in our political system and protecting the fundamental principle of having a government that is of, by and for the people.

The Gays Won

Someone's got to have the best voting record in Congress, might as well be Mark!

Wednesday I got an e-mail from the Gay And Lesbian Victory Fund with the subject line "What a Night!" And what a night it was for them! They had helped 56 candidates from the LGBT community win their races, including 2 crucial women in Texas, Annise Parker, who won a third term as mayor of Houston, America's fourth largest city, and Celia Israel, who advanced to a run-off in North Austin to replace our old pal Mark Strama, giving voters the chance to elect a second LGBT voice in the state House.

They celebrated these two wonderful candidates with the same enthusiasm they expressed for the new mayor of Seattle. "Ed Murray," they wrote, "will become the next mayor of Seattle, defeating a well-funded incumbent and shattering a historic barrier." Down with the bad guy and up with the good! Right? Well, no, not exactly. As Paul Constant explained in The Stranger, Murray was very upfront about running as the anti-progressive. "I am not running," he boasted, "to be a progressive mayor of Seattle." Constant wrote that he was "disappointed that Murray would use the words progressive and liberal like they're pejoratives" in his victory speech.

Last night, in his halting, stiff victory speech at the Crocodile, Ed Murray said two things that I found to be very troubling. First, he announced that to make Seattle work, "we need to bring liberals and moderates together." Second, his speech's big money shot was this line: "I am not running to be a gay mayor of Seattle. I am not running to be a progressive mayor of Seattle. I am running to be an effective mayor of Seattle." I want to be perfectly clear, right up front, that what I'm about to write has nothing to do with Mike McGinn. This post is about the fact that I feel that Murray's speech profoundly misjudged the character of Seattle politics. And that speech made me feel disappointed in Ed Murray.

Seattle is the liberal heart of a state that last year led the nation by voting to legalize marijuana and legalize same sex marriage. Could anyone seriously tell me that those are not progressive causes? Last night, roughly a third of all primary voters decided to send a socialist to the general election vote for city council. Let me ask you again, in a slightly different way: Do you really think that this is a moderate city?

We don't live in Old Seattle anymore; this is not a city for NPR tote-bag liberals who put the Clinton/Gore bumper stickers on their cars and then quietly vote down every property tax that crosses their ballots. This is not a city that can continue to wait patiently for conservatives to come around to our way of thinking on transit. Seattle is—Seattle wants to be—the progressive testing ground for the rest of this country. We're sick of kowtowing to moderates, the craven imbeciles who tell us to wait on gay marriage until the national mood deigns to approve of it. We want to lead the way, and force the national mood to change. We start debates on the minimum wage and fast food workers' rights here in Seattle that inspire conversations around the rest of the country. We are the bluest of blues, and we're not likely to change any time soon. We're tired of having to wait for the dumbest kid in the class to catch up to us so that we can move on to the next lesson. We want to write our own goddamned lesson plans. We want to make our own world. And to do that, we need a mayor who doesn't shy away from the word "progressive," and we definitely don't need a mayor who insists that liberals have to capitulate to "moderates" in order to get stuff done. That may have been Seattle fifteen years ago. It's not Seattle now. It's not the city that Seattle's going to be.

I follow politics carefully and by 2008 I and already met Barack Obama several times and knew exactly what he was, economically a neoliberal and ideologically a moderate. I voted for him anyway, primarily for two reasons: better of two evils and for the symbolism and inspiration of electing an African-American president. (That's why I also would have voted for the equally-- if not even worse-- Hillary Clinton: the symbolism and inspiration of electing a woman president. In 2012 there was no chance I would have voted for Obama again. And a lot would have to happen-- none of which I expect-- before I would consider casting a ballot for Hillary Clinton.

On the ProgressivePunch page that shows the relative lifetime voting records of every Member of Congress, the #1 most progressive is Mark Pocan, a gay man from Madison, Wisconsin. Gays can feel proud of that if they want to. But if you surf down the the bottom of the Democrats, to the place where conservative Democrats and even worse Republicans compete for rankings, you find the Democrat with the worst voting record. It isn't homophobic reactionary Blue Dogs Pete Gallego (TX), John Barrow (GA) or Mike McIntyre (NC). Nope, the worst Democrat in Congress has a perfect progressive record on LGBT issues. He's just atrocious on everything else, especially economic justice. And that's Sean Patrick Maloney, a gay man. The third-worst is a self-described bisexual, Kyrsten Sinema. She has a great record on LGBT issues too (and women's issues). But on all the other issues that separate the progressives from the conservatives, Sinema, like Maloney is an embarrassment.

In his first book, Crashing the Gate, Markos Moulitsas warned of the danger of narrow identity politics. It took me a few years to fully, viscerally, understand what he was talking about. When E.J. Dionne looked at the results of Tuesday's election and wrote America Shifts Left, it wasn't to celebrate identity group politics. It was to celebrate the election of politicians who stand for progressive values and principles. We need more Mark Pocans and fewer Sean Patrick Maloneys and Kyrsten Sinemas. Evana corrupt corporate hack and machine politics bagman like Terry McAuliffe has a place in that shift.

Terry McAuliffe may have won in Virginia as a middle-of-the-road, business-friendly champion of “jobs.” But he was also firmly liberal on gay marriage and abortion, and cast Ken Cuccinelli, his opponent, as a social troglodyte.

More than that: McAuliffe was outspoken against the National Rifle Association and in favor of a variety of gun-safety measures, including background checks. McAuliffe did not shrink from his F-rating from the NRA. He boasted about it.

His outspokenness was rewarded. He won the suburbs outside of Washington, D.C., overwhelmingly and built a large margin among women. The power of the gun-control issue should not be lost in the sometimes foggy talk about centrism. This should embolden supporters of sane gun laws.

…Republicans would be wiser to pay attention to the fact that McAuliffe recreated the coalition which twice elected Obama. When Democrats lost Virginia in 2009, Obama supporters stayed home in large numbers. This time, the electorate was significantly more Democratic, and the African-American share of the vote rose sharply. In next year’s midterms, Republicans cannot count on the sort of Democratic demobilization that was so helpful to them in 2010.

To say that this election nudged the nation leftward is not to claim a sudden mandate for liberalism. But it is to insist that the center ground in American politics is a long way from where it was three years ago-- and that if there is a new populism in the country, it is now speaking with a decidedly progressive accent.

Drones And You

I'm not sure how much I agree with it but I completely respect the work people are doing in questioning the rights of the Executive Branch to use drones to kill American citizens without trials. Maybe the Executive should have a hearing to strip the accused of their citizenship before murdering them. My problem with drone policy, though, is different, the "collateral damage" abroad and the shredding of Constitutional protections domestically.

As someone who has spent years in places, like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Mali, where U.S. drones are reigning terror and death down on the heads of innocent civilians-- including women and children-- the "collateral damage" in these drone strikes is neither remote nor abstract. To me the policy seems dangerously psychotic. Brave New Films has done incredible work on the subject. Please watch their video up top; I wish every Member of Congress would... or every voter. Here's the Executive Summary of their report:

In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.

This narrative is false.

Following nine months of intensive research-- including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting-- this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.

Real threats to US security and to Pakistani civilians exist in the Pakistani border areas now targeted by drones. It is crucial that the US be able to protect itself from terrorist threats, and that the great harm caused by terrorists to Pakistani civilians be addressed. However, in light of significant evidence of harmful impacts to Pakistani civilians and to US interests, current policies to address terrorism through targeted killings and drone strikes must be carefully re-evaluated.

It is essential that public debate about US policies take the negative effects of current policies into account.

First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.” It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.

Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.

Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best. The strikes have certainly killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks. However, serious concerns about the efficacy and counter-productive nature of drone strikes have been raised. The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low-- estimated at just 2%. Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks. As the New York Times has reported, “drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants.” Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani relations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.

Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents. This report casts doubt on the legality of strikes on individuals or groups not linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, and who do not pose imminent threats to the US. The US government’s failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killing policies, to provide necessary details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy. US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.

In light of these concerns, this report recommends that the US conduct a fundamental re-evaluation of current targeted killing practices, taking into account all available evidence, the concerns of various stakeholders, and the short and long-term costs and benefits. A significant rethinking of current US targeted killing and drone strike policies is long overdue. US policy-makers, and the American public, cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counter-productive impacts of US targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan.

This report also supports and reiterates the calls consistently made by rights groups and others for legality, accountability, and transparency in US drone strike policies:

• The US should fulfill its international obligations with respect to accountability and transparency, and ensure proper democratic debate about key policies. The US should:

• Release the US Department of Justice memoranda outlining the legal basis for US targeted killing in Pakistan;

• Make public critical information concerning US drone strike policies, including as previously and repeatedly requested by various groups and officials: the targeting criteria for so-called “signature” strikes; the mechanisms in place to ensure that targeting complies with international law; which laws are being applied; the nature of investigations into civilian death and injury; and mechanisms in place to track, analyze and publicly recognize civilian casualties;

• Ensure independent investigations into drone strike deaths, consistent with the call made by Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism in August 2012;

• In conjunction with robust investigations and, where appropriate, prosecutions, establish compensation programs for civilians harmed by US strikes in Pakistan.

• The US should fulfill its international humanitarian and human rights law obligations with respect to the use of force, including by not using lethal force against individuals who are not members of armed groups with whom the US is in an armed conflict, or otherwise against individuals not posing an imminent threat to life. This includes not double-striking targets as first responders arrive.

• Journalists and media outlets should cease the common practice of referring simply to “militant” deaths, without further explanation. All reporting of government accounts of “militant” deaths should include acknowledgment that the US government counts all adult males killed by strikes as “militants,” absent exonerating evidence. Media accounts relying on anonymous government sources should also highlight the fact of their single-source information and of the past record of false government reports.

Population-wise, Pakistan is the 6th biggest country in the world with 182,173,000 people. Compared to the U.S. or Europe it's very backward in many ways. But it is nuclear-armed. The regime in charge right now-- which has questionable legitimacy-- is surreptitiously on board with the U.S. drone policy. The people of Pakistan aren't-- not even a little. And the regime won't last forever. In fact, the regime is probably going to be around only a very short time. The hatred for America being engendered by this drone policy is very serious and it isn't being taken seriously by Congress. We'll get to that in a moment. Even a clown-- and war criminal-- like former Congressman Allen West recognizes the danger... at least now that he's no longer in Congress.

Now, as for the domestic problems with drones. As we warned all through the 2012 election cycle, House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon, a crooked little shit from Santa Clarita, CA, with a nose for graft and corruption, founded and chairs the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, AKA, the Drone Caucus. Busy creating a post-congressional career for himself, while helping to funnel millions of dollars in Military-Industrial Complex legalistic bribes into GOP coffers, McKeon is perfectly willing to trample of sacred American constitutional rights for the sake of his buddies at the drone manufacturing companies. He wrote and passed legislation that will fill American skies with tens of thousands of spy drones over the next decade. Yes, American skies, not just Pakistani, Afghani, Yemeni and Somalian skies. So what, you ask? This week Thom Hartmann tackled that question well:

Imagine you’re being stalked from the sky. Every time you go in or out of any building, it’s recorded. Everybody you talk with. Everyplace you drive or take public transportation. Your sky-stalker can see through your windows, read your lips, and, using infrared cameras, can even see if you’ve lit a cigarette-- of any type.

Shouldn’t this be illegal?

...Police helicopters, police trucks that can use infrared to see inside your house, and GPS units cops can attach to you car. In every case there’s a legitimate police use for these technologies, as well as an incredible potential for abuse.

The Fourth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights that Jefferson demanded Madison put into the Constitution as the price of getting Virginia’s ratification, is one sentence long. It says:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In other words, they can’t spy on you-- on you, personally-- unless they have enough proof to bring before a judge that you’re up to something that’s probably illegal.

In the case of the police helicopters, trucks, GPS units, and phone taps, to some extent both state governments, Congress, and the Supreme Court have brought their use into at least a marginal compliance with the Fourth Amendment.

Not so with drones. At least yet.

And that’s why the City of Charlottesville, Virginia-- a stone’s throw from Thomas Jefferson’s home-- did a beautiful thing this week in passing a resolution calling for a ban, for the moment, on drones in their skies.

The Rutherford Institute proposed the first draft of what ultimately became the resolution that was promoted by the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice. It included language that said:

“WHEREAS, the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia have thus far failed to provide reasonable legal restrictions on the use of drones within the United States; and

“WHEREAS, police departments throughout the country have begun implementing drone technology absent any guidance or guidelines from law makers…” there should be at two-year moratorium on using information obtained from them, or on weaponizing them.

As David Swanson notes in his blog on the CCPJ site, “without proper safeguards, these drones, some of which are deceptively small and capable of videotaping the facial expressions of people on the ground from hundreds of feet in the air, will usher in a new age of surveillance in American society. Not even those indoors, in the privacy of their homes, will be safe from these aerial spies, which can be equipped with technology capable of peering through walls.”

And that doesn’t even include the capability of these police drones to be weapon-equipped, from bullets to nerve gas. Or their ability to be hacked, or their data streams to be hijacked by malicious corporations, weird stalkers, or foreign governments.

What about your city council? Your state legislature? Congress is too corrupted by Military Industrial Complex cash. But would your local officials pass resolutions like the one Charlottesville did? Ask them... especially if they're running for office-- which they basically always are. It seems to be working in Seattle, where Mayor Mike McGinn ordered the police department to abandon its plan to use drones after residents and privacy advocates protested.

Buck McKeon-- riding drones all the way to the bank

Streams Of Consciousness, Dec. 5

McConnell Says Obama Has Already Raised The White Flag And Will Allow Minority Republicans To Set National Priorities And Policy

Senate Minority Leader Miss McConnell was the big guest on Meet the Press this morning. Having blocked middle class tax breaks for the middle class-- even when craven Democrats allowed that to be defined as anyone making up to a million dollars-- this weekend, Miss was feeling his oats. "I think it’s pretty clear now taxes are not going up on anybody in the middle of this recession. We’re discussing how long we should maintain current tax rates... I and my members feel that the American People feel strongly that taxes shouldn’t go up. I know our colleagues on the other side don’t see it that way. But look, all of-- all of Republicans in the Senate and a significant number of Democrats feel the same way. It isn’t going to happen... [T]his argument is over."

And he feels like Obama is coming around smartly to the way the elites want things run. "We’ve had more conversations in the last two weeks than we’ve had in the last two years. And I think that’s a good sign. A growing awareness that the power’s-- gonna be more symmetrical in the next-- Congress. And I’m optimistic we’ll be able to come together." Miss wants a permanent, budget destroying (a goal), extension of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires but his idea of a "compromise" is getting Obama to sign on to one that will expire just in time for another election so that Republicans can claim they stand for "tax cuts for all Americans." Obama is buying into this from some closet queen who never got more than 953,816 votes in his life-- and, obviously only from a segment of Kentucky voters-- while Obama was elected by 66,882,230 Americans.

He wants to be a two-term President. I want him to be a one-term President. The American People have put us both in charge for two more years. And we need to have a relationship with each other and see what we can do working together.

And in return for billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, the Republicans will agree to tossing a few scraps to working families with unemployed members. This way they're won't be anything unseemly, like dead children and whatnot this winter.

Band Of Broders

You don't want to get on Matt Taibbi's bad side if you can help it. Somehow I don't think that even in his best days-- when he wound up on Nixon's Enemies List-- David S. Broder would have ever quite measured up to this generation's Lester Bangs. And mixing him up with Matt Bai... well, only David Gergen could have come up with something like that. But I'm damn glad he did-- since it gave Taibbi cause to go after a whole set of social parasites weilding Bai as the club:

Bai is one of those guys-- there are hundreds of them in this business-- who poses as a wonky, Democrat-leaning "centrist" pundit and then makes a career out of drubbing "unrealistic" liberals and progressives with cartoonish Jane Fonda and Hugo Chavez caricatures. This career path is so well-worn in our business, it's like a Great Silk Road of pseudoleft punditry. First step: graduate Harvard or Columbia, buy some clothes at Urban Outfitters, shore up your socially liberal cred by marching in a gay rights rally or something, then get a job at some place like the American Prospect. Then once you're in, spend a few years writing wonky editorials gently chiding Jane Fonda liberals for failing to grasp the obvious wisdom of the WTC or whatever Bob Rubin/Pete Peterson Foundation deficit-reduction horseshit the Democratic Party chiefs happen to be pimping at the time. Once you've got that down, you just sit tight and wait for the New York Times or the Washington Post to call. It won't be long.
 
Bai is the poster child of those guys. So naturally Gergen must have been shocked to see, well, Matt Bai screaming kill-the-rich brickbats at him over coffee and pastries. A few of us that afternoon had a laugh imagining that somewhere, at that very moment, David Gergen was telling someone what an asshole Matt Bai is. I wonder if anyone's filled him in on the mistake yet.

That isn't really what Taibbi's post was about today. It was really about elites who think robbing Social Security a second time to pay for the continuation of the obscene Bush tax cuts...

... well, that's "demanding fealty to the one" and "brooking no dissent" and lacking "thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas."

On the other hand, approving those Social Security cuts and green-lighting the continuation of those insane tax breaks-- tax breaks that were extremely radical even by Republican standards when Bush originally passed them amid two preposterously expensive war effort -- well, that's being "pragmatic" and seeing "all dogma " as "anachronistic."
 
Here's what this all comes down to, dogma or no dogma: who is going to pay for a) the Bush tax cuts b) the bank bailouts and c) the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? If you want to get there by making janitors and pipe-fitters wait until they're 69 to retire, raise your hand. If you want to get there by making Jamie Dimon rent out his 900-foot rooftop terrace in Chicago two nights a year, raise your hand.
 
The really infuriating thing? Bai has it backwards. The real consensus, i.e. the consensus of actual human beings, outside Washington, overwhelmingly backs the idea of not fucking with Social Security benefits and ending the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $250,000. In fact, only 26% of Americans support extending the cuts for everybody.
 
So when Bai talks about "bipartisanship" and suggests that extending the Bush cuts is a move to the center, what he's talking about is the Washington consensus.
 
In some very vague way I suppose it could be argued that Barack Obama crawling into bed with John Boehner represents "post-partisanship," but if you want to talk about building actual political bridges, the only meaningful way to achieve that is through the union of voters on the left who want to end the Bush tax cuts, and the voters on the right who want to end the Bush tax cuts. Unite the elderly Democrats who want to hold on to their Social Security Benefits and the elderly Republicans who want the same thing. That's bipartisanship, but not in the way these Silk Road types like it.

King County Leading The Way For Grassroots Democrats Nationally

One of my buds in Congress got out of a Democratic caucus meeting one evening last fall and called me completely depressed and exasperated. He predicted at the time that the Democrats would lose dozens of House seats, more than anyone was expecting at the time, because the politicians in the congressional delegation no longer even knew how to ask voters to support them. The party, he was sure, has become more and more hollowed out as the career politicians in Washington lose touch with their bases. That's why last month we didn't only see freshmen's seats and open seats falling to the Republicans but also the seats of powerful Members with decades of seniority, like John Spratt (SC), Earl Pomeroy (SD), Solomon Ortiz (TX), Chet Edwards (TX), Paul Kanjorski (PA), Lincoln Davis (TN), Bob Etheridge (NC), and Gene Taylor (MS)-- that's 163 years of combined seniority there. Local party machinery is rusted and moribund, real campaigning given over to slick but incompetent and expensive TV ad makers. And he said the leadership was determined to make the DCCC worse-- much, much, much worse-- not better. He got me as depressed as he was.

I finally snapped out of it today when I read this post from one of the new members of the King County Democratic Party leadership team. King County (Seattle) is one of the largest and most Democratic counties in America. Population-wise, it's the fourteenth or fifteenth largest county in America-- and it's certainly the reason Patty Murray is still in the United States Senate, and the reason Chris Gregoire is Washington's governor. It's crucial that King County, and other urban counties like it across America, be home to a strong, democratic organization if Democrats are to have a chance to recover from the Obama/Blue Dog disaster. And as of yesterday, this is one County Democratic Committee that has moved confidently into the future.

Admittedly, the Democratic Party is not yet as democratic as it should be. Many Americans equivocate the Democratic Party with the current crop of Democratic officeholders in our nation's capital — including President Obama, who is sometimes referred to as the leader of the party, by virtue of his office. But the real leaders of the party are the hundreds of thousands of Democratic precinct committee officers and precinct captains across this country. They deserve a party leadership that is accountable to them and the Democratic voters they represent.

What needs to happen for the Democratic Party to become more democratic is this: The movement must become the establishment, while remaining the movement. I know that sounds confusing, so I'll put it another way: We have to crash the gate (as Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong said) and displace the establishment without becoming corrupted ourselves. We have to remain true to what we stand for, no matter what. Power entails responsibility.

I believe everyone who was elected this morning is committed to building a democratic Democratic Party. I am proud to be serving as King County's new Second Vice Chair alongside fellow NPI boardmember Steve Zemke, who has succeeded Suzie Sheary as the next chair, and the many other talented and enthusiastic officers who were elected or reelected.

Addicts Never Tell The Truth To Their Pushers

And Thomas Friedman may miss most of the big stuff on a very regular basis, but he sure got that one right. Arabs hate Persians... but they hate their own feudal brutal dictators-- and us-- even more.

While the Saudis are urging us to take out Iran’s nuclear capability, we learn from the cables that private Saudi donors today still constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide-- not to mention the fundamentalist mosques, charities and schools that spawn the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. So basically our oil payments are cycled through Saudi Arabia and end up funding the very militants whom our soldiers are fighting. But don’t think we don’t have allies. ... The [wikileaks] cables tell us about Ahmed Zia Massoud, an Afghan vice president from 2004 to 2009, who now owns a palatial home in Dubai, where, according to one cable, he was caught by customs officials carrying $52 million in unexplained cash. It seems from these cables that the U.S. often has to pay leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan to be two-faced-- otherwise they would just be one-faced and against the U.S. in both public and private.

...Yes, these are our allies-- people whose values we do not and never will share. “O.K.,” our Saudi, Gulf, Afghan and Pakistani allies tell us, “we may not be perfect, but the guys who would replace us would be much worse. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are one-faced. They say what they mean in public and private: They hate America.”

That’s true, but if we are stuck supporting bad regimes because only worse would follow, why can’t we do anything to make them reform? That brings us to the sobering message in so many of these cables: America lacks leverage. America lacks leverage in the Middle East because we are addicted to oil. We are the addicts and they are the pushers, and addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.

When we import $28 billion a month in oil, we can’t say to the Saudis: “We know the guys who would come after you would be much worse, but why do we have to choose between your misrule and corruption and their brutality and intolerance?” We’re just stuck supporting a regime that, sure, fights Al Qaeda at home, but uses our money to fund a religious ideology, schools, mosques and books that ensure that Al Qaeda will always have a rich pool of recruits in Saudi Arabia and abroad. We also lack leverage with the Chinese on North Korea, or with regard to the value of China’s currency, because we’re addicted to their credit.

Geopolitics is all about leverage. We cannot make ourselves safer abroad unless we change our behavior at home. But our politics never connects the two.

John Bolton Telling Brits Who The Real Enemy Is-- Barack Obama

What passes for conventional wisdom in GOP Establishment circles is that any Republican can beat Obama in 2012 except maybe Palin (more on that tomorrow)-- and Louisiana quack Bobby Jindal says Palin absolutely could win. But if you write Jindal off as just some southern hack pol with a lot of bucktoothed rednecks whose votes he'll need to be reelected governor, bucktoothed rednecks who will be interested in seeing who Palin endorses in that race next year, then you still have conventional wisdom claiming only Palin is inept and ridiculous enough to not be able to take out Obama, who even liberals want to see out of the White House as soon as possible. But what about, what about... what about self-declared possible candidate John Bolton? Is he too beneath contempt for the Republican Establishment to consider? Today he penned a "Comment Is Free" column for the Guardian over in England. His premise is that Obama is more a threat than wikileaks.

More troubling than WikiLeaks' latest revelation of US secrets, however, is the Obama administration's weak, wrong-headed and erratic response. Unfortunately, the administration has acted consistently with its demonstrated unwillingness to assert and defend US interests across a wide range of threats, such as Iran and North Korea, which, ironically, the leaked cables amply document.

Palin is too lazy and undisciplined and is making too much loot to really run but Bolton is someone Obama could beat too. They should talk him up more.