What Will Obama's Presidential Library Cost The Progressive Movement?

When Obama stabbed Joe Sestak in the back during the 2010 Pennsylvania primary in the ill-conceived establishment rush to support Republican-turned-faux-Democrat Arlen Specter, Specter was up by 30 points. The earliest polls all showed Spector crushing Sestak. Three months after Specter switched parties, the July 19, 2009 Quinnipiac poll, for example, had Specter running away with it, 55-23%. The whole corruption-ridden Democratic Establishment, especially corporate Democrats Ed Rendell, Harry Reid and Joe Biden put pressure of Sestak to drop out. Obama offered Sestak a cushy job if he would withdrawn from the race; he refused. Then Obama cut the ad. Specter spent $17,486,421 during the primary. But the more Obama, Biden, Rendell and the other establishment bosses campaigned for him, the more Specter's polling numbers dropped and Sestak's rose. By late April, 2010 Quinnipiac reported a poll showing Specter still ahead with 47% but Sestak was gaining and had risen 16 points to 39%. By May 12, Quinnipiac was showing it essentially tied, Specter 44%, Sestak 42%. The primary was May 18 and Quinnipiac released one last poll 2 days before. After an onslaught of Obama ads targeted hard at African-American audiences, Specter had fallen behind with 41% to Sestak's 42%. Two days later the news was much bleaker for the Establishment and their conservative candidate. Sestak beat Specter 568,563 (53.9%) to 487,217 (46.1%).

The Democratic establishment never really got behind Sestak during the general election battle with Toomey. Specter's chief of staff, David Urban, went to work for Toomey's campaign rounding up conservative Democratic support. The DSCC spent $1.4 million on Specter during the primary but only $200,000 on Sestak during the general. The race was extremely close in a cycle very favorable to Republicans, in which the GOP beat the Democrats in Massachusetts, Illinois, Arkansas, Indiana and Wisconsin. Democrats failed to pick up any Republican Senate seats at all. Sestak came closer to victory-- only about 1% separated him and Toomey-- than any other Democrat including incumbents Russ Feingold and Blanche Lincoln who the DSCC spent millions on. Had the DSCC spent on Sestak, he would have won the seat.

Now he's trying again and, once again, the DSCC, Reid, Rendell, Biden and Obama are campaigning against him. This time they have an even more ridiculous candidate than Specter, Katie McGinty, who polls indicate that Pennsylvania's Democratic voters are utterly turned off to. New York political boss, the heir to Tammany Hall, Chuck Schumer, is orchestrating the campaign against Sestak and, nationally, against any Democrat who is independent enough to stand up against Schumer's allies (and financiers) on Wall Street. Obama endorsed the female version of Schumer last week, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the single most hated Democrat by the Democratic grassroots anywhere in the country. (You can contribute to her opponent in the FL-23 congressional race, Tim Canova here).

On that same page, you will also find Alan Grayson, the progressive icon in the Florida Senate race who Schumer and Wall Street have declared war on in favor of pathetic "ex"-Republican Schumercrat Patrick Murphy, known in the halls of Congress as "Wall Street's errand boy." Obama, eager for the Schumer-engineered contributions for his presidential library from Wall Street banksters and from Murphy's Republican parents, endorsed Murphy despite Murphy's shockingly anti-Obama voting record. Murphy, for example, didn't just vote for the Keystone XL Pipeline every time the Republicans brought it up in the House, he was one of just a tiny handful of extreme right-wing Democrats who voted for the Republican bill to take Obama out of the decision-making process on Keystone, a proposal Grayson countered at the time with a constitutional challenge.

Murphy was also one of just a tiny bunch of right-wing Democrats to vote for the Republican plan to derail Hillary Clinton's presidential bid with the creation of a special committee to use the Benghazi tragedy to smear her. Murphy has worked with the Republicans to repeal Obamacare, to deal a death blow to Wall Street reform in return for legalistic bribes, and to compromise away Social Security benefits for the elderly using the Republican longtime trope about "saving it."

I'm thinking this worthless endorsement of McGinty by Obama can just be filed away under the growing list of shameful Obama endorsements. It worked to kill Regina Thomas' campaign, although ultimately led to the loss of a Georgia seat to the Republicans but Sestak won despite Obama last time and I bet he can again. It will be interesting see if Canova can overcome Wasserman Schultz and if Grayson can beat back the Murphy money onslaught. A new poll from PPP of the Florida Senate race yesterday showed Grayson still beating Murphy despite Schumer and Biden and Obama-- or maybe that establishment garbage is working against Murphy in this very unique political year. This, from the PPP survey of likely Florida Democratic primary voters is ominous for Murphy and his establishment backers:

If you'd like to help Grayson's and Canova's grassroots campaigns, they're both on this page of progressive candidates running for the Senate and the House this year.

UPDATE: DSCC Would Rather Elect Toomey Again Than See Joe Sestak Win

Joe Sestak's campaign sent out an e-mail to their supporters today denouncing the DSCC for their sabotage of his campaign. This is Schumer and Tester at work:

In 2010, Washington D.C.’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) did something it had never done before: it gave a candidate in a contested primary the $1.4 million it had always reserved for the general election. Nevertheless, Sen. Arlen Specter lost to Joe Sestak.

The day after the primary, Pat Toomey began spending millions of dollars on TV ads against Joe that went unanswered-- unanswered, because the DSCC financing meant to be available for a Democrat in the general election was spent propping up Specter in the primary. Undefended on TV, Joe dropped 18 points in the polls before he raised replacement funds for his own TV ads months later. Dogged, Joe only lost by 2%, but Pat Toomey became PA’s Senator.

On Friday, DSCC took the same dangerous action for the 2nd time in its history-- again, in PA. With Joe now ahead by 17% against a primary opponent who has no more of her own money to spend, DSCC placed $450K into this week’s TV buy against Joe-- the beginning of the full $1.9 million DSCC can do in 2016-- in order to dictate who Pennsylvanians should pick.

Worse, spending the $1.9 million in the primary means it once again won’t be available for the general election-- and this time Pat Toomey has $10 million in ready campaign cash for unanswered TV ads the day after the primary. The DSCC is handing Pat Toomey his election-- once again.

Dem Party leaders in Washington are taking money that should be used to beat Pat Toomey and instead using it to prop up a candidate trailing by 17% in the polls just because the top Dem Senate leaders will not accept Admiral Joe Sestak’s independent thought and people-first approach.

Nothing Is Ever The Fault Of Robert Menendez, Worst DSCC Chairman In History

The good news for Jack Conway yesterday was that Trey Grayson announced he wouldn't be challenging him next year in the Attorney General race. (Conway is likely to face Garland Hale Barr IV, AKA- "Andy," the lobbyist who was defeated by Ben Chandler 3 weeks ago. Barr IV's biggest accomplishment is that he's the only member of Ernie Fletcher's inner circle who hasn't been indicted yet. Conway is likely to have a smooth ride to reelection.)

Less pleasant for Conway, I'm guessing, is the braying about his campaign from the worst DSCC head in history, greasy New Jersey ward boss, Robert Menendez. Menendez has been complaining to the press that the Aqua Buddha ad is what did Conway in and that if only he had had a chance to see it first...

Like Menendez's DSCC Executive Director, J.B. Poersch, I did get to see the ad first. Unlike Poersch, I didn't like the ad-- and let the campaign know. I never think Democrats should be questioning whether or not someone is a "good Christian." It's offensive, even if it is the language many voters in rural Kentucky speak. Rand Paul's a kook and there was nothing in the ad that wasn't true; I just felt it was the wrong message for Conway to be sending out. I never discussed it with him directly but I heard at the time he was unsure as well. His consultants, some of whom were "suggested" by the DSCC, were telling him they needed to cut through the television clutter, clutter caused by Rove and other perverters of democracy spending millions of dollars on non-stop television ads lying about his record and his motivations and his platform. Others advisors were unsure about the ad. Poersch wasn't unsure and he spoke for the DSCC. The ad itself was made by Mandy Grunwald, one of the DSCC-approved media consultants. It got over 451,000 YouTube hits, the most of any video relating to the Kentucky campaign, only the 412,000-plus views of Rand Paul thugs stomping on the head of a woman coming even close.

In the end, Conway had the same problem Democrats across the country had. Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters didn't turn out in high enough numbers. Conway actually won among women 53-47% but this was the year of the angry white male and they turned out in droves-- and went for Paul 54-46%. Even Conway's wins in Louisville and Lexington couldn't turn the tide of lots of incoherent, pissed off, Obama-hating white men. Paul led with 755,061 (56%) to Conway's 598,885 (44%). Conway was swamped with third party ads from Rove, the Chamber of Commerce and other shady GOP front groups. Paul himself spent $6,068,547 to Conway's $4,270,349. But that's only a small part of the story. The DSCC only spent $1,586,482.38 in Kentucky, compared to $5,932,520.09 trying to beat Mark Kirk in Illinois, $2,349,325.00 trying to beat Roy Blunt in Missouri, $8,665,340.75 trying to beat Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania... or $3,947,487.12 electing the guy in West Virginia campaigning against the Democratic agenda-- you know, the one who shot up the energy bill in his ads. Meanwhile the NRSC spent $1,846,597.00 running ads against Conway. American Cross Roads ran $1,439,825.97 worth of smears, followed by Crossroads GPS (Rove's other sleazy outfit) which ran $867,443.28. The U.S. Chamber, knowing Conway is an ardent opponent of outsourcing, spent $1,254,010.00 against him.

Conway seems to be taking full responsibility for running the Aqua Buddha ad, of course. And he hasn't had anything to say about Menendez's finger-pointing. We'll come back to Menendez soon. I'm tying together the loose ends of the story on how Menendez-- who couldn't accomplish much-- did manage to torpedo Elaine Marshall's Senate campaign after she beat his handpicked white bread candidate in North Carolina.

What Will The New Senate Look Like?

UGLY! I mean, many of us harbored an impossible dream of abolishing the Senate-- or devolving it into a ceremonial outfit like the British House of Lords... and that was when there was a so-called filibuster-proof Democratic majority! Over the last two years, as the House passed one piece after another of a progressive agenda whose time had come, the Senate it watered each down, sat on it or killed it. Dozens and dozens of good bills that passed the House never saw the light of day once it got to the Senate. And now it will be worse... much, much worse.

Needless to say, if there was a transpartisan conservative majority to do the bidding of the country's elites before, now it will be a Senate prepared to institute a monarchy if that's what they were tasked with by their paymasters. And perhaps the single worst new member isn't even one of the flag waving, DeMint-led teabaggers like Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), Marco Rubio (R-FL), or-- more or less-- Pat Toomey (R-PA). Instead the new senator poised to do the most harm to any semblance of a progressive agenda is putative Democrat Joe Maintain (WV). You remember Maintain, right? He was the conservative who tried to persuade West Virginia voters he was further to the right than lunatic fringe multimillionaire Birches John Raise by shooting up copies of Democratic legislation in a campaign ad -- while the DST lavished $3,947,487.12 on his campaign. Take a look:



Manchin won with 53.5% of the vote and goes to Washington with a mandate to... well, look at the ad again. Then remember he'll be inside the Democratic caucus. Something tells me he's not going to be palsy walsy with Bernie Sanders or Al Franken either. And something tells me that Ben Nelson, let alone Joe Lieberman, is going to feel put upon that no one will be referring to him as the worst Democrat in the Senate any longer.

Now on the other side of the aisle, we have a clear mix of self-styled aristocrats-- like in wanna be plutocrats and robber baron types-- and old fashioned crackpots. Even without Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle or, presumably, Rob Miller-- my guess is that Alaska will have a new senator sometime halfway through 2011-- the crazy has arrived.

Yesterday ThinkProgress took a look at the new GOP freshman class, both Houses. For the sake of this post, let's take a look at the 13 new Republican senators:

John Boozman (AZ)- GW CC BC RI TP ET BB

Marco Rubio (FL)- GW CC TP ET BB

Mark Kirk (IL)- CC

Dan Coats (IN)- GW CC TP ET BB

Jerry Moran (KS)- GW CC BC RI TP

Rand Paul (KY)- GW CC BC TP ET BB

Roy Blunt (MO)- GW CC BC RI TP ET

Kelly Ayotte (NH)- GW CC TP ET BB

John Hoeven (ND)- GW

Rob Portman (OH)- TP

Pat Toomey (PA)- GW TP ET

Mike Lee (UT)- CC BC TP ET BB

Ron Johnson (WI)- GW CC TP ET BB


So, assuming-- as seems likely now-- that Patty Murray was reelected (they're still counting but it doesn't seem that close), there will be 53 Democrats (if you care to include Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and Joe Manchin as Democrats) and 47 Republicans in the Senate. I can't imagine that her near death experience is going to make Lisa Murkowski less doctrinaire or obstructionist than she's been until now, and with Olympia Snowe likely to face a teabaggy challenge in 2012 (in a state that just elected a hard core teabaggy governor), that isn't a direction in which to look for any sudden profiles in courage either. Scott Brown is also being threatened by teabaggers if he dares to diverge from DeMint on anything at all. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal, assuming, probably correctly, that DeMint would insist on a filibuster of almost everything, speculated that "a more closely divided Senate could make it harder to assemble the 60 votes needed to pass most bills.

Reid said the election results left the parties no choice but to work together-- and that he wanted to do so. But he also said Republicans have been uniformly obstructionist over the past two years.

"The ball is in their court," Mr. Reid. "We made the message very clear that we want to work with the Republicans. If they're unwilling to work with us, there's not a thing we can do about it."

GOP leaders don't see it that way, saying voters rewarded them for blocking Democratic initiatives.
"What the American people were saying yesterday is they appreciate us saying no to things the American people indicated they were not in favor of," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.).

Now, he said, it's up to the Democrats to move the Republicans' way.

That might be easier said than done, with the new Senate still including a strong faction of impassioned liberals, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), as well as a group of staunch conservatives like Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R., Ky.).

With every senator having the ability to bring the Senate to a halt under its arcane rules, gridlock in the chamber is a serious risk.

That kind of gridlock is just what the financiers of the Republican victories, shady billionaire businessmen and economic competitors from China and India, were buying with their $3 to 4 billion. The idea of replacing a political giant like Russ Feingold with a crackpot Know Nothing pip-squeak like Ron Johnson.

Maine And Florida Democratic Party Pathos... I Mean Bathos

Paul didn't have time for his makeup before the shoot

If really stupid and extremist teabaggers like Paul LePage (R-ME) and really corrupt and extremist teabaggers like Marco Rubio (R-FL) don't have quite the heft it takes to win high office on their own... well, that's what the Democratic Party is for. LePage, who has an ugly 51% disapproval rating, is about to be elected governor of Maine. And Rubio, with too many financial impropriety scandals to mention, can use those drapes fellow crackpot Joe Miller was too quick to measure in the Senate office building. Three-way races propelled each to a position where there's little that can stop them now. Keep in mind that in 2008 Obama won both states, Maine with a very solid 58% and Florida with a tighter, but more startling 51%.

Since few outside of Maine are following that race, let's start there. The Democrat state Senate President Libby Mitchell, is well-liked inside the political establishment but has run for so many thing so many times that voters seem tired of her. 56% of Mainers polled by PPP say they disapprove of her (an even worse ranking than LePage's). But compared to her, the part time mayor of Waterville [pop. 15,605] and the General Manager of Marden's Surplus and Salvage, is a fresh face-- even if he is a crank and a threat to much of what Mainers hold dear (outside of crankdom itself). The fact that the best-liked of the candidates is an independent, Eliot Cutler, makes it impossible for Mitchell to find a path to victory.

What's most remarkable about LePage's likely victory is that it comes despite the fact that a majority of Maine voters don't like him. 51% of them have an unfavorable opinion of him to only 42% who see him in a positive light. But because he has a relatively unified conservative base while Democratic leaning voters are splitting almost evenly between Mitchell and Cutler he's in a position to win without coming anywhere close to 50% of the vote.

LePage is winning Republicans, who because of the enthusiasm gap are actually the largest group of voters in Maine this year, by a 71-18 margin. Mitchell is pretty much out of contention at this point because she is barely taking even a majority of Democratic voters, holding a 51-30 advantage over Cutler. Cutler meanwhile has the advantage with independents at 40% to 31% for LePage and with Mitchell registering at only 17%.

There's one way to keep LePage from winning and, if he can, ruining the state. Mitchell would have to step aside and endorse Cutler. If she would, it's likely he'd win. But she won't. There's a similar situation in Florida. In fact, people have been not sending in early ballots in anticipation of either Charlie Crist or Kendrick Meek dropping out to stop Rubio. Apparently that ain't happening either. The latest polling in the Florida race for the open Senate seat shows Rubio with a 42% plurality to 35% for Crist and 15% for Meek.

First a little background: Dan Gelber was muscled out of the race to make room for the highly unaccomplished Kendrick Meek's sake. Why, when Gelber would certainly be an A+ as a senator while Meek struggled between a D and a C? The thinking was that no one really expected Meek to win but there was the hope he would inspire lots and lots of energetic "Obama voters" for Alex Sink and other Florida Democrats. I'm sure she must have almost had a heart attack if the most unreliable reporter at Politico happens to have his facts right (for a change) and Clinton really did nearly talk Meek into dropping out and endorsing Crist.

Personal experience has shown me that Ben Smith is a ridiculous and credulous excuse for a reporter who can be effortlessly drawn into anyone's personal agenda. But he's asserting that the White was aware that Clinton was persuading Meek to endorse Crist and that Meek actually agreed... twice!

Meek, a staunch Clinton ally from Miami, has failed to broaden his appeal around the state and is mired in third place in most public polls, with a survey today showing him with just 15 percent of the vote. His withdrawal, polls suggest, would throw core Democratic voters to the moderate governor, rocking a complicated three-way contest and likely throwing the election to Crist.

The former president’s top aide, Doug Band, initially served as the intermediary between Meek and Crist, and Clinton became involved only when Meek signaled that he would seriously consider the option, Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna confirmed to Politico.

“The argument was: ‘You can be a hero here. You can stop him, you can change this race in one swoop,’” said another Democrat familiar with the conversations, who said Clinton had bluntly told Meek that he couldn’t win the race.

Democrats really should just try to pick the best candidates and stop with the fancy strategies. They're really bad at it. And now we'll have Marco Rubio to deal with for God-knows-how-long... even if Florida does wind up with a governor wearing a blue t-shirt... whoopie!

Has The GOP Lost Its Collective Mind? And What The Hell Is Going On In Delaware?

You may think Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey are the biggest crackpots running for the Senate this year? (Please don't get me started on the batch of drooling miscreants they have running for the House and other positions, like the Ohio meth freak in the video above). Well, who could argue? At least today... but let's revisit this after Tuesday's GOP primary in Delaware. There's a chance-- a small one-- that the Tea Bag Express could take out mainstream conservative corporate shill Mike Castle (a major Wall Street darling) and replace him with someone on a Sharron Angle/Rand Paul level, Christine O'Donnell. In fact, a friend of mine described her as "like a less polished Sharron Angle." Chew on that!

Short version: O'Donnell is another extremist and radical far removed from the American mainstream, almost like Joe Miller. Her latest tactic is to question Mike Castle's sexuality and imply that he's a closet case-- a possible Lindsey Graham, Larry Craig or Mitch McConnell type of character. That's the rumor... ha, ha, ha. Any proof? Conservatives usually attack Democrats with the smears and they're used to not bothering with proof. Now they're turning it on their own. (Not that Castle hasn't fought back-- with a website painting O'Donnell as a crook and a kook, who plays fast and loose with her campaign contributions.)

O'Donnell's got Castle so scared that he's spending money hand over fist in a primary he never thought he would have to spend a nickel on. And the Tea Party Express is putting their money into the race. Both sides are being financed by shady financiers of right-wing causes, Wall Street in Castle's case, power-mad and dangerous plutocratic families in O'Donnell's case, the same families that just replaced mainstream conservative Lisa Murkowski with lunatic fringe Joe Miller in Alaska. In fact, Sarah Palin has weighed in on O'Donnell's side against Castle, who voted-- twice-- for Bush's no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout (TARP) and for all the horrible trade policies that have sent U.S. jobs overseas. Yesterday the NRA also endorsed her. And yesterday evening:



The Delaware Republican Party is panicking that there one chance for a Senate seat in years is in jeopardy because of the perception most people in the state-- including many Republicans-- is that O'Donnell is out of her mind. Now-- not unlike the Tallahassee GOP bosses down in Florida and that state's Tea Party, the Delaware GOP Establishment and the teabaggers are taking each other to court.

The Republican Party of Delaware has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission, accusing one of its own Senate candidates of illegally collaborating with the Tea Party Express.

Attorneys for the state party asked the FEC to launch an immediate and thorough investigation into conservative GOP candidate Christine O'Donnell "to remedy the alleged violations and to ensure that these violations immediately cease and do not reoccur," according to the complaint filed Thursday.

O'Donnell, who faces Rep. Mike Castle in Tuesday's primary, came under fire from the state party shortly after tea-party backed candidate Joe Miller upset Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska GOP primary.

Following the Alaska race, the Tea Party Express redirected its efforts to Delaware. The organization's chairwoman Amy Kremer noted that 10 staffers are on site and vowed to spend $250,000 to help O'Donnell before the primary.

The complaint alleges that the O'Donnell campaign is "knowingly accepting illegal campaign contributions from the Tea Party Express PAC." It cites two "alarming" instances:

-- O'Donnell has knowingly accepted excessive contributions from the Tea Party Express that were directly solicited on behalf of the O'Donnell campaign, according to the filing.

-- O'Donnell has accepted illegal excessive contributions from the Tea Party Express by engaging in a statewide coordinated communications effort in support of her campaign. This means, according to the complaint, that every advertisement that is being run by the Tea Party Express in support of Ms. O'Donnell is a violation of Federal law.

The issue won't be resolved before Tuesday.

An FEC spokeswoman said it was "highly unlikely that the case could be expedited before the primary."

Delaware State GOP Chairman Tom Ross offered this statement:

"Christine O'Donnell needs to immediately call upon her third party supporters to cease and desist this illegal behavior," he said. "This type of behavior has no place in our political process, and O'Donnell should denounce these illegal ads. Donors deserve to know whether they made an illegal donation so they can demand a refund and get their money back."

This sets up the grounds in advance to challenge O'Donnell's victory on Tuesday if enough crazed Fox viewers and Limbaugh listeners turn out for the vote-- it's a closed primary; only Republicans can vote-- and get her nominated. Few know that she's adamantly opposed to extramarital sex and masturbation or that she's a "movement conservative." Polling shows that Castle and O'Donnell are in a statistical dead heat among likely voters-- and that conservative Democrat Chris Coons would beat O'Donnell by double digits.

Blue America Welcomes Back Jack Conway (D-KY)

Today Blue America is helping Kentucky Attorney General and Senate candidate Jack Conway kick Rand Paul's ass from Ashland to Hickman, Covington to Harlan. Today? Yes, today is Jack's money-bomb and we want to make sure he beats the $246,000 the uncertified Texas eye doctor so... here's the place. Yesterday he told us about his plans to help Congressman Mike Capuano get his Shareholder Protection Act through the Senate next year. Capuano's bill, H.R. 4790, requires a shareholder vote on a corporation’s proposed political budget, giving shareholders the opportunity to weigh in on the use of these funds. January’s Supreme Court decision on Citizens United v. FEC established that corporations cannot be prohibited from spending general treasury funds on political campaigns because it would violate their free speech rights. Capuano's legislation gives shareholders the ability to exercise their free speech rights by voting to approve or reject these expenditures. The Supreme Court decision effectively increases the influence of money in politics and diminishes the voice of the voter. Conway, like Capuano, thinks we should be working to limit outside influence on elections, not giving corporations a louder voice. The legislation is a simple and direct way to ensure that corporate political expenditures reflect the will of the shareholders, since the money in question belongs to the shareholders.

Jack told us he's been sickened by the way the Citizens United decision "opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to spend millions of dollars attacking candidates in pursuit of their own agendas."

However, this bill requires a shareholder vote on a corporation’s proposed political budget and would give shareholders a say in how the funds are spent. It also makes the corporation report how it spent its political dollars, after the fact, so the real owners of the company-- the shareholders-- know where their money went.

Last week, a corporate-funded group led by George W. Bush’s chief strategist Karl Rove launched a second attack ad against me in as many weeks. Rove's special interest attack group, American Crossroads, has pledged to spend 49 million corporate dollars attacking Democrats this fall and boosting people like Rand Paul.

I need your help fighting back against Rove and Rand Paul. Paul said he opposes provisions of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and federal student financial aid, such as college loans. I disagree. These laws and initiatives reflect core American values like equal rights and opportunity. We should be standing up for these values, not tearing them down.

Jack's going to be joining us over at Crooks and Liars at 11am (PT) for a free-ranging question and answer session. We'll do our best to hold the Paultards at bay but please surf over and join in-- and please consider donating to Jack's effort at our Blue America Senate page.

Can 2010 electoral disaster be averted? Drew Westen and Mike Lux weigh in

"What Democrats have needed to offer the American people is a clear narrative about what and who led our country to the mess in which we find ourselves today and a clear vision of what and who will lead us out."

-- Drew Westen, in a new AlterNet post, 

"What Created the Populist Explosion and How 

Democrats Can Avoid the Shrapnel in November"

by Ken

I don't know if you're as sick and tired (already!) of thumb-sucking speculation about the 2010 elections, but it's hard to stay away from it, given the stakes. Even a month or two ago it was still possible to believe that, yes, the Democrats might suffer losses in both houses of Congress, but those losses would be concentrated among members who are more part of the problem than the solution to congressional fecklessness and inaction. It was even possible to imagine that the smaller Democratic majorities might actually be more responsive to the real needs of the American people.

Now that's still a possible outcome, but I don't think anyone's advancing it with a lot of confidence these days. The combination of the reality-defying filth the Republicans and the Right generally have been pumping into the public arena going back to the 2008 elections plus the Bush economic meltdown (and the Obama hand-wave at the resulting mess) plus the massive amounts of right-wing megabucks being poured into every form of politicking in anticipation of the election plus the absence of any counter-argument by those foundering Democrats has put everything up for grabs.

Our pal Mike Lux has a swell piece over at OpenLeft, "Weirdest political cycle ever?, in which he stakes out this position: "This has been a pretty weird political cycle, and I'm starting to wonder whether it is the strangest ever. . . . The weirdness I am referring to is this odd sense I have that both parties are trying so hard to lose."

Documenting the weirdnes, Mike -- after highlighting the more conspicuously self-destructive crazinesses on the part of the official major parties these last two years -- points out:

As a result of all this silliness, both parties' approval ratings are in the toilet. This is a pretty unusual dynamic. In 1994, Republicans' popularity was going up as Dems were going down, and in both 2006 and 2008, Dems' numbers were going up while Bush and Republicans' numbers in general were tanking. Today, two months out from the big election, voters are ticked off at both parties, and that's before the fall attack ad season.

"What's a Democrat to do," he asks, " in this weird and awful political environment?" Allowing that every race is individual, he offers four overall prescriptions, for which you should really read the explanations in his post:

1. Get out every last Democratic base voter you can.
2. Show independence from Obama, but not in a way that undermines the Democratic brand and turns off base voters.
3. Show your anger at the special interests, but also have a substitute plan for improving things.
4. Be specific in going after waste in government.

And he sums up the situation thusly:

In spite of the Republican extremists being nominated, this is going to be an incredibly tough year to be a Democrat on the ballot. We are going to lose a lot of seats in both houses of Congress and downballot as well. But if Democrats turn out their base voters, take on the big banks and insurers and oil companies, and show they are focused on fighting for the middle class, they can hold their losses to a minimum.

Meanwhile, in-a-class-by-himself communications specialist and political strategist Drew Westen has delivered a major essay, "What Created the Populist Explosion and How Democrats Can Avoid the Shrapnel in November," and like all of his major essays, it's must reading. I always hate to paraphrase Drew, because communications is what he does, and it tends to turn out that the way he makes a point and establishes an argument is the way the point should be made and the argument established. But I do want to give you a sense of the scope of the piece.

Drew lays out his premise:

To say that the American people are angry is an understatement. The political brain of Americans today reflects a volatile mixture of fear and fury, and when you mix those together, you get an explosion. The only question at this point is how to mitigate the damage when the bomb detonates in November.

The bad news is that it's too late for Democrats to do what would have been both good policy and good politics (and what the House actually did do), namely to pass a major jobs bill when it was clear that the private sector couldn't keep Americans employed. . . .

He arguest that the public mood "can be characterized by a single phrase -- populist anger -- and it cuts across partisan lines," and after looking at the right and left vantage points, he does his re-creation of the how-we-got-here drama part in a discussion headed "How to Create a Populist Explosion: A Tragedy in Two Acts."

Act I: The GOP Sets the Country on a Course of Economic Destruction and the President Calls for Truth and Reconciliation without the Truth Part

Act II: An Anemic Economy Meets an Anemic Health Care Plan

I think you'll get the general idea, but I assure you, you'll want to revisit this sorry story in Drew's retelling. In particular, I think you'll be fascinated by this point in Act I: "The White House refuses to tell the American people three stories they desperately need to hear."

The first is why the economy has gone into the ditch, and who did it. The president is steadfast in his position that we should "look forward, not backward," even as the GOP is blocking his every initiative to clean up its mess. As conservative attacks on him and Democrats increase, he refuses to indict the Republicans in Congress or President Bush for having destroyed our economy and putting one in eight Americans out of work and one in five either behind on their mortgage or in the process of having their homes foreclosed by the same bankers who gambled them away.

[And then Drew explains why it should have been so important for the president "to tell the American people who was responsible for their misery -- and to repeat it again and again."]

The second story the American people needed to hear from the president was why deficit spending is essential when the economy is spiraling downward. It's not a hard story to tell, even in a sound bite. But one of the best educators to occupy the Oval Office in decades chose not to educate -- he actually did it once, with prodding, but never repeated what was a superb explanation --- nor did he remind voters every time his opponents attacked him for deficit spending that they had left him with a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit on the day he walked into office because of their unpaid-for tax cuts to millionaires and unpaid-for war on Iraq . . .

The third story the president needed to offer was an alternative narrative on government. The president and his party were about to offer effective government as a solution to multiple problems after 30 years of solid branding by conservatives since Ronald Reagan about how government is the problem. But the narrative never came.

Again, I'm giving you barely even a skeleton of the case Drew is making. And the same is true of the succeeding section, "Where Do We Go From Here?"

First he reminds us of where we were in January 2009, when "no one could have predicted that Democrats would be in this predicament today."

We had just seen -- and the American public knew we had just seen -- the most disastrous performance by a president and party in living history, and the American people had elected a tremendously charismatic young president with enormous Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. They had given the president and Congress a strong mandate for whatever kind of change was necessary to get us out of economic free-fall and to put Americans back to work.

But there were red flags already by the end of Obama's first week in office that led me to offer the following advice to the new administration: Tell the story of how we got in this mess or you'll own it. Tell a coherent story about deficit spending. Re-brand government because there's only one story out there now (Reagan's), and it's not one that supports a progressive agenda. Never let attacks go unanswered, because doing so only emboldens your opposition and leads the public to believe that you have no answers to them. And if you throw a bipartisan party and no one comes, don't throw another one. All of what followed has been as predictable as it has been unfortunate.

"The question today," Drew writes, "is whether Democrats can channel the populist anger we are seeing around the country this late in the game. The answer is that we'd better try." And he insists, based on message-testing he's done recently, that

there is little question that if Democrats and progressives from center to left simply say what they believe in ways that are evocative, values-driven, and speak to people's worries and anger, many stand a good chance of surviving November, particularly when their opponents have nothing to say other than warmed-over rhetoric about cutting taxes to millionaires and multinationals and fiscal restraint except where it cuts into profits of their campaign contributors.

He's just as insistent, though, that "actions speak louder than words, and Americans want to see action," and it isn't too late for Democrats to go on the offensive against obstructionist Republicans on a whole series of issues, on each of which "a strong populist message trounces anything the other side can say."

But Democrats need to play offense. They need to take up-or-down votes on bill after bill, including those they expect the other side to block, knowing that every one of those votes has the leverage of a campaign ad behind it. They need to change the narrative from what sounds to the average American like a whiny and impotent one -- "the Republicans won't let us do it" -- to a narrative of strength in numbers shared with their constituents. And they need to make every election a choice between two well-articulated approaches to governance -- and to offer their articulation of both sides' positions and values.

Which, he says, leads to a final point:

What Democrats have needed to offer the American people is a clear narrative about what and who led our country to the mess in which we find ourselves today and a clear vision of what and who will lead us out. That narrative would have laid a roadmap for our elected officials and voters alike, rather than making each legislative issue a seemingly discrete turn onto a dirt road. That narrative might have included -- and should include today -- some key elements: that if the economy is tumbling, it's the role of leadership and government to stop the free-fall; that if Wall Street is gambling with our financial security, our homes, and our jobs, true leaders do not sit back helplessly and wax eloquent about the free market, they take away the dice; that if the private sector can't create jobs for people who want to work, then we'll put Americans back to work rebuilding our roads, bridges, and schools; that if Big Oil is preventing us from competing with China's wind and solar energy programs, then we'll eliminate the tax breaks that lead to dysfunctional investments in 19th century fuels and have a public-private partnership with companies that will create the clean, safe fuels of the 21st century and the millions of good American jobs that will follow.

#

Meet Scott McAdams, Alaska Populist

Did I ever love Michael Chabon's book, The Yiddish Policemen's Union! And until this week, that's all I-- or most Americans from the Lower 48 who haven't cruised Alaska-- knew about Sitka, Alaska. I know a lot more now because Sikta's mayor, Scott McAdams, won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by super-corrupt ex-Senator/Governor Frank Murkowski's appointed daughter Lisa. (Yeah, ole Frank appointed her when he left the Senate to become governor.) Anyway, the Beltway Democrats didn't think much about Alaska because they figured Lisa had a lock on the seat. Bob Menendez at the DSCC had been absolutely wrong about everything since he started running that show and, right now, it looks like Murkowski was defeated by radical right teabagger Joe Miller-- the Sarah Palin candidate who ran on an anti-Choice platform (with an anti-Choice referendum on the ballot to pull he loons out to the polls). We won't know who won the GOP nod until Tuesday, when the dog sleds bring the last of the ballots in for counting but Miller is around 1,700 votes ahead of Murkowski and Murkowski is threatening to run as a Libertarian spoiler. Which means this is now a key race.

So while the DSCC wonders if they can somehow maneuver perennial loser Tony Knowles onto the ticket instead of McAdams-- or perhaps the brilliant Menendez can figure out how to get Cal Cunningham to be the candidate-- actual Alaskans are uniting behind McAdams with great enthusiasm-- and for all the same reasons the DSCC is so uninterested. He isn't a conservative corporate shill and isn't interested in enriching himself at the public's expense. The DSCC doesn't know how to deal with that kind of candidate. Grassroots Alaskans do. Our most dependable correspondent in Alaska, Phil Munger, has been raving to me about McAdams for months. And this week I finally spoke with him on the phone. He seemed committed to a kind of economic populism that results in winning campaigns in the West. In other words, Scott McAdams is more interested in solving real problems real American families face than in staking out ideological positions. So while his half-crazed probable opponent, nutty Mr. Miller, runs around burying guns in his backyard, Scott is talking with Alaska voters about jobs, the economy, the environment, energy and housing. Next weekend he'll be the Blue America candidate at Crooks and Liars (Saturday 11am, PT). I hope you'll come by to say hello and hear what he has to say. Meanwhile, if you want to help him get his message out, we added him to our Senate Candidates Worth Fighting For page. And if you want to prepare for next week's session, here's an extensive interview with Mayor McAdams that was done on Mudflats early in June.



Joe Miller was on Face The Nation today. I'm not sure if he's just terribly ignorant-- on a Sarah Palin level-- or a boldfaced liar, but his vision for America could arguably work if he figures out how to turn back the clock to the 17th or perhaps 18th Century. The Law of the Jungle just won't do in the 21st-- not even in Alaska, not even if we were all to follow his lead and start digging up the permafrost and burying guns in our backyards. This guy is clearly in a category of dangerous Know Nothings right up there with Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio-- the whole anti-USA Jim DeMint crowd of sociopaths and nihilists, who want to abolish Social Security, let Wall Street and Big Business "regulate" themselves, and make little things like healthcare, safe food and water and education the exclusive realm of the wealthy.

Happy 45th Anniversary, Medicare

Who you gonna believe, Rand Paul, David Vitter and Sharron Angle... or Andy Griffith?

Actually, the 45th anniversary of Medicare was yesterday... but we can still celebrate today. Like all social progress-- from the Declaration of Independence, to public education, to freeing the slaves, women's emancipation, child labor laws, weekends, the right of workers to bargain collectively, to Social Security-- Medicare was violently opposed by conservatives. And they're still opposing it-- and still trying to turn back the clock, still letting their selfishness and greed run rampant and declaring that the poorest among us should go die in the streets rather than the wealthiest pay their fair share-- or even any-- taxes.

When Medicare, H.R. 6675, passed the House on April 7, 1965, 313-115, 48 conservative (mostly Southern) Democrats joined 68 right-wing Republicans to oppose it. On July 9th of that year it passed the Senate 68-21, 13 mostly moderate Republicans voting with 57 Democrats for it while 7 arch-conservative Democrats voted with the GOP majority against it. Today there are slightly fewer conservative Democrats-- most of the worst of the Southern racists have found a new home in the GOP-- but there are virtually no moderate Republicans left any longer. Passing any kind of sweeping progressive change legislation is nearly impossible to do in a bipartisan manner. In fact one of the most fringy of the GOP candidates, Russ Feingold's opponent, Ron Johnson, is campaigning on privatizing Medicare. And as Tula at the AFL-CIO pointed out yesterday, "nine Republican candidates would end Medicare, think it’s a mistake or believe it is Soviet socialism. They are: Sharron Angle in Nevada; Rand Paul in Kentucky; Dan Coats in Indiana; David Vitter in Louisiana; Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, John Boozman in Arkansas, Roy Blunt in Missouri and Jane Norton and Ken Buck in Colorado." Is that really possible? Well, let's let these Republicans speak for themselves about why-- aside from wealthy campaign contributors' demands-- they want to do away with Medicare.

The Las Vegas Review Journal is basically a Republican newspaper. Last October after an interview with Sharron Angle they reported that she believes in phasing Medicare out. “As for Medicare, she (Angle) said the entitlement program popular with seniors will eventually grow too costly to maintain… ‘We need to phase it out,’ she said.” Rand Paul went even further. A Courier-Journal review of Paul’s prior statements found he had compared Medicare to Soviet socialism. “Advancing his belief that health care prices should be set by the marketplace, Paul also has attacked having government set Medicare reimbursements for doctors. The fundamental reason why Medicare is failing is why the Soviet Union failed-- socialism doesn't work," Paul said on Kentucky Tonight on June 16, 1998. "You have ... no price fluctuation.” (Interestingly more than half of Rand Paul's income-- he's an uncertified eye doctor-- comes from Medicare.)

There are nearly a million Hoosiers getting Medicare but Dan Coats, the likely next senator from Indiana, who isn't generally thought of as insane as Angle or Paul, is taking his lead on this from Ayn Rand extremist, Paul Ryan, a blithering imbecile from Wisconsin who the morons in the mass media keep repeating is the smartest Republican out there-- although admitting privately that they can't make heads or tails out of his nonsensical arguments. In July 2010, Coats praised Ryan’s ideas for "entitlement reform" and vowed to work with him on passing them if elected. He said, “Paul Ryan has come up with some very sensible ideas, I have talked personally with Paul I have read his materials and there are many many things in there that I agree with and want to work with him on. Uhhh it basically says we are out of money and we are deeply in debt. And if we are going to have a future in this country for our children and our grandchildren and going to have jobs available and be the country of opportunity and be the country that can lead the world and the economy we have to come up with some reforms. And Paul has come up with some very constructive ideas and so have other Republicans.” Fact of the matter is, Ryan's ill-conceived and sketchy "roadmap," put together by a gaggle of K Street lobbyists for him, would eliminate traditional Medicare, most of Medicaid, and all of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), converting these health programs largely to vouchers that low-income households, seniors, and people with disabilities could use to help buy insurance in the private health insurance market.

David Vitter is already in the U.S. Senate-- when he's not chasing prostitutes-- and he believes his route to re-election is to take the most negative, extreme and hysterical positions on every issue. That kind of approach seems to have a lot of resonance in Louisiana for some reason probably relating to the state of the state's dramatically failed education system. Last September Vitter endorsed a report from the conservative Pelican Institute that promoted ending the employer-based health insurance system. According to the Times-Picayune, “Vitter has endorsed a new study from a conservative think tank that calls for scrapping the nation’s employer-based health insurance system in favor of individually owned policies and converting the Medicaid program into vouchers for private insurance.” Although he's a backbencher with virtually no influence and commands less respect from his colleagues than any other member of the Senate, Vitter managed to make himself the recipient of $311,718 in thinly veiled bribes from Big Insurance. His pronouncements may ill-serve the working families of Louisiana but they are exactly what the insurance industry expects from the whores they dole out their cash to.

And the aforementioned Ron Johnson, the clown who wants to replace Feingold, is even more radical than Vitter. In May Johnson praised Ryan’s privatization plan. He said, “You know, in his 'Roadmap for America,' [Paul Ryan] starts laying out some possibilities, I think some common-sense approaches, on you know, recognizing the fact that, I mean, when these programs were implemented, life expectancy was far shorter. You know, so, life expectancy has gone on. So I mean, you have to recognize that reality and start making adjustments to the program to figure out how you can keep these things sustainable so they’re around for people.”

As you know, Blue America hasn't exactly been a bastion of support for conservative Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln-- and if I were living in that state I would be voting for Mayor John Gray of Greenland, the Green Party candidate-- but Rep. John Boozman is even worse than Lincoln. He's another clod who goes along with whatever Wall Street dictates to Ryan and, of course, not only followed Ryan into voting for Bush's 2008 no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout, but also voted for Ryan's 2009 alternative budget that called for scrapping Medicare and replacing it with a privatized voucher system. And so did Congress' most corrupt member, Roy Blunt (R-MO), currently running for the open Missouri Senate seat. Blunt, who failed as Boehner's healthcare spokesperson before the portfolio was given over to Ryan, thinks the government should never have gotten involved with healthcare-- basically the GOP approach-- and Big Business'-- to everything. During a radio appearance on Eagle 93.9 in St Louis (July 10, 2009), he cited Medicare and Medicaid as examples of government intervening in the health care business “in a big way,” proof in the dystopian Hobbesian world he lives in that government should never have gotten in the health care business.

HOST MIKE FERGUSON: What is the proper role of government, and what are the potential impacts of the direction that we're going right now?

BLUNT: Well, you could certainly argue that government should have never have gotten in the health care business, and that might have been the best argument of all, to figure out how people could have had more access to a competitive marketplace. Government did get into the health care business in a big way in 1965 with Medicare, and later with Medicaid, and government already distorts the marketplace.

During a July 2009 campaign event in Hannibal, Blunt said Medicare had never done anything to make people healthier. "We've had Medicare since 1965, and Medicare has never done anything to make people more healthy. If there's any opportunity for more healthy activity, it's going to be, again, a private, competitive industry..." Blunt has taken $2,051,921 from the Medical Industrial Complex and another $695,332 from Big Insurance. He has nearly 3 million reasons to claim Medicare hasn't done anything to make anyone healthier, although I suspect that the 992,968 who currently use Medicare would disagree.

And in Colorado the Republican Party is running dueling freaks, Jane Norton and Ken Buck, eagerly trying to outdo each other in their anti-Medicare approach. In January Norton was already stirring up anti-Medicare fever in the GOP base: “Health care needs real, common-sense reforms. A government mandated, and government controlled, health care system is not the solution… If you agree that the government shouldn't be in the health care business, show your opposition by signing this petition today.” Buck, whose whole approach to winning the primary is to claim the Tea Party mantle-- despite calling them a bunch of assholes when he thought no one was listening-- decided to tack to the right of Norton. At a GOP campaign event in March, he posited that "The idea that the federal government should be running health care or retirement or any of those programs is fundamentally against what I believe. And that is that the private sector runs programs like that far better.”

Yesterday Stephanie Cutter, an assistant to the President, went on the record about GOP attempts to distort Medicare.

As we worked to pass the Affordable Care Act, seniors were the target of a major misinformation campaign that was designed to scare and confuse older Americans about the real impact of reform. False rumors about death panels and cuts in benefits made the rounds. We are committed to correcting the record and ensuring seniors have the information they need  and get the high-quality care they have earned and deserve... We know seniors will see tremendous benefits from the new law. Under the Affordable Care Act:

• Seniors guaranteed Medicare benefits will remain the same.

• Medicare beneficiaries who hit the prescription drug “donut hole” will receive a one-time, $250 rebate check. Hundreds of thousands of seniors have already received their check. And the donut hole will be closed completely by 2020.

• Preventive care services like colorectal cancer screenings and mammograms and an annual physical will be provided free of charge.

• Medicare pays Medicare Advantage insurance companies over $1,000 more per person on average than Original Medicare. These additional payments are paid for in part by increased premiums by all Medicare beneficiaries-- including the 77% of seniors not enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. The new law eliminates these overpayments and starting in 2014, Medicare Advantage plans will be required to spend 85% of every dollar they receive on health care, not profits, overhead or administrative costs.

• By 2018, seniors will save an average of $200 per year and $200 in co-insurace compared to what they would have paid without reform.

• The new law extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by more than a decade.

Drill, Baby, Drill... In The Great Lakes?

This weekend Blue America hosted a live chat with Michigan progressive Democrat Fred Johnson at Crooks and Liars. And one of the issues in his race people were most worked up over involves drilling for oil in the Great Lakes. Republicans, always eager to please their buddies at Big Oil, are pushing for it. Fred, of course-- like most residents of the beautiful lakeside counties-- opposes it. In response to a question about drilling in Lake Michigan, Fred was crystal clear:

I talk about the windpower potential of the lakeshore with voters all the time. There is some NIMBYism out there, and I am cognizant of the local concerns relative to tourism. However, we have to get serious about this, or Big Oil will definitely come after the Lakes. I'm continually amazed that as a vast body of water is being destroyed by Big Oil there are still those who behave as though the threat from drilling was an issue that needed further study. We must become energy independent. We must start as soon as possible. We must begin the process of transitioning from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources and support the President's efforts to build a "Green" economy.

Drilling in the Great Lakes IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO ACHIEVING ANY OF THOSE AIMS IN THE SHORT OR LONG TERM. Further, suggesting such a thing only serves to validate the extent of Big Oil's influence in government. Enough!!!

Radical right Club for Growth kook Pat Toomey (R-PA) has been advocating drilling in Lake Erie for some time now, something that could endanger the drinking water for roughly 40 million Americans. Even back in 2001, when Toomey was in Congress, he voted against a tremendously popular-- and bipartisan bill, H.R. 2311 to prohibit drilling in the Great Lakes watershed. More recently, when Toomey was campaigning in Erie he was questioned by John Guerriero from the Erie Times-News, he was still talking about how wonderful drilling in the Great Lakes would be:

While Toomey was in Erie on what he called his small-business tour, his Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, of Delaware County, released a video online with a Lake Erie theme.

The video focuses on the lake and highlights Toomey's vote in 2001 to allow drilling in the Great Lakes.

The Sestak campaign said Toomey should be reminded how much Erie relies on a tourism economy and the jobs that come with it.

An oil spill similar to BP's crisis in the Gulf of Mexico would contaminate all of the lake, Sestak's campaign said.

Toomey called it a "ridiculous comparison'' because the blown-out BP wellhead is one mile below the water surface, while the deepest part of Lake Erie is 210 feet.

Toomey said he would not categorically and immediately rule out any Great Lakes drilling.

Rep. Joe Sestak, who beat the Establishment Machine and Arlen Specter to win the Democratic Senate nomination opposes Big Oil's calls for allowing drilling in the Great Lakes. Like Fred Johnson in Michigan, Joe Sestak is clear as a bell about drilling in Lake Erie: "Congressman Toomey's willingness to allow drilling in the Great Lakes shows that he does not understand the immense benefits of Lake Erie for the people of Erie County. He would put at risk the keystone of Erie's economy for the benefit of a few corporations and their shareholders. In the event of a catastrophic accident-- like the BP disaster-- countless small businesses would be forced to close, and tens of thousands of jobs would be lost."

Yesterday evening after reading this Sam Stein report at HuffPo, I tweeted this:

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ron Johnson found himself under the political microscope late last week after it was revealed that he owns up to $315,000 in BP stock while he has defended the oil giant against its critics and called for continued offshore drilling.

The Wisconsin businessman-- who is vying, in a closer-than-expected contest, for Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-Wisc.) seat-- has spent the last few weeks trying to temper criticism of BP in the wake of the Gulf spill. Johnson, whom national Democrats like to refer to as the "forgotten Tea Party candidate," has expressed disappointment with the administration's "assault" on BP. At the same time, he's been a vocal advocate for continued and even accelerated oil and gas exploration, going so far as to express an openness to drilling in the Great Lakes.

"The bottom line is we are an oil-based economy," he told the site WisPolitics in mid-June, when asked about drilling in the Great Lakes. "There's nothing we're gonna do to get off of that for many, many years. I think we have to be realistic and recognize that fact and, you know, I, I think we have to, get the oil where it is, but we have to do it where it is."

Those comments and many others make Johnson among the most pro-drilling pols in a Republican Party filled with drilling proponents. But in offering his support for the practice, Johnson didn't reveal that he has serious financial stakes in the continued success of BP and the greater oil and gas industry.

This is what it means to be a sociopath. It's not illegal... but it makes no sense at all to elect them to public office so they can turn us all into their victims. And, of course, it isn't just Ron Johnson putting this country in danger for his own narrow interests-- and it isn't only Republicans in the Great Lakes states either. Just yesterday, Heather Beaven reminded us that a Florida sociopath, John Mica, brags on his website that "I voted to drill in the Everglades in the 1970’s and I’d do it again today.” Mica is on Big Oil's payroll-- and so are several members of his family. He puts their financial interests ahead of the interests of the country. That's what it means to be a Republican politician in the 21st Century.


UPDATE: Russ Feingold Explains Why He Opposes Drilling In The Great Lakes



This is from a press release Feingold sent out this morning:

Johnson, who gave a speech before the Gulf oil spill in which he said, “Big Oil [is] not evil,” has repeatedly defended the oil industry, including BP, telling the media after the Gulf oil spill, “[T]his is not the time to be beating up on those guys, quite honestly.”

News reports have also detailed Johnson’s support for oil drilling in national wildlife areas and his opposition to more caution before undertaking new oil-drilling projects in light of the worst oil spill disaster in American history. Johnson also opposes the BP compensation fund for victims of the Gulf oil spill.

One month ago, Johnson was asked by the media, "Would you support drilling like in the Great Lakes, for example, if there was oil found there?"

Johnson said, “Yeah. You know, the bottom line is that we are an oil-based economy. There’s nothing we’re going to do to get off of that for many, many years, so I think we have to just be realistic and recognize that fact. And I think we have to get the oil where it is…”

Last week, with ongoing media coverage of the BP oil spill, and after weeks of delaying the financial disclosures required, it was revealed by the media that Johnson has invested as much as $315,000 with BP, $50,001 to $100,000 in Exxon Mobil and $15,001 to $50,000 in Occidental Petroleum Corp.

Wisconsin relies on the Great Lakes for everything from food to jobs and from power to recreation. According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1.6 million Wisconsin residents get their fresh water directly from the Great Lakes. 

On July 12, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported the area of the Gulf affected by the oil sheen is 84,101 square miles – an area nearly the same size as all five Great Lakes combined.

Feingold voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which has funded maintenance of Wisconsin’s harbors and canals, restored fish and wildlife habitats, and reduced pollution, including clean water and drinking water revolving loan funds, the Ashland NFWCO Fish Passage Program, Fox River dam infrastructure improvements, the Fox River navigation system’s lock keeper houses, improvements to the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal and harbor, and the Kewaunee and Manitowoc harbor dredging projects.

...The League of Conservation Voters recognizes Feingold as having one of the best lifetime voting records of any current U.S. Senator. The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and National Wildlife Federation have honored him for his efforts to protect water quality and fight for wetlands protections.

The State of Wisconsin honored Feingold for his strong support of State Wildlife Grants and he was awarded the Clean Water Champion Award by the Clean Water Network for his leadership on the Clean Water Restoration Act.

Mark Kirk Lied About Imaginary Military Awards-- And About His Sexuality

You wanna tell me this guy looks less gay than Lindsey Graham?

Yesterday most Americans were either celebrating being off from work or school or remembering their fallen heroes. However, while the burgers and tofu-franks were on the grill, or while people were leaving flowers at gravesides, a storm was gathering -- one that will break this week-- around Mark Kirk, a corporately funded Republican from the Chicago suburbs, currently running for Obama's open former Senate seat, whose career advancement was carefully built on patently false claims about winning imaginary military awards.

But now, as Kirk twists and turns in the wind attempting to spin it all as a harmless little "typo," just a few days after he voted against repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, evidence has begun to surface that he didn't just lie about his "awards"; he also lied about his sexuality -- yes, another homophobic Republican closet case is about to get outed for his grotesque hypocrisy!

Mike Rogers is a friend of mine, and I will tell you he is a million times more cautious than I am about outing hypocritical Republican homosexuals who do harm to the gay community. Oh, we see eye-to-eye on doing it; he just demands a lot more proof than I do. We've both looked at the evidence that points conclusively to gay escapades by vicious homophobes like Adrian Smith (R-NE) and Trent Franks (R-AZ), for example. I routinely refer to them as closet cases. Mike never does. I warned people about Mark Foley's shenanigans for two solid years before Mike had enough evidence to satisfy the media and his own high standards for outing. Mike knew flabbergasting details about Larry Craig's grubby, closeted world long before he finally fingered him. He only does it on open-and-shut cases.

We both are very well aware of a stinking conservative Blue Dog who's in the closet. It's a Blue Dog who votes wrong on just about everything-- a regular reactionary aisle-crosser and one of Boehner's favorite pets. But the one thing Kirk doesn't vote with the GOP on is their anti-gay jihad. Believe me, I watch very closely, and the first time he does, out he comes. But I have to give the guy credit: When all his reactionary Blue Dog buddies vote against hate crimes legislation or vote against repealing DADT, he sticks with the Democrats. Conservative? Very. A hypocrite on sexuality? Nope: a straight shooter.

And Mike has felt similarly about Mark Kirk. Kirk has admitted to Mike that he's gay and living in the closet, and Mike kept it to himself because Kirk has generally voted against Boehner and the GOP leadership when they've come down against equality for gay people. Until last week.

Last week, Kirk-- eager to please homophobic Republicans who distrust him for his votes in favor of Bush's no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout on September 29 and October 3, 2008-- broke with his own record, and his own conscience, and voted against repealing DADT. The only Republicans to vote for equality were Charles Djou, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Ahn Cao in gay-friendly, solidly Democratic Honolulu, Miami and New Orleans, plus Judy Biggert and Ron Paul. Joining Kirk to tremble in fear of hate-spewing rightists and switch from pro-equality to anti-gay were Mary Bono Mack (CA), Mike Castle (DE), Charlie Dent (PA), the Diaz-Balart Brothers (FL), Leonard Lance (NJ) and Dave Reichert (WA). But none of them are gay. Kirk is-- and Mike decided to blow the whistle on him.

Why should this matter? Hypocrisy always does. But there's something else-- the very nature of what a life of living a lie-- living in the closet, making believe you're someone who you're not-- does to a human being. Last week we saw how it upended the political career of the new U.K. Treasury Secretary, David Laws, a wealthy man who now admits he cheated on his expenses not to steal from the taxpayers, which he was doing, but to prevent anyone from finding out that he's gay and living a secret, closeted life. Every outed conservative I've ever talked to has told me that he's felt more mentally healthy after he was outed. I hope Kirk will as well.

When Kirk was outed by a crazy teabagger with no credibility during the primary, no one listened except a few fellow crazy teabaggers. Mike Rogers isn't crazy, and if he's a teabagger... well, it's the other kind. Let's see if he can make the charges stick. Not that Kirk is gay; he clearly is. Let's see if Mike can help Illinois voters look into what it means to have a liar and a hypocrite as a potential senator. Read Mike's exposé here.