A Few Careerist Democrats-- Fools-- Are Afraid To Back Impeachment

3 conservative Democrats; Slotkin on the right

Michigan New Dem Elissa Slotkin is one of the most worthless wastes of a House seat Democrats elected in 2018. A cowardly careerist she has spent the last year shaking in her seat that she might say or do something wrong and lose her reelection bid. ProgressivePunch rates her a big fat "F." That's why she should lose her seat in the Detroit suburbs. The anti-red wave that swept Michigan in 2018 gave her a 4 point win over Republican incumbent Mike Bishop. She outspent Bishop 2 to 1-- $7,401,141 to $3,374,608 and the DCCC and its allies nearly $10 million more, much more than the NRCC and it's allies spent defending Bishop. So far this cycle, she has no primary opponent-- although she should-- and a gaggle of pathetic Republicans who haven't raised any money at all, though she's already brought in over $2,000,000. Her lifetime crucial vote score-- more Republican than Democrat at 43.14%-- is nestled comfortably between two of Congress' worse most GOP-oriented Democrats, a little better than Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and fractionally better than Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA). The only Democratic freshmen members with worse voting records than Slotkin are Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA), Jared Golden (D-ME), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY) and Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), 8 shitheads, like her who have either decided to vote against impeachment or who are still trying to figure out if a vote for impeachment would help or hurt their miserable careers. Most of them are in much, much redder districts than Slotkin.

MI-08 includes parts of 3 counties, deep blue Ingham and redder parts of Oakland and Livingston. In 2016, Democrats in Ingham County turned out big for Bernie. He beat Hillary 22,909 (54.7%) to 18,287 (43.7%). Bernie also crushed Trump that day, who only drew 8,056 votes to Kasich's 7,725 and Ted Cruz's 7,042. Slotkin should be more worried about being primaried by a progressive than by being beaten by a Republican. Bernie also crushed Hillary in Livingston County-- 59.4% to 38.1%. Oakland County gave Hillary a narrow win over Bernie, but Bernie still beat Trump in the county. MI-08 voters wanted real change; instead they were cursed with a nervous nellie congresswoman who's like a plate of jello. NBC News reported over the weekend that "Slotkin is being lobbied by Republican colleagues who argue that Trump's actions-- even if imperfect-- don't amount to impeachable offenses and that she should accept, given her background, that the president needs room to use leverage in foreign policy... One Slotkin donor who contributed to her 2018 campaign after they got to know each other in Washington's national security circles told NBC News that it makes sense for her not to commit her vote early publicly. 'She’s been careful and conscientious about the process,' said the donor. 'It’s no surprise that she’s continuing to do that now by keeping her powder dry and waiting to see the articles of impeachment before she decides how she’s going to vote on them.'"

Many of the 2020 congressional candidates are far more courageous and far more driven by justice than Slotkin and the other conservative freshmen careerists are, including many in far redder districts.

The whole idea of this post came from something Omaha progressive Kara Eastman had written last week after Pelosi's speech about proceeding with impeachment: "This is a solemn day. There should be no celebration for the need to impeach the President. I have always said that I respect the office of the President. The problem America faces now is that Donald Trump does not respect the office. His actions involving Ukraine were bribery and extortion, pure and simple. As the evidence demonstrates, and as several legal scholars stated in public hearings yesterday, if this is not impeachable conduct, what is? As a candidate who intends to serve in Congress, my oath will be to uphold the Constitution. It is not to allow my oath to be clouded by partisan politics. That’s why I call upon my opponent, Representative Don Bacon, to rise above his partisan games and support Impeachment as well. He should recognize that now is the time to put country above party and defend the U.S. Constitution, as he is sworn to do."

I thought her framing was brilliant. I also liked the way Dana Balter in the Syracuse area district in upstate New York handled it. She sent her followers excerpts from an editorial from the Auburn Citizen demanding that the slippery Republican incumbent, John Katko "stop ignoring the facts" of impeachment. She noted that "As the process has unfolded in recent weeks, Rep. Katko has tied himself into knots feigning ignorance to the president’s abuses of power" and that Katko "has been a loyal footsoldier in the effort by Washington Republicans to divert attention from President Trump’s actions. Despite mountains of evidence, the Congressman has resisted the pleas of his constituents to do the right thing, instead deciding to make protecting Donald Trump his top priority. Rep. Katko is complicit in Trump’s corruption and it’s time that we replace both of them." Key excepts from the December 5 editorial:

• As the House Judiciary Committee considers articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Rep. John Katko owes it to his constituents to come to an informed and vocal position on the issue.
• Two weeks ago, Katko said that he hadn't watched a lot of the impeachment testimony but was being briefed by his staff. He said that he hadn't yet seen evidence of an impeachable offense, he also said that he hadn't reached a conclusion. The time has come for him to start paying careful attention.
• Katko has said that the entire inquiry into Trump concerns a single phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine. But it can't be dismissed that easily, and if Katko had been paying closer attention he would know that witnesses have testified about things beyond a single phone call that raise serious questions about whether Trump violated his oath of office.
• Impeachment is not a minor thing. It can't be written off as a distraction to the issues facing Congress, and it's a cop-out to say that multiple things can't be done at the same time.

A few days later, Balter was on the attack again after another devastating report in another local paper, the Post Standard: "Every day, Congressman Katko twists himself into another knot so that he can protect Donald Trump. The evidence is clear and irrefutable: the president has abused his power. Congressman Katko must understand this and when he says otherwise, he is lying to his constituents. No one is above the law and the Congressman’s refusal to hold the president accountable is a betrayal of the law, his oath of office, and our democracy."

West of Balter's district, Nate McMurray is running for an open seat in a really red district in western New York, NY-27 (PVI is R+11, New York's reddest district). He also made good use of a piece from a local newspaper, the Buffalo News that was published in July. Their story began with a huge photo:

The news piece by reporter Stephen Watson was relatively light-hearted and more human interest than hard-core political. McMurray has built on the concept to make a case in a difficult district where Trump beat Hillary 59.7% to 35.2%. He comes across as a very forthright, courageous person, very much the opposite of people like Slotkin.

Sunday's dueling pro- and anti-Trump rallies in the Elmwood Village left us with several striking images.

Two men, one who lost his shirt, coming to blows over their opposing views of the president. A man dressed as Captain America being pulled over by Buffalo police for driving without a seat belt.

But perhaps the most vivid was the view former Congressional candidate Nate McMurray offered of his arms.

McMurray, the Grand Island supervisor and an organizer of the anti-Trump event, wore a sleeveless shirt to the protest. This didn't go unnoticed by people who saw photos and videos from the event.

"Yesterday I wore a-- God forbid-- SLEEVELESS T-shirt!" McMurray tweeted Monday. "I have received more comments on that shirt ..."

He said he wore it for practical purposes-- because he had to carry water bottles, tables and other items to and from the rally in Sunday's heat-- and not for vanity's sake.

"But maybe I’ll go sleeveless more often," McMurray wrote, using the hashtag "sunsoutgunsout."

His sartorial choice proved as divisive as the current political climate.

One Twitter user wrote, simply, "Dork."

But most people replying to McMurray offered compliments.

"I thought you looked great-- young and vibrant," one woman observed.

And a couple of wags made similar quips: "I believe in your right to bare arms."

Progressive Democrat Ian Todd is running in an even redder district (R+12), Michelle Bachman's old redoubt in Minnesota, currently occupied by the chair of the NRCC, Tom Emmer, who the DCCC has a non-aggression pact with. Ian told us that he thinks "the debate among Democrats whether or not to 'throw the book' at Trump and put every crime we know of in the articles of impeachment is a microcosm of our two tiered justice system. Penniless folks with no power often have ridiculously overblown charges against them as leverage for a plea deal, but many Democrats aren't sure if we should add the clear cases of obstruction of justice or not. The privilege of the powerful is not easy to watch when you know how the rest of us get treated."

I was interested in how Dary Rezvani was using impeachment, since he's the progressive taking on one of the impeachment investigations' arch-villains, Devin Nunes. But impeachment isn't foremost on his mind-- nor, he said, on the minds of CA-22 residents. "We have not really addressed impeachment. We have been trying to focus on local issues that the federal government can impact. Aside from the people entrenched in our local Democratic Party, it is not really an issue. We have so many things happening here that impeachment is really a luxury. I believe Trump should be held accountable and obviously Nunes is directly involved with the entire situation but most of the people I have spoken to believe we should work on making sure we vote him out in 2020."

Jennifer Christie is running for an open seat in a pretty red district in the suburbs and exurbs other of Indianapolis. She's taking the kind of strong, principled stand for impeachment that frightens the DCCC and conservative Democrats, "Congress has had a Constitutional obligation to impeach Trump since 2017," she told us. "He committed obstruction of justice by firing James Comey as well as the other 10 counts of obstruction detailed in the Mueller report. Trump has also been in violation of the Constitution each day that he receives and accepts money from foreign governments who stay at his resorts and hotels. He has promoted his personal businesses through his office and certainly has profited from it. Trump's campaign accepted a meeting with a foreign agent to receive 'dirt' on  his opponent and then lied to the American People about it. He said, if given the chance, he would do it again. And he did. This time, it was Trump who bribed the Ukrainian President to announce an investigation into his political opponent. Trump did not do this for our country; he did it for himself just like he has used the Presidential office for his personal gain since he took office. The current hearings document and attest to the blatant abuse of power exhibited by President Trump. The founders of our Constitution gave the mechanism of impeachment exactly for the purpose of removing a president who is willing to put his own interests above the country's and to abuse the office for his own profit and gain. This is a nonpartisan issue; this is a moral and Constitutional issue. It doesn't matter which party you belong to. Congress takes an oath to the Constitution alone. Every member of the House and Senate-- Democrat, Republican, and Independent-- should vote yes to impeachment because, if they don't, they are saying it is ok to bribe and accept a foreign government's help in an election. And if that is ok, then our Democracy is lost."

We need more members of Congress like Jennifer Christie and fewer like Elissa Slotkin. Same goes for Nabilah Islam, the progressive running for the open red seat in the suburbs northeast of Atlanta. She tells the constituents there that "Trump’s only priority is himself. I was the first person to call for impeachment proceedings in Georgia. It’s unfortunate it’s taken so long for Congress to act. He’s committed multiple impeachable offenses including but not limited to obstruction of justice. I’m glad proceedings have begun but sad it’s taken so long to finally begin. It’s clear Donald Trump asked a foreign government to investigate one of his opponents in the Presidential election and threatened to withhold funding in order for them do so. This is a clear case of quid pro quo. The only way we can return dignity to the Office of the President is through his removal. He needs to be impeached now."

Heidi Sloan is a Democratic Socialist running in a gerrymandered Texas district that goes from Austin right up to the southern tip of Tarrant County and the Fort With exurbs. Her opponent, a rich used car salesman named Roger Williams, is a Trump fanatic. This is from an e-mail Sloan sent to her supporters last month:

The betrayal of Donald Trump and his corrupt administration was laid bare yesterday during testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Donald Trump is hateful, criminal, and incompetent. He, and everyone in his administration, deserve to be removed from office immediately.

But career politicians see this as an opportunity to get off the hook. Even Democrats would rather talk about impeachment than have to take a position on the issues that matter most to working class Americans. We need national rent control. We need Medicare For All - the real deal, right now, not in three years and not a public option. We need a Green New Deal and to prosecute fossil fuel executives. We need an immediate moratorium on deportations and to abolish ICE. And we need candidates who are committed to fighting for that vision.

That's how we're going to beat Trump and his allies in Washington. Impeachment grandstanding will not deliver these gains to us, only a fighting organized working class will. When our people are struggling living paycheck to paycheck and unable to even pay attention to impeachment proceedings, there is a problem with our democracy, and I’m the only candidate in this race that understands that problem. The problem is power, and until regular folks have power, our electeds simply won’t be able to win the fight against corruption and injustice.

Stand with us to win the demands of the working class. That’s what I’ve been doing since before I was asking for votes, and that’s what we’ll do-- together-- when I'm in office.

Former Columbus mayor, Teresa Tomlinson, is running for the Georgia Senate seat occupied by lockstep Trump ally David Perdue. This is what she's saying out on the stump about Trump's impending impeachment: "The Senate vote on President Trump's articles of impeachment will determine the outcome of the Senate majority and leadership in 2020. Our Founding Fathers tell us so. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton explained precisely on point with the debate of today that senators must be called to account as to the standard for our presidency. If the Senate refuses to vote to impeach upon evidence of abuse of power, then they will allow the president to become the 'author of their mismanagement and disgrace,' and the people will hold the senators to account at the ballot box." (That's from Federalist Paper, No. 66.)

Republicans, Blue Dogs And New Dems Don't Understand What Impeachment Is All About

Me The People by Nancy Ohanian

Most Americans seem to understand that the gravity of impeachment goes beyond mere partisan considerations. To put it simply, if Trump isn't held accountable for his criminal behavior, that lack of action will serve as a green light for future criminal behavior, not just by him but by any asshole who comes after him. The Republicans and the Republican wing of the Democratic Party do not get that, not at all. They are consumed with self-serving partisanship and can't see beyond their next primary or general election.

This week Sarah Ferris and Heather Caygle, reporting for Politico, noted that the Blue Dogs and New Dems are warning the caucus to steer clear of the serious crimes brought up by the Mueller report and just stick to Ukraine. The far right of the Democratic Party-- which Politico cagily always refers to as "moderates"-- especially freshman schnooks wetting their panties over reelection, "have urged Democrats not to relitigate the issues in the Mueller report in their own investigation into the Ukraine scandal. But key Democrats, including House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, have suggested that it could be included in eventual articles of impeachment, with many in the caucus still eager to repudiate Trump for his misconduct outlined by Mueller.

One of the most conservative and cowardly of all the worthless Blue Dogs, Ben McAdams (D-UT): "Activities from the 2016 election, I think, should be left to voters in the 2020 election. My focus is on those things that are forward looking." Basically just as bad as McAdams, a former Republican state legislator pretending to be a Democrat now, slow-witted Blue Dog co-chair Tom O'Halleran, agrees: "I would prefer that we stick to what we have." Elissa Slotkin is an utterly worthless and spineless New Dem from Michigan who the party should be eager to lose. An especially vile creature, she votes like a Republican and sits around whining about losing her reelection bid. "I know that there's some people who are interested in kind of a kitchen sink approach-- let's throw all kinds of things in there because we can and talk about all the things we're concerned about regarding the president. We have been taking the country down this road on this very targeted issue of Ukraine and the issues around the president using his office for personal and political gain. And that's what I think we should focus on." If you survey Democratic staffers and ask them to name the 5 most brain-dead Democrats in Congress, every single list will include Slotkin. Sick of values-free cowards in Congress? That's why we've included the thermometer on the right. And this suggestion from Omaha progressive Kara Eastman on how to respond to impeachment in a purple district:

The warning from vulnerable Democrats follows Nadler’s remarks at the Judiciary panel’s first impeachment hearing Wednesday in which he made a significant connection between Trump’s obstruction of Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference and his potential abuse of power in pressuring Ukraine to help his reelection campaign.

“President Trump welcomed foreign interference in the 2016 election. He demanded it for the 2020 election,” Nadler said in his opening statement. “In both cases, he got caught. And in both cases, he did everything in his power to prevent the American people from learning the truth about his conduct.”

Mueller’s 448-page report caused a fraught debate within the caucus after its release this spring over whether to punish Trump for acts he allegedly committed before he was president-- as well as instances in which the White House attempted to interfere with the investigation itself. Some Democrats also feared that Mueller’s report and the allegations within it were too dense and difficult to communicate clearly to the American public.

Mueller and his team ultimately outlined 11 examples of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, and the Democrats' attempts to deepen that probe eventually brought Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back an impeachment inquiry in court.

I grew up in Brooklyn-- same neighborhood and same elementary and high school as Bernie-- but we were always taught that California was the face of the future and where California was today, the rest of America, each region at its own pace, would be tomorrow or the day after or-- in the case of The South-- a decade later. I don't know if that is still taught in Brooklyn schools but I have noticed that the axiom still holds., although maybe or maybe not electorally. Yesterday, L.A. Times reporter Janet Hook took a look at the new election survey by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and let's hope the rest of the country catches up-- fast instead of sinking into the morass of personalized by Slotkin, McAdams and O'Halleran. Hook reports that Elizabeth and Status Quo Joe have been losing ground as Bernie rises on the left and Mayo Pete rises on the right.

The Iowa caucuses are in less than two months and California absentee ballots for the state’s March 3 primary will be going out around the same time. And there's more good news besides finding Bernie in the #1 slot in the state with the richest haul of delegates. "Bloomberg," she wrote, "appears ill-equipped to break into the mix. The poll, which was taken Nov. 21-27, just as Bloomberg started advertising in California and elsewhere on Nov. 25, found that he began his campaign with the most negative image of any candidate in the field. About 40% of the likely Democratic primary voters surveyed viewed him negatively, and just 15% had a positive impression."

The upshot of the poll is that the field’s most liberal candidates, Warren and Sanders, are in a statistical tie for first place. The leading candidates making a more moderate pitch, Biden and Buttigieg, are lagging and essentially tied for third place.

Sanders is in the nominal lead, as the first-choice pick of 24%; Warren is the first pick of 22%. That is a big change from September, when she led the field with 29%.

Biden is the first choice of 14%, down six points from September. Buttigieg is preferred by 12%, up six points from September.

The poll was taken before California Sen. Kamala Harris dropped out of the race. It asked whom her supporters would name as their second choice if she quit and found that Warren and Biden would benefit the most. If Harris voters were reallocated based on those responses, the race would tighten at the top to Sanders, 25%; Warren, 24%; Biden, 17%; Buttigieg, 13%.

California will affect the prospects of all candidates because it has the largest number of delegates at next summer’s Democratic nominating convention. It is especially important for Bloomberg, a multibillionaire and former New York City mayor. He is skipping the first nominating contests and counting on a big splash March 3 in the so-called Super Tuesday primaries in 17 states and territories, including California.

The Berkeley IGS poll, which was three-quarters complete before Bloomberg’s ads started running, found 8% were considering voting for Bloomberg.

Whether his big spending on ads can change the negative image he brings to the race will be a test of the power of money in politics, but the record on such efforts — by rich presidential candidates such as Ross Perot, who ran as an independent in 1992, and Steve Forbes, a Republican candidate in 2000-- is not promising.

California billionaire Tom Steyer also has made a heavy investment in his own 2020 presidential bid, and his campaign is still floundering: Just 1% of California voters in the Berkeley-IGS survey said Steyer was their first choice, and only 18% viewed him favorably.

Among the top-tier candidates, the opinion shifts among Californians are similar to trends found in other polls nationally and in key early-voting states. Warren is coming back down to earth after a heady run-up in polling this summer and fall; Sanders is regaining traction after an October heart attack unsettled his campaign; and Biden is facing increased competition from Buttigieg among voters who think Warren and Sanders are too far left.

Warren’s image has suffered over the last few months, during which she has struggled to answer the question of how she would overhaul the healthcare system. Her favorability rating remains high, with 67% viewing her positively, but that is down 10 points since September.

Still, the poll found that Warren had more room to increase support among California Democrats than any other candidate: 58% said they at least considered supporting her, compared with the 49% who were considering Sanders, 41% considering Buttigieg and 39% considering Biden.

The poll also provided a window into the perceived strengths of the candidates-- and why Biden has come in a weak third compared with his stronger standing in national polls.

Biden led the field when California voters were asked which candidate had the best chance of beating Trump and which was best qualified to serve as president: 29% said he was the most electable, and 28% said he was best qualified, compared with Sanders’ second-place ranking on those points, with 22% and 24%, respectively.

But Biden drops to single digits behind other candidates on other qualities: Just 6% said he was the candidate with the sharpest mental abilities, compared with the 24% who picked Warren, who leads the field on that attribute.

Sanders tops the field on three other attributes-- being the candidate who would bring the right kind of change to Washington (28%), the one who comes closest to sharing voters’ values (27%) and the candidate who best understands the problems of “people like you” (28%).

The poll found that the four septuagenarian candidates-- Sanders, 78; Biden and Bloomberg, 77; Warren, 70-- faced differing levels of concern about their age.

About one-third said they were extremely or very concerned that Biden’s and Sanders’ age would hurt their ability to serve as president. Only 7% said that about Warren; 17% said so about Bloomberg.

The poll found increasingly stiff three-way competition in California for older voters, a part of the electorate that has been especially important to Biden’s national standing. Both he and Warren lost ground among those 65 and older over the last few months, while Buttigieg gained among that group, a prized bloc because it tends to vote in large numbers.

Biden narrowly leads with 22% of the over-65 vote, down from 26% in September. Warren’s share dropped to 18%, from 32% in September. Buttigieg supporters, meanwhile, increased to 17% of those seniors, from just 7% in September.

Sanders’ campaign, by contrast, hinges on his ability to turn out younger voters who are less inclined than their elders to vote: He barely registered among older voters but was the first choice of 46% of voters ages 18 to 29. That contributes to the advantage Sanders has among Latino voters, who tend to be younger as a group than other ethnicities. In California, 32% of Latino Democrats favor Sanders, a solid 13-point margin over the next closest candidate, Biden, who has 19%.

Here's one reason Bernie is so popular among younger voters-- and why younger voters aren't taking Status Quo Joe seriously... other than as a serious threat to their futures.

Hoyer Admits Why They're Not Impeaching Trump: Partisan Political Calculations, Despite All The Mounting Evidence-- SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!

Wednesday morning Pelosi and Schumer headed over to the White House to discuss an already doomed infrastructure plan (and to be booted out by the always gracious Señor Trumpanzee). A reporter asked her about the closed door Democratic Party caucus she had just left (not even chiefs of staff were allowed in-- just members). She told him-- and his tape recorder: "It was a very positive meeting, a respectful sharing of ideas. And I think a very impressive presentation by our chairs. We do believe it is important to follow the facts, that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States. And we believe that the president of the United States is engaged in a cover-up. A cover-up. And that was the nature of the meeting." I wish I had been there to gage how "positive" and "respectful" it really was. Tensions inside Pelosi's caucus are... intense-- and headed towards brittle.

The Republican wing of the party-- the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- are freaking out as more and more rank-and-file congressional Democrats are demanding Pelosi start formal impeachment procedures. The Hill is keeping a woefully incomplete and non-updated whip list of which members are openly calling for impeachment. Examples: Jamie Raskin (R-MD), a member of the Judiciary Committee told the Washington Post that "the logic of an impeachment inquiry is pretty overwhelming at this point." Other members of the Judiciary Committee left the same way: Ted Lieu (D-CA): "This inquiry could lead to impeachment, or it could lead to nothing. But I think if McGahn doesn’t show, we have to at least start it." And Pramila Jayapal (D-WA): "We are now at the point where we must begin an impeachment inquiry. I don't say that lightly. We've taken every step we can w/subpoenas and witnesses." Joe Neguse (D-CO): "The findings detailed in the Special Counsel’s report, and the Administration’s pattern of wholesale obstruction of Congress since the report’s release, make clear that it is time to open an impeachment inquiry." Freshman Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA): "No one is above the law. The time has come to start an impeachment inquiry because the American people deserve to know the truth and to have the opportunity to judge the gravity of the evidence and charges leveled against the president."

But on the right-fringe of the party, particularly among the Blue Dogs and New Dems who the DCCC helped win in red districts, there is panic and anger and little support for impeachment, since these are some real dummies who are sure impeachment would lead to the end of their careers in Congress. Take Staten Island/Brooklyn lunkhead Max Rose, a sniveling Blue Dog, who told Politico that if Democrats decide to begin impeachment hearings, "Then they should warm to the idea of going back to the minority. Right now we’re in this incredibly childish game of impeachment chicken, and everyone has to start acting like adults... let’s go back to actually doing the work of the American people that they sent us here to do." Sounds like something he heard from someone at a Problem Solvers meeting.

One of the few Democrats further to the right than Rose, New Jersey Blue Dog scum Jefferson Van Drew barked "If there really isn’t something significant enough there to impeach-- which I don’t think there is at this point-- then let’s move on and get the work of the people done." Elissa Slotkin (MI), one of the very worst of the freshmen New Dems agreed with that line the Republican wing of the party is pushing: "The thing that I’m concerned about is that we constantly risk losing focus on the legislation that affirmatively helps people’s lives, not going in the right direction right now."

These are not members who give a crap about helping peoples lives. Rose, Van Drew and Slotkin are among the right-of-center minority of Democrats refusing to co-sponsor most of the legislation proposed that does affirmatively help people’s lives-- like Pramila Jayapal's new and improved Medicare For All Act or AOC's Green New Deal Resolution. All three have putrid ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores and each one is rated "F."

• Max Rose- 64.29%
• Elissa Slotkin- 50.0%
• Jefferson Van Drew- 35.71%

Yesterday, Jake Sherman reported that Pelosi "has an uncanny ability to stay unflinchingly focused on a goal, without getting panicked or itchy or changing course... At the moment, Pelosi’s goal is quite clear: to avoid rushing to impeach [Señor Trumpanzee]. If you talk to her allies, her advisers and people close to her, they’ll tell you she believes the impeachment route is an all-around loser right now. Pelosi allies firmly believe that if Democrats impeach Trump, they will lose the presidency and the House in 2020-- period. They also don’t believe Congress or the American public is behind impeachment at the moment. Further, they say that launching an inquiry that isn’t airtight could backfire as they pursue other legal options to extract documents from the White House. House Democratic leaders are keeping a very close eye on who comes out in favor of impeachment, but so far, they see mostly Judiciary Committee members who are living the day-to-day back-and-forth over document production and stonewalling, and progressives who have long been on the path to impeachment. Here is what Pelosi-world is thinking, and the points they are making privately":

• Their Go-Through-The-Courts Play Is Working: House Democrats scored a big victory this week when a federal judge ruled that Mazars Group, Trump’s accounting firm, needed to hand over the president’s financial records. Pelosi and her team believe they will score other victories in court and ultimately get many of the documents they are seeking. Impeachment, many of them argue, is not a magical key to unlock a trove of documents. And there’s a fear, too, that a rush to impeachment could undermine some of these court efforts.
• The Leadership Team Is With Pelosi: yes, Reps David Cicilline (D-RI) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) have called for impeachment, but notice who has not: Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and Cheri Bustos (D-IL). And that’s important. The cracks at her leadership table are at the bottom, not the top. [Editorial Note: Is Politico hiring morons now? Or do they just assume their readers are morons?]
• Democrats Are Planning to move a package of contempt citations in June. That’s the next punishment they are meting out.
• There Is, At The Moment, A Remarkable sense of unity atop the leadership. They recognize that the angst is rising in the rank and file. No one seems completely convinced Democrats can hold this position for 18 months. Yes, the majority of the caucus opposes impeachment at the moment-- but for how long?
• The Internal Politics Are Complicated. Democrats have been taken aback at how Trump has injected himself personally into the decisions to withhold documents and block testimony, which has corresponded with rising blood pressure among many of the rank and file.
• What To Watch For... Top Dems are absolutely convinced that if Trump defies a court order to fork over documents, then they will be forced to begin impeaching him.

And speaking about Pelosi's leadership team, one of her toadies opposing impeachment is Ben Ray Luján. Watch Luján "change his mind" on impeachment now that his primary opponent, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, has officially announced she's behind the push for impeachment. "Today, I’m calling on the U.S. House of Representatives to begin an impeachment investigation," she told New Mexicans. "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report lays out the facts: a hostile foreign government set out to influence our 2016 election in favor of Trump and Trump welcomed their help. Then, as President, Trump obstructed the investigation into Russian interference. Congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility to defend our democracy and hold Trump accountable. Based on what we know from the Mueller report, we have more than enough evidence to start the impeachment process. I’m speaking out today to demand the House do its job and begin impeachment proceedings. We can both hold this President accountable and push for our progressive priorities-- and don’t let anyone tell you differently. We will continue to fight for bold ideas like Medicare For All and a Green New Deal, expanding voting rights, protecting a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions, and fighting our student debt crisis. We can and we must pursue both impeachment and other policy initiatives. Our democracy exists to protect the people, not the President-- and protecting the people means both learning the truth about the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia and continuing to fight for legislation that will make our communities and our country stronger."

I almost feel sorry for Luján. Almost. This is what happens when there are strong, vibrant primaries-- which is exactly why Cheri Bustos, Pelosi and Hoyer and trying to obliterate them.

Well, they might as well start preparing, because that is exactly what Trump is doing. Even Hoyer admitted that 'To say there’s no political calculus would not be honest for any of us in the Congress. The political calculus is: What is the reaction of the American people? What do the American people think we ought to be doing?"

As Hoyer once knew-- he's 80 and increasingly senile now-- the American public opposed the impeachment of Nixon until Congress started the process and exposed all his crimes on TV... and then they backed it. Same with the Senate. Conservative senators were against it until there were televised hearings... and then they told Nixon he had to either resign or be impeached and convicted. He resigned. In Clinton's impeachment, the public opposed it, saw no credible evidence from the GOP leading the effort and the public never stopped opposing it, which is what led a Republican Senate to find him "not guilty" on all impeachment charges.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) is both a New Dem and a member of the Progressive Caucus-- and a 2020 Republican target. She said that Trump is "acting as an authoritarian leader, which I have seen many times in Latin America, and it is very dangerous. I want the people living in South Florida, people living in my community, to understand what is written in that report, and we can’t do that unless we have these hearings." Sounds a lot more reasonable than what we're hearing from the people, like Rose, Van Drew and Slotkin, who follow the advice of Matt Penn and Nancy Jacobson of Problem Solvers.

Anti-impeachment Blue Dog Cheri Bustos recruited some cockamamie conservative Republican to run against Mike Siegel is TX-10. I wonder how the Bustos-DCCC candidate feels about impeachment. When I asked Blue-America-endorsed Mike Siegel how he feels about it, he told me that "We can't enforce our laws only when it is politically convenient. The supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution, requires Congress to exercise oversight of the Executive Branch, including use of the impeachment power to prosecute high crimes and misdemeanors. Every day, Trump and his cronies obstruct justice, by ignoring federal subpoenas, tampering with witnesses, paying off co-conspirators and lying to the American people. When the RNC gives $2m to McGahn's law firm just as he refuses to testify before Congress, they make a mockery of our government. This goes beyond tactical considerations for an electoral cycle; American democracy is under assault. We must empower Congress to do their duty, and investigate the President's crimes." Do you agree with Mike's approach? Please consider chipping in at the Take Back Texas ActBlue thermometer on the right. Last year Mike nearly won the district with the DCCC ignoring the race entirely. This year he'll have to fight Trump-enabler Michael McCaul and Cheri Bustos and her corruptly-funded the DCCC!

Federal Court Unanimously Strikes Down Republicans Unconstitutional Gerrymander Of Michigan

A federal court Trump hasn't had the opportunity to pervert yet, voted unanimously to strike down the Michigan GOP legislature's grossly unconstitutional gerrymander that handed a 50/50 state over to the Republicans in the state House, state Senate and congressional delegation, even while statewide, the Democrats were kicking GOP butt. The decision will force a redrawing of congressional districts 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12; state Senate Districts 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, 27, and 36; and state House Districts 24, 32, 51, 55, 60, 63, 75, 83, 91, 94, and 95. (The Court let 7 contested legislative districts stand as they are-- three in the state Senate and 4 in the state House but will also require Michigan to conduct special state Senate elections for some seats next year, cutting in half the four-year terms those current lawmakers are now serving.)

Unless the Supreme Court-- which Trump has perverted (very much so)-- grants a stay, fairly likely with 2 similar cases pending for North Carolina and Maryland, the new boundaries will have to be approved by the court in time for the 2020 election. The court characterized the boundaries the legislature drew as a partisan gerrymander "of historical proportions."

The ruling stated flatly that the "predominate purpose" of the Republican redistricting plan (2011) "was to subordinate the interests of Democratic voters and entrench Republicans in power" violating the first and 14th Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. In the statewide races last cycle, the Republicans got just 43.7% in the gubernatorial race and just 45.8% in the U.S. Senate race.

The court ordered a super-transparent redistricting process that requires the legislature to present Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer a new map she agrees to sign by August 1. If they fail-- likely-- the court will appoint a special master, the way the court in Pennsylvania did, which was catastrophic for the Republican congressional delegation. The Pennsylvania delegation went from 13 Republicans and 5 Democrats under the illegally gerrymandered map to 9 Democrats and 9 Republicans (if the GOP holds onto PA-12 next week, as expected).

The unanimous decision was made by 3 judges, 2 Clinton appointees and one appointee of George H.W. Bush. During the process, Michigan's new Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson (D), wasn't nearly as harsh towards the GOP law-breakers as the court was. But yesterday she said that the ruling "confirms that these Michigan state House and Senate and U.S. congressional districts are unconstitutional... As the state’s chief election officer, I’m committed to working with the Legislature, citizens and the court to ensure the new districts comply with our U.S. Constitution."

When the suit began, Michigan had 9 Republicans and 5 Democrats in Congress, despite the fact that the statewide votes are around 50/50. In 2018, though, 2 red seats were flipped and the delegation now stands at 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats. The redrawing could turn the delegation bluer yet. These are the members of Congress directly impacted by the ruling, along with the PVI of each district:

• MI-01- Jack Bergman (R)- R+9
• MI-04- John Moolenaar (R)- R+10
• MI-05- Dan Klildee (D)- D+5
• MI-07- Tim Walberg (R)- R+7
• MI-08- Elissa Slotkin (D)- R+4
• MI-09- Andy Levin (D)- D+4
• MI-10- Paul Mitchell (R)- R+13
• MI-11- Haley Stevens (D)- R+4
• MI-12- Debbie Dingell (D)- D+14

As far as I can tell, a fairer map wouldn't change much. Slotkin and Stevens would probably wind up with less red districts, perhaps with an R+1 lean rather than the current R+4 leans that are usually only flippable in wave cycles. The Republican who could be in serious jeopardy is Tim Walberg in the southeast corner of the state, where his district is likely to end up with more Democratic voters from Washtenaw County in Debbie Dingell's district. It wouldn't put her in jeopardy at all to turn MI-07 into an evenly split district, which is always what courts want to see. Maybe I'm being too conservative in my thinking, but my best guess is that a new map will result in just one change in the delegation. If the DCCC runs a reasonable candidate-- like the sack of Blue Dog garbage they ran in 2018-- they would be able to retire Walberg. That's really it, other than more safety for reelection hopes for Slotkin and Stevens, who are being targeted by the NRCC now, but probably will be just targeted on paper after their districts are made more even.

Walberg beat back wretched Blue Dog Gretchen Driskell, one of the worst candidates the DCCC was pushing last cycle, 158,730 (53.8%) to 136,330 (46.2%). In a slightly fairer district, a non-lesser-of-two-evils Democrat would probably spell the end of Walberg's political career. There are currently 8 counties in the district. The DCCC was eager to field a Blue Dog with relatively little in common with actual Democrats who live in those counties beyond Choice and other social issues. Keep in mind that Democrats in those 8 counties went overwhelmingly for Bernie-- he won all 8 counties-- rather than Hillary in 2016, a real indictment of DCCC interference in local elections. The eight counties are listed here by the size of their voter turnout, but big and small they were all Bernie territory. Democrats chose to back the populist progressive, not the corporatist status quo candidate. That didn't stop-- never stops-- the DCCC from saddling them with an even worse candidate than Hillary, a full-fledged conservative, Republican-lite Blue Dog:

• Monroe- Bernie- 48.1% (to Hillary's 47.2%)
• Jackson- Bernie- 55.0%
• Washtenaw- Bernie- 55.4%
• Eaton- Bernie- 55.6%
• Lenawee- Bernie- 53.9%
• Hillsdale- Bernie- 56.7%
• Branch- Bernie- 53.6%

In the general, Trump won Monroe (58.4%), Jackson (57.2%), Eaton (49.6%), Leenawee (57.6%), Hillsdale (70.9%) and Branch (66.9%). Clinton won only Washtenaw County, where, remember, Bernie has edged her in the primary. It's why people so often say Bernie would have won-- and will in 2020, unless the Democrats manage to run another Clinton-type candidate.

What About Bernie Sanders/Stacey Abrams?

In a column over the weekend, Max Boot noted that Trump has as yet been unable to adjust "to the brutal reality of dealing with a Democratic-controlled House. When Republicans were in control of both chambers, he could plausibly threaten lawmakers because of his cult-like hold on 80-plus percent of Republican voters. But his base is only 35 percent or so of the entire electorate, and Democrats are not intimidated by him. His aura of invincibility has been cracked-- and, with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III scheduled to report, the worst is yet to come. Two painful, punishing years loom."

"Democrats are not intimidated by him." Well... Nancy Pelosi obviously isn't. Nor is Ted Lieu. Ro Khanna isn't. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib have made it apparent that they're not afraid of him. As far as I can tell, most congressional Democrats aren't. But what about the freshman members from the red-leaning districts? Some of the New Dems and Blue Dogs, in fact, have been nearly as obsessed with Trump's supporters as Boot's cowardly Republicans are. As we've seen, some of the worst of them-- take Michigan New Dem Elissa Slotkin (the hot dog heiress)-- who was already warning that Democrats had to compromise with Trump on his vanity-wall when Pelosi shut Trump down. Others were whining that $15/hour is too high for a minimum wage, using failed Republican arguments nearly a century old.

If preserving Elissa Slotkin's seat becomes a greater priority than passing a minimum wage that real Democrats, who are not hot dog heiresses. had campaigned on, someone needs to tell Ms. Slotkin she's in the wrong party.

Over the weekend, likely Bernie running mate, Stacey Abrams (D-GA) told Britni Danielle of Essence that during her race for governor she "focused on expanding the electorate, not simply on trying to convince disaffected Republicans to join her team. Because of this, she not only turned out more Black and white voters than former President Barack Obama, but she also massively increased Latinx and Asian turnout as well. How? Throughout her campaign, Abrams focused on the issues people cared about most, including education, healthcare, and poverty, which she called 'immoral' and 'economically inefficient.'" That's the way to win in 2020, not by emulating the hot dog heiress.

"Democrats," Abrams told Danielle, "win by telling our story, by engaging communities early and authentically, and by fighting for every vote that shares our values. But too often on the Democratic side of the aisle, the ones who share our values are the ones who least likely to be asked to share their voices... what my campaign demonstrated… is that if you go into communities and treat them with respect, regardless of race, they will vote if we tell them we trust them. So I want us to have 2020 candidates who are actually doing the work of expanding the electorate, not trying to convince people who’ve already told us they don’t like us to change their mind just this once."

Disclaimer: although I once tried-- and got through almost half an episode-- I never watched The West Wing. I had this idea that it was all about what was wrong with the Democratic Party and why we were stuck with Bush, rather than a viable-- even if fictional-- alternative to Bush. So I ignored what "everyone" called the greatest TV show of all times and missed out on so many conversations it was the center of. Last week I found someone who agrees with me: Luke Savage at Jacobin and his excellent little essay Aaron Sorkin’s Road to Nowhere. "Aaron Sorkin wants to give Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advice," wrote Savage. "Yet The West Wing creator’s worldview remains a vision of liberalism at its hollowest and most ineffective." Savage was offended that Sorkin was on CNN lecturing "the new crop of young people who were just elected to Congress" about growing up and the "need to stop acting like young people."

It says a great deal about the state of American liberalism that a screenwriter best known for crafting middlebrow dramas famous for their circuitous dialogue remains a house intellectual-- none of it good.

Perhaps better than any other cultural artifact, Sorkin’s The West Wing chronicled the moral and intellectual decline of a post–New Deal Democratic Party, reveling in its shift to a vacuous center characterized by deficit hawkishness, technocratic proceduralism, and smirking, credential-obsessive Ivy League pretension. Serving as a morale booster for Bush-era liberals, the saga of the fictional Bartlett administration ultimately reflected and informed the politics of the Obama presidency and the world views of some of its most influential partisans and operatives.

Its absurdity notwithstanding, the West Wing creator’s patronizing intervention is yet a further illustration of how deeply embedded the discredited politics of the 1990s remain in the liberal imagination, even-- especially-- amid the ongoing nightmare of the Trump presidency. In no more than thirty seconds, Sorkin’s flourish managed to evoke virtually everything wrong with DNC liberalism in the twenty-first century: from its reflexive condescension toward the young and the vulnerable (note the pejorative reference to “transgender bathrooms”) to the various ways it fetishizes personality over program, delights in punching left, and elevates intelligence over ideology.

Indeed, just like the real-world liberalism it has channeled and shaped, Sorkin’s politics have always been concerned more with aesthetics than any specific or programmatic impulse towards reform. The West Wing universe, after all, is one in which an idyllic, two-term liberal presidency warmly embraces the military-industrial complex, cuts Social Security, and puts a hard-right justice on the Supreme Court in the interests of bipartisan “balance”-- all the while making no observably transformative changes to American life. What matters most is how politics look and feel and whether the briskly striding people who staff the corridors of power possess diplomas from the right schools. Idealism, such as it is, has more to do with an abstract faith in American institutions and their inherent greatness (as in, “America is already great”) than any particular desire to make the world a better place or see a coherent set of values reflected within them. In Sorkin’s parochial fantasy, politics at its noblest and most high-minded consists mainly of wonkish sophistry and elegantly crafted speeches designed to offer vague comfort while saying nothing.

If this sounds at all familiar (putting aside the actual plot lines of the show’s seven-season run) it’s because the liberalism that defined the Clinton and Obama eras very much cleaved to a similar script, rooting itself in charismatic yet technocratically minded figures behind whom the elite brokers and corporate actors that dominate American society largely carried on business as usual-- even as millions lost their jobs and homes, saw their wages stagnate, and were crushed by the collective avarice of banks, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical giants.

Challenged by the Sanders insurgency in 2016 and rattled by Trump’s victory, the liberal intelligentsia might have taken stock and reflected-- if only out of pure self-interest-- on their own failures and the deficiencies of their worldview. With a few exceptions, this has not been the case. If anything, Sorkin’s condescension towards progressive lawmakers like Ocasio-Cortez suggests that the only thing many elite liberals still know how to do is double down, demand deference, and preach the feel-good platitudes of presidencies past.

No one is going to mistake the Sanders-Abrams White House for Josiah Bartlet's and John Hoynes'-- of that we can be certain. As Matt Taylor predicted at Vice this month, The 2020 Presidential Race Will Put Capitalism's Evils on Full Display. Even with the Warren G. Harding of the Democratic Party-- Biden, the "Back to Normalcy" candidate of an establishment that paved the way for Trump-- still popular, "it's clear," he wrote, "even a year out from the Iowa caucuses that the 2020 contest will be a once-in-a-generation battle over what democracy should look like, over how much the system can be tweaked or just destroyed, and whether Democrats can continue to function as a liberal and progressive party-- or need to become more of a distinctly anti-capitalist one."

Public Sentiment Against Trump's Government Shutdown Grows-- But So Does Anxiety From Freshmen In The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party

First Dem (New Dem) who wants to give in to Trump's blackmail & hostage-taking

Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal published a piece by Natalie Andrews and Kristina Peterson, Wall Impasse Frustrates Many Newly Elected House Democrats, about how the conservaDem freshmen recruited and backed by the DCCC are more concerned that "the tone of negotiations hasn’t conveyed their willingness to compromise on tighter border security." Andrews and Peterson wrote that "many new Democratic lawmakers who beat Republicans in the 2018 midterm want their leadership to be more aggressive in at least trying to strike a compromise. Most of the Dems who flipped districts are status quo hacks, far closer in many ways to a Republicans than to activist freshmen like AOC or Rashida Tlaib. One worthless New Dem former CIA operative Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI) told them that "there's a number of us on the Democratic side who are quite concerned that we’re not working on negotiated positions and taking the bull by the horns and trying to think about what it would look like." Garbage candidates like Slotkin, make garbage members of Congress and dog the party further into the toilet with her and other new New Dems and Blue Dogs.

While weak links like Slotkin, Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ) and Max Rose (Blue-Dog-NY) wring their hands and whine, public opinion is clearly with the Democrats on this-- everywhere. Maybe Sherrill and Brindisi should check in with their local newspaper editorial boards. This weekend the Albany Times-Union wrote that Real people are feeling the real pain of this needless brinkmanship.

Americans hoping that their leaders would find a way out of what is now the longest government shutdown in the nation's history should chew a bit on the word salad President Donald Trump tossed out on Thursday:

"When during the campaign, I would say 'Mexico is going to pay for it,' obviously, I never said this, and I never meant they're gonna write out a check, I said they're going to pay for it. They are."

Of course Mr. Trump did say Mexico would pay for the wall, and that it would do so in the form of "a one time payment," as he put it in writing in a 2016 memo. And, yes, he has also thrown a bunch of other more abstract payment possibilities at the wall, so to speak, perhaps in the hope that one might stick and give him a face-saving way out of an absurd promise that was the centerpiece of his campaign.

The larger point is this: A president who can't own up to the fact that he said what everyone heard him say, who changes his mind from day to day and who storms out of "negotiations" in which he doesn't negotiate is not trying to govern in good faith. He concocted a national crisis and is treating it like a plot on reality TV: The audience is watching, and that's what really matters.

This isn't TV though. It's a real-life drama that's hurting more than 800,000 federal workers who as of last week are no longer receiving the paychecks they need to cover their mortgages or rent, their grocery and day care bills, and all the other costs many Americans juggle paycheck to paycheck just to get by. It's affected countless other people who work under contract with the federal government, and all the people and businesses that all those workers and contractors do business with. The administration's answer? Have a garage sale or take up dog walking, actual suggestions offered to Coast Guard employees.

The New Jersey Star Ledger warned that "the border wall, which the president has used as his justification to shut down the federal government, was never meant to be anything other than a memory trick for an undisciplined mind. One advisor, Sam Nunberg, told the New York Times Saturday that he and Roger Stone meant the wall to be used only as a tool to remind Trump to talk tough about immigration. But what started out as a symbol has become a dangerous fixation, one responsible for mothballing massive sectors of our government and keeping 800,000 federal employees at home without paychecks – despite Congress steadfastly refusing to fund his wall, despite consistent public opposition, and despite overwhelming evidence that the impact on drug trafficking would be negligible. Yet here we are, hostages to a presidential brain spasm-- or temper tantrum, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested-- and fated to be horrified bystanders to a humanitarian crisis of Trump’s own creation. Ask yourself: Has a president ever used falsehoods, invented a crisis, and imposed a shutdown to bypass the legislative process and hold a government hostage?" Ask yourself that Mikie, before you start voting with the GOP. And the Jersey Journal wrote that it's Shameful for Trump to hold federal employees hostage. Trump, they wrote, is "so far away from the idea of cashing a paycheck before paying the rent, buying groceries or getting growing kids new shoes that he’s clueless or he simply doesn’t care about his 800,000 federal employees. Of course, it’s an accusation that’s been hurled at him scores of times in the past. Remember the lawsuits from contractors in Atlantic City saying casino developer Trump stiffed them? And Labor Department citations saying he didn’t pay overtime or minimum wage? The continuing shutdown of the federal government is a clear indicator of the kind of man Trump is. His shameful refusal to sign or even consider legislation to get furloughed workers back on their jobs and “essential” employees paid on schedule is just another sign that he is unfit to lead the country. Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, are beyond enabling; they are complicit in Trump’s disregard for decency." You sure you want to be part of that, Congressman Sherrill?

And that's not just the feeling from editorial boards in the Northeast. Over the weekend, the editors of the Montana Standard wrote that "There is not a crisis on the border. Violent crime is not up, there or elsewhere in the country. It is at a 14-year low. Immigrants here illegally do not commit a disproportionate amount of crimes. In fact, they commit less, on a per capita basis, than native-born Americans do. And a wall is not viewed by experts as the best tool to use in enforcing border security. Why, then, is this worth shutting down the government? Many federal workers here in Montana are working without pay. Others have simply been furloughed. Either way, their families are suffering needless hardship."

The editors of the Chicago Sun-Times concurred: "Take it from Illinois, this federal government shutdown is nothing but bad. And the man at the top will get most of the blame, as he should. For those of us who just lived through four years of such stupidity in Illinois, there’s a sense of deja vu in a partial government shutdown forced by a self-adoring man of business habituated to getting his way."

Same kind of message from the Santa Fe New Mexican: "Democrats are right to rebut the ugly message that Trump spews when he discusses the southern border, as he did Tuesday night in a prime-time address from the Oval Office (complete with fundraising appeals before and after).” Consistent on so little, the president began his presidential campaign by calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers. Then, demeaning the Oval Office, he recited a litany of crimes committed by people here illegally, making it clear that he believes immigrants from the south desire to hurt the good citizens of the nation. That, despite clear statistics that show undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. There were other falsehoods in the nine-minute address. Trump said the wall is needed to keep out illegal drugs; most drugs come through official ports of entry, not along the border between entry points. As we have pointed out before, too, illegal immigration is hardly a crisis, despite Trump’s claims. Border crossings are at their lowest point in decades. The humanitarian crisis Trump said he is addressing has been caused by his administration’s wrongheaded policies. That’s what Democrats must keep pointing out."

And the latest polling from Quinnipiac-- released yesterday-- is more bad news for Trump and his enablers. They found that voters support 63-30% a Democratic proposal to reopen parts of the government that do not involve border security while negotiating funding for Trump's vanity wall and voters oppose 63-32% shutting down the government to force funding for ridiculous project. The GOP is losing the battle-- 56% of voters say Trump and Republicans in Congress are responsible for the shutdown, while 36% say Democrats are responsible. After Trump's brain-dead Oval Office address, voters believed Pelosi/Schumer more than Trump, 46-36%, including 48-33% among independent voters. But at the heart of TRump's and the GOP's problem is that American voters say by a mammoth 73-16%-- including 57-28% among Republicans-- that immigration is good for the country.





UPDATE: How About Opening The Government This Way Too?

This evening, Miss McConnell had a rebellion in the ranks as 11 Republicans crossed the aisle and voted with all the Democrats to start debate on Schumer's resolution to disapprove of the Treasury Department lifting sanctions against Russia. The Motion to Proceed passed 57-42.  This is a big warning shot over Trump's bow. The Republicans voting against McConnell (and Trump/Putin):

• John Boozman (AR)
• Susan Collins (ME)
• Tom Cotton (AR)
• Steve Daines (MT)
• Cory Gardner (CO)
• Josh Hawley (MO)
• John Kennedy (LA)
• Martha McSally (AZ)
• Jerry Moran (KS)
• Marco Rubio (FL)
• Ben Sasse (NE)